iv | P a g e

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................IV

TABLE OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................VI

TABLE OF MAPS .................................................................................................................................................. XIII

TABLE OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ XIV

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ XXIII

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................ 29

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................. 115

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN .............................................................................................. 131

AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 145

CLIMATE CHANGE .............................................................................................................................................. 165

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 213

FIRE AND FUELS ................................................................................................................................................. 223

FISHERIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 277

FOREST MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 307

HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 369

INVASIVE SPECIES .............................................................................................................................................. 419

LANDS AND REALTY ........................................................................................................................................... 457

LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................... 463

LIVESTOCK GRAZING .......................................................................................................................................... 475

MINERALS .......................................................................................................................................................... 487

NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM................................................................................................................................. 505

RARE PLANTS AND FUNGI .................................................................................................................................. 517

RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES ................................................................................................................. 555

SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................................................................................................. 585

SOIL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................................ 745

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 769

TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 775

TRIBAL INTERESTS .............................................................................................................................................. 799

VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 813

WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................................................ 825

BALD EAGLE..............................................................................................................................................................825

BUREAU SENSITIVE, BUREAU STRATEGIC, SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES, AND LANDBIRD FOCAL SPECIES...................................830
v | P a g e

COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER..................................................................................................................................853

DEER AND ELK ...........................................................................................................................................................862

FISHER .....................................................................................................................................................................870

GOLDEN EAGLE..........................................................................................................................................................881

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE ..............................................................................................................................................887

GRAY WOLF..............................................................................................................................................................890

MARBLED MURRELET .................................................................................................................................................895

NORTH OREGON COAST DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT OF THE RED TREE VOLE ................................................................. 919

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ...........................................................................................................................................928

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT..................................................................................................................990

OREGON SILVERSPOT BUTTERFLY ..................................................................................................................................999

OREGON SPOTTED FROG ...........................................................................................................................................1002

PACIFIC COAST DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT OF THE WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER.............................................................1006

WILD HORSES .................................................................................................................................................. 1019

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ................................................................................................................................ 1023

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ........................................................................................ 1041

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... 1059

GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 1063

INDEX .............................................................................................................................................................. 1085
vi | P a g e

Table of Figures

FIGURE 2-1. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ................................................................................................31

FIGURE 2-2. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ALLOCATIONS WITH MODIFIED HIERARCHY ...........................................................35

FIGURE 2-3. EXAMPLE OF HOW DECISION AREA ACRES ARE ASSIGNED BY LAND USE ALLOCATION/ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNATION TYPE ....38

FIGURE 2-4. ALTERNATIVE A LAND USE ALLOCATIONS..............................................................................................................46

FIGURE 2-5. ALTERNATIVE B LAND USE ALLOCATIONS..............................................................................................................53

FIGURE 2-6. SUB-ALTERNATIVE B LAND USE ALLOCATIONS .......................................................................................................60

FIGURE 2-7. ALTERNATIVE C LAND USE ALLOCATIONS..............................................................................................................65

FIGURE 2-8. SUB-ALTERNATIVE C LAND USE ALLOCATIONS .......................................................................................................71

FIGURE 2-9. ALTERNATIVE D LAND USE ALLOCATIONS .............................................................................................................75

FIGURE 2-10. PROPOSED RMP LAND USE ALLOCATIONS..........................................................................................................81

FIGURE 2-11. PROPOSED RMP SUBWATERSHED CLASSES ........................................................................................................92

FIGURE 3-1. MAJOR OWNERSHIPS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA ..............................................................................................116

FIGURE 3-2. PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA AS DESCRIBED IN THE FEMAT REPORT (1993).......................117

FIGURE 3-3. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM PRESCRIBED BURNING IN WESTERN OREGON FOR (A) PARTICULATE MATTER 10 MICRONS IN SIZE 

AND SMALLER, AND (B) PARTICULATE MATTER 2.5 MICRONS IN SIZE AND SMALLER..............................................................152

FIGURE 3-4. NUMBER OF SMOKE INTRUSIONS ATTRIBUTED TO BLM PRESCRIBED FIRES INTO SSRAS COMPARED TO ANNUAL ACRES BURNED 

FROM 2002 THROUGH 2014 IN WESTERN OREGON.....................................................................................................153

FIGURE 3-5. EXAMPLE OF IDENTIFICATION OF THE 20 PERCENT WORSE DAYS IN A GIVEN YEAR AND THE PROPORTIONAL CONTRIBUTION OF 

VARIOUS FACTORS TO REDUCED VISIBILITY ...................................................................................................................155

FIGURE 3-6. DAILY AIR QUALITY INDEX FOR MEDFORD IN 2008 ..............................................................................................156

FIGURE 3-7. AIR QUALITY INDEX FOR 2013 FOR MEDFORD....................................................................................................157

FIGURE 3-8. AIR QUALITY INDEX FOR 2013 FOR GRANTS PASS ...............................................................................................157

FIGURE 3-9. DEGRADATION OF VISIBILITY FROM BURNING VEGETATION IN 2013 AS MEASURED THROUGH LIGHT SCATTERING (INVERSE 

MEGAMETERS) AT CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK.........................................................................................................158

FIGURE 3-10. EXPECTED INCREASES IN PM10 EMISSIONS FROM PRESCRIBED FIRE OVER TIME AND RELATIVE TO THE ESTIMATE FOR CURRENT 

PRESCRIBED FIRES...................................................................................................................................................159

FIGURE 3-11. EXPECTED INCREASES IN PM2.5 EMISSIONS FROM PRESCRIBED FIRE OVER TIME AND RELATIVE TO THE ESTIMATE FOR CURRENT 

PRESCRIBED FIRES...................................................................................................................................................159

FIGURE 3-12. AVERAGE ANNUAL PM2.5 EMISSIONS FROM PRESCRIBED BURNING OVER THE 50-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD......................161

FIGURE 3-13. ESTIMATED CARBON STORAGE OVER TIME BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED RMP .............................................170

FIGURE 3-14. CHANGE IN CARBON STORAGE RELATIVE TO THE ESTIMATED TOTAL STORAGE AS OF 2013 .........................................171

FIGURE 3-15. PERCENT REDUCTION IN ABOVEGROUND CARBON STORAGE FROM TIMBER HARVEST RELATIVE TO PROJECTED CARBON 

STORAGE IN THE NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS WITH WILDFIRE .....................................................................172

FIGURE 3-16. PROPORTION OF ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK GRAZING (ENTERIC FERMENTATION), TIMBER 

HARVEST OPERATIONS, PRESCRIBED FIRES, AND WILDFIRES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA ...........176

FIGURE 3-17. PROPORTION OF ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM (A) TIMBER HARVEST AND (B) PRESCRIBED BURNING BY 

DIFFERENT ENTITIES ................................................................................................................................................177

FIGURE 3-18. ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM THE COMBINATION OF TIMBER HARVEST, GRAZING, AND 

PRESCRIBED FIRE ....................................................................................................................................................179

FIGURE 3-19. PROJECTED INCREASES IN AVERAGE ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM TIMBER HARVEST, GRAZING, AND 

PRESCRIBED BURNING RELATIVE TO AVERAGE ANNUAL EMISSIONS AS OF 2013 ...................................................................179

FIGURE 3-20. OBSERVED CHANGES IN ANNUAL AND SEASONAL PRECIPITATION BY BASIN..............................................................182

FIGURE 3-21. OBSERVED CHANGES IN (A) ANNUAL, (B) MAXIMUM, AND (C) MINIMUM TEMPERATURE IN EACH BASIN.......................184

FIGURE 3-22. AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER AND CAUSE OF IGNITIONS (1984–2013) WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA............................227

FIGURE 3-23. FOREST TYPE (MOIST AND DRY) DISTRIBUTION ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS .......................................................232

FIGURE 3-24. DEPARTURE FROM REFERENCE CONDITIONS IN THE DOUGLAS-FIR/DRY VEGETATION TYPE BY SERAL STAGE ....................235

FIGURE 3-25. DEPARTURE FROM REFERENCE CONDITIONS IN THE DOUGLAS-FIR/MOIST VEGETATION TYPE BY SERAL STAGE FOR THE 

KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE ..................................................................................................................................237
vii | P a g e

FIGURE 3-26. DEPARTURE FROM REFERENCE CONDITIONS IN THE DOUGLAS-FIR/MOIST VEGETATION TYPE BY SERAL STAGE FOR THE 

MEDFORD DISTRICT ...............................................................................................................................................239

FIGURE 3-27. DEPARTURE FROM REFERENCE CONDITIONS IN THE DOUGLAS-FIR/MOIST VEGETATION TYPE BY SERAL STAGE FOR THE 

ROSEBURG DISTRICT...............................................................................................................................................241

FIGURE 3-28. STAND-LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE CATEGORIES IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE INTERIOR/SOUTH FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION AND 

IN 50 YEARS..........................................................................................................................................................244

FIGURE 3-29. STAND-LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE CATEGORIES IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE MEDFORD DISTRICT FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION 

AND IN 50 YEARS ...................................................................................................................................................246

FIGURE 3-30. STAND-LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE CATEGORIES IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE ROSEBURG DISTRICT FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION 

AND IN 50 YEARS ................................................................................................................................................... 246

FIGURE 3-31. STAND-LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE CATEGORIES IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE FOR THE CURRENT 

CONDITION AND IN 50 YEARS ...................................................................................................................................246

FIGURE 3-32. STAND-LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE CATEGORIES IN THE LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE 

INTERIOR/SOUTH FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION AND IN 50 YEARS...................................................................................248

FIGURE 3-33. STAND-LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE CATEGORIES IN THE HARVEST LAND BASE IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE INTERIOR/SOUTH FOR 

THE CURRENT CONDITION AND IN 50 YEARS.................................................................................................................250

FIGURE 3-34. AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF HUMAN-CAUSED IGNITIONS IN PROXIMITY TO WILDLAND DEVELOPMENT AREAS, 1984–

2013 ..................................................................................................................................................................254

FIGURE 3-35. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR ALL BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE COASTAL/NORTH WITHIN THE WUI BY CURRENT 

CONDITION AND IN 2063 ........................................................................................................................................259

FIGURE 3-36. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR ALL BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE INTERIOR/SOUTH WITHIN THE WUI, BY CURRENT 

CONDITION AND IN 2063 ........................................................................................................................................259

FIGURE 3-37. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR THE HARVEST LAND BASE IN THE COASTAL/NORTH WITHIN THE WUI BY CURRENT 

CONDITION AND IN 2063 ........................................................................................................................................261

FIGURE 3-38. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR THE HARVEST LAND BASE IN THE INTERIOR/SOUTH WITHIN THE WUI BY CURRENT 

CONDITION AND IN 2063 ........................................................................................................................................263

FIGURE 3-39. WILDLAND FIRE POTENTIAL FOR BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE PLANNING AREA ..............................................265

FIGURE 3-40. ACTIVITY FUEL RISK CATEGORIES FOR BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE COASTAL/NORTH, DECADAL AVERAGE 2013–2063

..........................................................................................................................................................................268

FIGURE 3-41. ACTIVITY FUEL RISK CATEGORIES FOR BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE INTERIOR/SOUTH, DECADAL AVERAGE 2013–2063

..........................................................................................................................................................................268

FIGURE 3-42. STAND CONDITIONS WITHIN ONE SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION, THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

IN 2113, AND THE NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS IN 2113...........................................................................286

FIGURE 3-43. RELATIVE PROPORTION OF STRUCTURAL STAGE ACRES UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITION, THE ALTERNATIVES, THE PROPOSED 

RMP, AND THE NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS IN 2113 FOR STANDS WITHIN ONE SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT FROM 

ALL STREAMS.........................................................................................................................................................288

FIGURE 3-44. TREES PER ACRE GREATER THAN 20” DBH WITHIN ONE SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT OVER TIME FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES, THE 

PROPOSED RMP, AND THE NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS............................................................................290

FIGURE 3-45. TREES PER ACRE GREATER THAN 20” DBH FOR STANDS WITHIN ONE SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT OF STREAMS FOR THE 

CURRENT CONDITION IN 2013, AND THE ALTERNATIVES, THE PROPOSED RMP, AND THE NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS 

IN 2113...............................................................................................................................................................290

FIGURE 3-46. PERCENT HARDWOOD CANOPY COVER FOR STANDS WITHIN ONE SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT OF STREAMS FOR THE 

CURRENT CONDITIONS IN 2013 AND IN 2113 .............................................................................................................291

FIGURE 3-47. QUADRATIC MEAN DIAMETER (QMD) OF CONIFERS FOR STANDS WITHIN ONE SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT OF STREAMS FOR 

THE CURRENT CONDITION IN 2013, AND IN 2113 ........................................................................................................292

FIGURE 3-48. TOTAL TREES PER ACRE FOR STANDS WITHIN ONE SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT OF STREAMS FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION IN 

2013, AND IN 2113 ..............................................................................................................................................293

FIGURE 3-49. THINNING WITHIN THE RIPARIAN RESERVE BY DECADE........................................................................................296

FIGURE 3-50. BLM HISTORICAL TIMBER SALES; 1942–1961 DATA REPRESENTS VOLUME SOLD WHILE 1962–2012 DATA REPRESENTS 

VOLUME HARVESTED...............................................................................................................................................309

FIGURE 3-51. WESTERN OREGON TIMBER HARVESTS BY LANDOWNER, 1962–2011 (TUCHMAN AND DAVIS 2013) ........................309

FIGURE 3-52. 2013 AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION FOR FORESTED ACRES WITHIN THE DECISION AREA (10-YEAR INCREMENTS) ..................310
viii | P a g e

FIGURE 3-53. 2013 AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION BY AGE CLASS GROUPING AND BY THE HARVEST LAND BASE AND THE RESERVES (10-YEAR 

INCREMENTS) ........................................................................................................................................................313

FIGURE 3-54. 2113 AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION BY AGE CLASS GROUPING, AND BROKEN OUT BY THE HARVEST LAND BASE AND THE RESERVES 

(10-YEAR INCREMENTS) ..........................................................................................................................................316

FIGURE 3-55. CURRENT STRUCTURAL STAGE DISTRIBUTION FOR THE DECISION AREA....................................................................319

FIGURE 3-56. STRUCTURAL STAGE PROGRESSION OVER 200 YEARS IN THE HARVEST LAND BASE AND RESERVES ...............................324

FIGURE 3-57. PROPORTION OF THE HARVEST LAND BASE AS MATURE MULTI-LAYERED CANOPY OR STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX THROUGH 

TIME....................................................................................................................................................................326

FIGURE 3-58. PROPORTION OF THE HARVEST LAND BASE SUB-ALLOCATIONS WITH STRUCTURAL LEGACIES OR MULTIPLE LAYERS THROUGH 

TIME....................................................................................................................................................................327

FIGURE 3-59. STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY AND ABUNDANCE OF THE EARLY SUCCESSIONAL STRUCTURAL STAGE IN 2063......................328

FIGURE 3-60. ACREAGE OF FUNCTIONAL CREATED CANOPY OPENINGS > 0.25 ACRES IN 2043 BY ALTERNATIVE AND LAND USE ALLOCATION

..........................................................................................................................................................................330

FIGURE 3-61. PROPORTIONS OF OWL HABITAT MANAGEMENT LAND USE ALLOCATIONS IN MATURE MULTI-LAYERED CANOPY OR 

STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX STRUCTURAL STAGES IN 2013 AND 2223 ................................................................................331

FIGURE 3-62. PROPORTIONS OF LAND USE ALLOCATIONS IN MATURE MULTI-LAYERED CANOPY OR STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX STRUCTURAL 

STAGES THROUGH TIME ...........................................................................................................................................332

FIGURE 3-63. 2013 AND 2113 NET INVENTORY BROKEN OUT BETWEEN THE HARVEST LAND BASE AND RESERVES IN THE DECISION AREA

..........................................................................................................................................................................335

FIGURE 3-64. ASSUMED VS. IMPLEMENTED ANNUAL AVERAGE SOLD TIMBER VOLUME LEVELS AND MIX OF HARVEST TYPES, 1995 THROUGH 

2012, IN THE HARVEST LAND BASE (HLB) AND RESERVES IN THE DECISION AREA...............................................................340

FIGURE 3-65. TIMBER PRODUCTION RATES BY MANAGEMENT INTENSITY (BOARD FEET PER ACRE PER YEAR), BROKEN OUT BETWEEN 

COASTAL/NORTH AND INTERIOR/SOUTH AREAS ............................................................................................................343

FIGURE 3-66. TOTAL ASQ VS. NON-ASQ TIMBER VOLUME SOLD IN THE DECISION AREA BETWEEN 1995 AND 2012 ........................351

FIGURE 3-67. TOTAL ANNUAL TIMBER HARVEST IN THE DECISION AREA FOR THE FIRST DECADE COMPARED TO THE 1995–2012 SOLD 

TIMBER SALE AVERAGE, BROKEN OUT BETWEEN ASQ AND NON-ASQ SOURCES ..................................................................352

FIGURE 3-68. HARVEST ACRES PER DECADE BY HARVEST TYPE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF THE FIRST TWO DECADES............................359

FIGURE 3-69. HARVESTED TIMBER VOLUME PER DECADE BY HARVEST TYPE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF THE FIRST TWO DECADES ..........360

FIGURE 3-70. TOTAL TIMBER HARVEST ACREAGE PER YEAR BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF THE FIRST TWO DECADES, BROKEN OUT BETWEEN 

COASTAL/NORTH AND INTERIOR/SOUTH AREAS ............................................................................................................361

FIGURE 3-71. TOTAL TIMBER HARVEST VOLUME PER YEAR BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF THE FIRST TWO DECADES, BROKEN OUT BETWEEN 

COASTAL/NORTH AND INTERIOR/SOUTH AREAS ............................................................................................................361

FIGURE 3-72. PERCENTAGE OF FORESTED ACRES AVAILABLE FOR THE COLLECTION OF CATEGORY I SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS;

COASTAL/NORTH AREA............................................................................................................................................365

FIGURE 3-73. PERCENTAGE OF FORESTED ACRES AVAILABLE FOR THE COLLECTION OF CATEGORY I SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS;

INTERIOR/SOUTH AREA............................................................................................................................................365

FIGURE 3-74. PERCENTAGE OF FORESTED ACRES AVAILABLE FOR THE COLLECTION OF CATEGORY II SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS;

COASTAL/NORTH AREA............................................................................................................................................367

FIGURE 3-75. PERCENTAGE OF FORESTED ACRES AVAILABLE FOR THE COLLECTION OF CATEGORY II SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS;

INTERIOR/SOUTH AREA............................................................................................................................................367

FIGURE 3-76. CANOPY COVER AND ANGULAR CANOPY DENSITY IN FOREST STANDS......................................................................372

FIGURE 3-77. STRUCTURAL STAGE PROPORTIONS OF THE RIPARIAN RESERVE WITHIN 100 FEET OF PERENNIAL AND FISH-BEARING STREAMS 

IN THE DECISION AREA.............................................................................................................................................376

FIGURE 3-78. STRUCTURAL STAGE PROPORTIONS OF THE CURRENT RIPARIAN RESERVE (I.E., NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) ALONG PERENNIAL 

AND FISH-BEARING STREAMS IN THE DECISION AREA......................................................................................................377

FIGURE 3-79. SEVEN-DAY AVERAGE MAXIMUM STREAM TEMPERATURES (°F) VINCENT CREEK GAGING STATION, COOS BAY DISTRICT, FOR 

YEARS 1990–2013 ...............................................................................................................................................378

FIGURE 3-80. SEVEN-DAY AVERAGE MAXIMUM STREAM TEMPERATURES (°F) AT DEADMAN CREEK, EAST FORK STOUTS CREEK AND SOUTH 

FORK MIDDLE CREEK, ROSEBURG DISTRICT, FOR YEARS 1992–2012 ..............................................................................378

FIGURE 3-81. TOTAL ACRES OF THE CURRENT RIPARIAN RESERVE COMPARED TO ACRES OF THE RIPARIAN RESERVE ALONG PERENNIAL AND 

FISH-BEARING STREAMS...........................................................................................................................................379

FIGURE 3-82. PERENNIAL AND FISH-BEARING STREAM MILES EXCEEDING 3 PERCENT SHADE LOSS...................................................382
ix | P a g e

FIGURE 3-83. PERENNIAL AND FISH-BEARING STREAM MILES IN THE DECISION AREA COMPARED TO PERENNIAL AND FISH-BEARING STREAM 

MILES EXCEEDING 3 PERCENT SHADE LOSS ...................................................................................................................383

FIGURE 3-84. HYDROREGIONS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA...................................................................................................386

FIGURE 3-85. SITE CONDITIONS AND TREATMENTS FOR RISK OF PEAK FLOW INCREASE..................................................................389

FIGURE 3-86. PROPORTIONS OF HYDROREGIONS IN THE PLANNING AREA ..................................................................................389

FIGURE 3-87. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT BY RETURN PERIOD AND STREAM TYPE..............................................................................390

FIGURE 3-88. RAIN-ON-SNOW DOMINATED SUBWATERSHEDS AND SUBWATERSHEDS CURRENTLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO A PEAK FLOW INCREASE

..........................................................................................................................................................................391

FIGURE 3-89. SUBWATERSHED AREA (ACRES) ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS SUSCEPTIBLE TO PEAK FLOW INCREASES BY DECADE .......393

FIGURE 3-90. SUBWATERSHED AREA (ACRES) FOR ALL LANDS SUSCEPTIBLE TO PEAK FLOW INCREASES .............................................393

FIGURE 3-91. PROPORTION OF THE HARVEST LAND BASE WITH STEEP SLOPES > 75 PERCENT........................................................397

FIGURE 3-92. CUMULATIVE AREA OF NATURALLY OCCURRING MODELED LANDSLIDE DENSITY WITHIN THE HARVEST LAND BASE,

NUMBER/SQUARE MILE ...........................................................................................................................................398

FIGURE 3-93. RELATIVE LANDSLIDE DENSITY IN THE HARVEST LAND BASE COMPARED TO INTRINSIC POTENTIAL AT 2013....................399

FIGURE 3-94. REGENERATION HARVEST AREA WITH DEBRIS FLOW SUSCEPTIBILITY, ACRES PER DECADE ............................................400

FIGURE 3-95. POTENTIAL FINE SEDIMENT DELIVERY,* TO STREAMS FROM NEW ROADS BY 2023....................................................406

FIGURE 3-96. PROJECTED NEWLY CONSTRUCTED ROADS WITHIN A SEDIMENT DELIVERY DISTANCE COMPARED TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED 

ROADS OUTSIDE A SEDIMENT DELIVERY DISTANCE BY 2023*...........................................................................................407

FIGURE 3-97. REPORTED INFESTATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVE INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA...........................422

FIGURE 3-98. DISTRIBUTION CATEGORIES OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES FOR THE WATERSHEDS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA.................427

FIGURE 3-99. SUSCEPTIBILITY TO THE INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES INTO RIPARIAN HABITATS ASSOCIATED WITH 

TIMBER HARVEST ADJACENT TO THE RIPARIAN RESERVE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS ..............................................................430

FIGURE 3-100. REPORTED INFESTATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVE INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA .....................440

FIGURE 3-101. DISTRIBUTION CATEGORIES OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES BY SUBBASINS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA.......................446

FIGURE 3-102. SUDDEN OAK DEATH INFESTATION ZONES AS OF 2013 AND EXPECTED EXPANSION ZONES BY 2023 AND 2033............453

FIGURE 3-103. UTILITY CORRIDORS ...................................................................................................................................461

FIGURE 3-104. ACRES OF INVENTORIED LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS ALLOCATED TO THE DISTRICT-DESIGNATED RESERVE –

LANDS MANAGED FOR THEIR WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS .........................................................................................469

FIGURE 3-105. ALLOTMENTS AVAILABLE FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING ...........................................................................................480

FIGURE 3-106. ACRES AVAILABLE FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING ....................................................................................................480

FIGURE 3-107. ALLOCATED LIVESTOCK GRAZING AUMS........................................................................................................480

FIGURE 3-108. LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS BY LIVESTOCK GRAZING AVAILABILITY UNDER THE 

PROPOSED RMP ...................................................................................................................................................482

FIGURE 3-109. PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS IN OREGON...........................................................................................................488

FIGURE 3-110. NUMBER OF SALES OR PERMITS FOR MINERAL MATERIAL BY YEAR IN THE DECISION AREA .........................................491

FIGURE 3-111. SALES VOLUME OF MINERAL MATERIAL PRODUCED BY YEARS 2007–2013 IN THE DECISION AREA.............................491

FIGURE 3-112. DEVELOPED QUARRY SITES IN THE DECISION AREA FROM 2014 DISTRICT INVENTORIES............................................492

FIGURE 3-113. ACRES CLOSED TO SALABLE MINERAL MATERIAL DISPOSAL IN THE DECISION AREA ...................................................494

FIGURE 3-114. MINING CLAIMS IN THE DECISION AREA IN 2015.............................................................................................498

FIGURE 3-115. ACRES THAT THE BLM WOULD RECOMMEND FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM LOCATABLE MINERAL ENTRY AND PREVIOUSLY 

WITHDRAWN ACRES IN THE DECISION AREA..................................................................................................................500

FIGURE 3-116. ACRES THAT THE BLM WOULD RECOMMEND FOR WITHDRAWAL, WITH MINERAL RANKING OF ESTIMATED PROSPECTIVE 

MINERAL OCCURRENCE OR DEVELOPMENT FOR EACH LAND CATEGORY (INCLUDES PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN ACRES) ..................501

FIGURE 3-117. PACIFIC CREST NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL ROUTE ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA.............509

FIGURE 3-118. BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS VISIBLE WITHIN THE 5-MILE PACIFIC CREST TRAIL VIEWSHED OF TRAIL PORTIONS WITHIN THE 

PLANNING AREA.....................................................................................................................................................510

FIGURE 3-119. APPLEGATE TRAIL ROUTE ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE PLANNING AREA.................................................511

FIGURE 3-120. RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM CLASSES ..............................................................................................556

FIGURE 3-121. STAND VISUALIZATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL SETTING CLASSIFICATIONS................................................................. 558

FIGURE 3-122. PROJECTED LEVELS OF CHANGE BY RECREATION ACTIVITY WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA FROM 2012–2060 ................572

FIGURE 3-123. POPULATION CENTERS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA.........................................................................................573

FIGURE 3-124. THIRTY- AND SIXTY-MINUTE DRIVING TIMES FROM THE 12 WESTERN OREGON STUDY COMMUNITIES AND POPULATION 

CENTER SIZE ..........................................................................................................................................................575
x | P a g e

FIGURE 3-125. WESTERN OREGON POPULATION DENSITY .....................................................................................................576

FIGURE 3-126. WESTERN OREGON HISTORICAL TIMBER HARVEST, BLM AND TOTAL ...................................................................602

FIGURE 3-127. WESTERN OREGON HISTORICAL STUMPAGE PRICES, BLM AND STATE/PRIVATE.....................................................602

FIGURE 3-128. TOTAL HARVEST VALUE BY BLM DISTRICT, 2000–2014...................................................................................605

FIGURE 3-129. AVERAGE VALUE PER MBF HARVESTED BY BLM DISTRICT, 2000–2014 ..............................................................605

FIGURE 3-130. TIMBER GROSS REVENUE OVER TIME .............................................................................................................631

FIGURE 3-131. GROSS REVENUE, TOTAL COSTS, AND NET REVENUE, 2014–2023 ......................................................................631

FIGURE 3-132. NET PRESENT VALUE OVER 50 YEARS (2014–2063) BY DISTRICT .......................................................................634

FIGURE 3-133. COST PER VOLUME BY DISTRICT, 2014–2023 (2012 DOLLARS) ........................................................................636

FIGURE 3-134. STUMPAGE PRICE BY DISTRICT, 2014–2023 (2012 DOLLARS) ..........................................................................638

FIGURE 3-135. RMA ACREAGE BY DRIVING DISTANCE OF WESTERN POPULATION CENTERS, 30 AND 60 MINUTES .............................645

FIGURE 3-136. OUTDOOR RECREATION VISITS OVER PHASING TIMEFRAMES...............................................................................647

FIGURE 3-137. OUTDOOR RECREATION VISITS AT END OF PHASING TIMEFRAMES........................................................................648

FIGURE 3-138. CAPACITY AND RESILIENCY AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT SUMMARY .........................................................................718

FIGURE 3-139. DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM TIMBER HARVEST BY YARDING SYSTEM, 1990–2012 ................................. 749

FIGURE 3-140. DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM TIMBER HARVEST BY YARDING SYSTEM DURING THE FIRST DECADE.................750

FIGURE 3-141. DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM ROAD CONSTRUCTION DURING THE FIRST DECADE......................................754

FIGURE 3-142. DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM FUEL TREATMENTS DURING THE FIRST DECADE ..........................................761

FIGURE 3-143. VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CLASS DISTRIBUTION FOR THE PROPOSED RMP† WITHIN THE DECISION AREA...............817

FIGURE 3-144. BALD EAGLE HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA–CURRENT CONDITION AND IN 50 YEARS.............................................827

FIGURE 3-145. BALD EAGLE HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA–CURRENT CONDITION AND IN 50 YEARS ...........................................827

FIGURE 3-146. STRUCTURAL STAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA COMPARED WITH AVERAGE HISTORIC CONDITION...............838

FIGURE 3-147. STRUCTURAL STAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA COMPARED WITH AVERAGE HISTORIC CONDITION .............839

FIGURE 3-148. EARLY SUCCESSIONAL, STAND ESTABLISHMENT, AND YOUNG STANDS WITH STRUCTURAL LEGACIES IN THE DECISION AREA

..........................................................................................................................................................................844

FIGURE 3-149. MATURE AND STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX STANDS WITH STRUCTURAL LEGACIES WITHIN THE DECISION AREA ................844

FIGURE 3-150. MATURE AND STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA.........................................849

FIGURE 3-151. RANGE OF THE COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER.............................................................................................855

FIGURE 3-152. COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER HIGH-QUALITY EARLY SUCCESSIONAL FORAGE HABITAT FOR THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER 

POPULATION ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS..............................................................................................................857

FIGURE 3-153. COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER HIGH-QUALITY EARLY SUCCESSIONAL FORAGE HABITAT FOR THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER 

POPULATION ACROSS ALL LAND OWNERSHIPS...............................................................................................................857

FIGURE 3-154. COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER HIGH-QUALITY EARLY SUCCESSIONAL FORAGE HABITAT FOR THE DOUGLAS COUNTY 

POPULATION ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS..............................................................................................................859

FIGURE 3-155. COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER HIGH-QUALITY EARLY SUCCESSIONAL FORAGE HABITAT FOR THE DOUGLAS COUNTY 

POPULATION ACROSS ALL OWNERSHIPS.......................................................................................................................859

FIGURE 3-156. DEER AND ELK HIGH-QUALITY FORAGE HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA................................................................. 865

FIGURE 3-157. DEER AND ELK HIGH-QUALITY FORAGE HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA ...............................................................865

FIGURE 3-158. DEER AND ELK MANAGEMENT AREAS ............................................................................................................868

FIGURE 3-159. RANGE OF THE FISHER................................................................................................................................872

FIGURE 3-160. FISHER HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA..........................................................................................................875

FIGURE 3-161. FISHER HABITAT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS AND ACROSS ALL OWNERSHIPS FOR FORAGING, RESTING, AND DENNING

..........................................................................................................................................................................878

FIGURE 3-162. FISHER HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA ........................................................................................................880

FIGURE 3-163. GOLDEN EAGLE NESTING HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA ..................................................................................884

FIGURE 3-164. GOLDEN EAGLE NESTING HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA.................................................................................884

FIGURE 3-165. KNOWN AREAS OF WOLF ACTIVITY IN THE PLANNING AREA ................................................................................891

FIGURE 3-166. RANGE AND MANAGEMENT ZONES OF THE MARBLED MURRELET ........................................................................898

FIGURE 3-167. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA ..........................................................................902

FIGURE 3-168. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT TRENDS IN THE DECISION AREA ...............................................................903

FIGURE 3-169. MARBLED MURRELET HIGH-QUALITY NESTING HABITAT TRENDS IN THE DECISION AREA ...........................................904

FIGURE 3-170. MARBLED MURRELET HIGH-QUALITY NESTING HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA .....................................................906

FIGURE 3-171. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT IN CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA...............................................907
xi | P a g e

FIGURE 3-172. HIGH-QUALITY MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT IN DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA ........908

FIGURE 3-173. MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPANCY DETECTION RATES .......................................................................................909

FIGURE 3-174. KNOWN, OCCUPIED MARBLED MURRELET SITES IN THE DECISION AREA................................................................. 913

FIGURE 3-175. FORECAST OF THE NUMBER OF OCCUPIED MARBLED MURRELET SITES IN THE DECISION AREA ....................................917

FIGURE 3-176. RANGE OF THE NORTH OREGON COAST DPS OF THE RED TREE VOLE...................................................................920

FIGURE 3-177. RED TREE VOLE HABITAT WITHIN THE NORTH OREGON COAST DPS IN THE DECISION AREA......................................922

FIGURE 3-178. RED TREE VOLE HABITAT WITHIN THE NORTH OREGON COAST DPS IN THE PLANNING AREA.....................................922

FIGURE 3-179. THE CURRENT (2013) POSITIONS OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL HABITAT BLOCKS IN WESTERN OREGON .....................937

FIGURE 3-180. THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN WESTERN OREGON TO HABITAT BLOCKS IN 2043 AND 

2063 ACCORDING TO THE NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS .............................................................................938

FIGURE 3-181. NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL HABITAT BLOCK LOCATIONS IN 2043 AND 2063 UNDER ALTERNATIVE C ..........................939

FIGURE 3-182. NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL HABITAT BLOCK LOCATIONS IN 2043 AND 2063 UNDER THE PROPOSED RMP ..................940

FIGURE 3-183. THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL DISPERSAL-CAPABLE LANDSCAPE (STIPPLED AREAS) IN 2013, ACCORDING TO THE NO 

TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................943

FIGURE 3-184. THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL DISPERSAL-CAPABLE LANDSCAPE (STIPPLED AREAS) IN 2043 AND 2063, ACCORDING TO THE 

NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................944

FIGURE 3-185. DISPERSAL-CAPABLE LANDS (STIPPLED AREAS), AS THEY WOULD EXIST IN 2043 AND 2063, UNDER ALTERNATIVE C .....945

FIGURE 3-186. DISPERSAL-CAPABLE LANDS (STIPPLED AREAS), AS THEY WOULD EXIST IN 2043 AND 2063, UNDER THE PROPOSED RMP

..........................................................................................................................................................................946

FIGURE 3-187. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MODELING REGIONS.....................................................................................950

FIGURE 3-188. SIMULATED NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL POPULATIONS (MEAN NUMBERS OF FEMALES FROM 500 REPLICATE NONSTOCHASTIC SIMULATIONS) FOR EACH WESTERN OREGON MODELING REGION, BY DECADE, UNDER ALTERNATIVE C AND THE 

PROPOSED RMP, AND ACCORDING TO THE NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS.......................................................959

FIGURE 3-189. SIMULATED NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL POPULATIONS (MEAN NUMBERS OF FEMALES FROM 500 REPLICATE NONSTOCHASTIC SIMULATIONS) FOR EACH WESTERN OREGON PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE, BY DECADE, UNDER ALTERNATIVE C AND THE 

PROPOSED RMP, AND ACCORDING TO THE NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS.......................................................960

FIGURE 3-190. NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS: EXTINCTION RISK AS A FUNCTION OF TIME, USING A QUASI-EXTINCTION LEVEL 

OF 250 FEMALES IN EACH MODELING REGION..............................................................................................................963

FIGURE 3-191. NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS: EXTINCTION RISK AS A FUNCTION OF TIME, USING A QUASI-EXTINCTION LEVEL 

OF 100 FEMALES IN EACH MODELING REGION..............................................................................................................965

FIGURE 3-192. ALTERNATIVE C: EXTINCTION RISK AS A FUNCTION OF TIME, USING A QUASI-EXTINCTION LEVEL OF 250 FEMALES IN EACH 

MODELING REGION.................................................................................................................................................967

FIGURE 3-193. ALTERNATIVE C: EXTINCTION RISK AS A FUNCTION OF TIME, USING A QUASI-EXTINCTION LEVEL OF 100 FEMALES IN EACH 

MODELING REGION.................................................................................................................................................968

FIGURE 3-194. PROPOSED RMP: EXTINCTION RISK AS A FUNCTION OF TIME, USING A QUASI-EXTINCTION LEVEL OF 250 FEMALES IN EACH 

MODELING REGION.................................................................................................................................................969

FIGURE 3-195. PROPOSED RMP: EXTINCTION RISK AS A FUNCTION OF TIME, USING A QUASI-EXTINCTION LEVEL OF 100 FEMALES IN EACH 

MODELING REGION.................................................................................................................................................970

FIGURE 3-196. PROPOSED RMP WITH BARRED OWL CONTROL: EXTINCTION RISK AS A FUNCTION OF TIME, USING A QUASI-EXTINCTION 

LEVEL OF 250 FEMALES IN EACH MODELING REGION......................................................................................................971

FIGURE 3-197. PROPOSED RMP WITH BARRED OWL CONTROL: EXTINCTION RISK AS A FUNCTION OF TIME, USING A QUASI-EXTINCTION 

LEVEL OF 100 FEMALES IN EACH MODELING REGION......................................................................................................972

FIGURE 3-198. FORECASTED CHANGE IN THE ACRES OF THE FORESTED LANDSCAPE THAT WOULD BE STRONGLY AVOIDED BY NORTHERN 

SPOTTED OWLS (I.E., NON-HABITAT) OF RESERVE LAND USE ALLOCATIONS .........................................................................976

FIGURE 3-199. FORECASTED CHANGE IN THE ACRES OF THE FORESTED LANDSCAPE THAT WOULD BE STRONGLY AVOIDED BY NORTHERN 

SPOTTED OWLS (I.E., NON-HABITAT) IN CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS...........................................977

FIGURE 3-200. NUMBER OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL SITES THAT WOULD BE AT OR ABOVE RECOVERY ACTION 10 HABITAT THRESHOLDS 

DURING EACH DECADE.............................................................................................................................................979

FIGURE 3-201. CHANGE IN THE ACRES OF ‘STRONGLY-SELECTED-FOR’ HABITAT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN WESTERN OREGON . 985

FIGURE 3-202. CHANGE IN THE ACRES OF MATURE MULTIPLE-CANOPY AND STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX FOREST ON BLM-ADMINISTERED 

LANDS IN WESTERN OREGON....................................................................................................................................986

FIGURE 3-203. NUMBER OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL KNOWN SITES ASSOCIATED WITH CRITICAL HABITAT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS 

THAT WOULD BE AT OR ABOVE RECOVERY ACTION 10 HABITAT THRESHOLDS DURING EACH DECADE .......................................994
xii | P a g e

FIGURE 3-204. CHANGE IN THE ACRES OF ‘STRONGLY-SELECTED-FOR’ HABITAT IN CRITICAL HABITAT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN 

WESTERN OREGON.................................................................................................................................................995

FIGURE 3-205. POKEGAMA HERD CENSUS, 1972–2015 .....................................................................................................1020
xiii | P a g e

Table of Maps 

MAP 1-1. MAJOR OWNERSHIPS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA ..................................................................................................... 2

MAP 1-2. PUBLIC DOMAIN AND ACQUIRED LANDS ..................................................................................................................16

MAP 2-1. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ALLOCATIONS....................................................................................................32

MAP 2-2. ALTERNATIVE A LAND USE ALLOCATIONS.................................................................................................................48

MAP 2-3. ALTERNATIVE B LAND USE ALLOCATIONS.................................................................................................................54

MAP 2-4. SUB-ALTERNATIVE B LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ..........................................................................................................62

MAP 2-5. ALTERNATIVE C LAND USE ALLOCATIONS.................................................................................................................66

MAP 2-6. SUB-ALTERNATIVE C LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ..........................................................................................................72

MAP 2-7. ALTERNATIVE D LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ................................................................................................................76

MAP 2-8. PROPOSED RMP LAND USE ALLOCATIONS...............................................................................................................84

MAP 3-1. SMOKE SENSITIVE RECEPTOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED IN THE OREGON SMOKE MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................149

MAP 3-2. MOIST AND DRY FOREST TYPES ...........................................................................................................................230

MAP 3-3. WILDLAND DEVELOPMENT AREAS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA ...............................................................................257

MAP 3-4. LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA.....................................................................467

MAP 3-5. COUNTIES, BLM ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES, AND TRIBAL LANDS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA...................................586

MAP 3-6. TRAVEL TIMES FROM MAJOR COMMUNITIES IN RELATION TO BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ..............................................608

MAP 3-7. SELECTED COMMUNITIES (CITIES AND TRIBES) USED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY AND RESILIENCY................................707

MAP 3-8. MINORITY POPULATIONS AND COUNTIES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA........................................................................729

MAP 3-9. LOW-INCOME AND POVERTY POPULATIONS AND COUNTIES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA................................................731
xiv | P a g e

Table of Tables 

TABLE 2-1. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ..................................................................................................31

TABLE 2-2. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ALLOCATIONS WITH MODIFIED HIERARCHY.............................................................35

TABLE 2-3. FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY HARVEST LAND BASE SUB-ALLOCATION ..............................................................39

TABLE 2-4. ALTERNATIVE A LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ...............................................................................................................46

TABLE 2-5. ALTERNATIVE B LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ...............................................................................................................53

TABLE 2-6. SUB-ALTERNATIVE B LAND USE ALLOCATIONS .........................................................................................................60

TABLE 2-7. ALTERNATIVE C LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ...............................................................................................................65

TABLE 2-8. SUB-ALTERNATIVE C LAND USE ALLOCATIONS .........................................................................................................71

TABLE 2-9. ALTERNATIVE D LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ...............................................................................................................75

TABLE 2-10. PROPOSED RMP LAND USE ALLOCATIONS AND SUBALLOCATIONS.............................................................................82

TABLE 2-11. KEY FEATURES OF THE ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED RMP ............................................................................109

TABLE 2-12. KEY EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED RMP ..............................................................................112

TABLE 3-1. LAND STATUS OF THE DECISION AREA..................................................................................................................118

TABLE 3-2. VALUE CATEGORIES FOR DESIGNATED AND PREVIOUSLY NOMINATED POTENTIAL ACECS...............................................133

TABLE 3-3. DESIGNATED AND PREVIOUSLY NOMINATED POTENTIAL ACECS AND CORRESPONDING RNA OR ONA IF APPLICABLE .........137

TABLE 3-4. NEW POTENTIAL ACECS AND CORRESPONDING RNA OR ONA IF APPLICABLE ............................................................137

TABLE 3-5. VALUE CATEGORIES FOR POTENTIAL ACECS EVALUATED IN THIS ANALYSIS..................................................................138

TABLE 3-6. ALL POTENTIAL ACECS DESIGNATIONS................................................................................................................139

TABLE 3-7. POTENTIAL ACECS NOT DESIGNATED UNDER THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES OR THE PROPOSED RMP ................................. 140

TABLE 3-8. RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT VALUE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD NOT RECEIVE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ATTENTION................141

TABLE 3-9. REASONS FOR NOT DESIGNATING POTENTIAL ACECS .............................................................................................141

TABLE 3-10. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS REGULATED UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND THE CURRENT NAAQS FOR EACH..........................148

TABLE 3-11. AIR QUALITY INDEX WITH HEALTH ADVISORIES ...................................................................................................150

TABLE 3-12. VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AND TRENDS AT FOUR MANDATORY CLASS 1 AREAS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE PLANNING AREA 

FROM 2003 THROUGH 2012 AND THE STATISTICAL TREND ............................................................................................154

TABLE 3-13. ESTIMATED CURRENT TOTAL CARBON STORED IN VEGETATION AND SOIL AND CARBON DENSITY ....................................169

TABLE 3-14. ESTIMATED CARBON STORAGE AND CARBON DENSITY FOR THE MAJOR LAND OWNERSHIPS IN WESTERN OREGON.............173

TABLE 3-15. CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY SCORES FOR DIFFERENT TREE SPECIES IN WESTERN OREGON.....................................187

TABLE 3-16. EXPECTED CHANGES IN MEAN ANNUAL AND SEASONAL TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION BY 2041–2070 AS COMPARED TO 

MEANS IN THE 1950–1999 FOR RCP 4.5 AND RCP 8.5 ..............................................................................................191

TABLE 3-17. VALUES FOR SLOPE AND DISTANCE TO WATER BREAK POINTS .................................................................................214

TABLE 3-18. TOTAL VALUE SCORES AND CORRESPONDING PROBABILITY ....................................................................................214

TABLE 3-19. DISTRIBUTION OF ALL ACRES WITHIN THE DECISION AREA BY PROBABILITY ZONE ........................................................214

TABLE 3-20. SUMMARY OF ACRES OF CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ......................................216

TABLE 3-21. SUMMARY OF ACRES OF CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES AND RECORDED SITES BY PROBABILITY ZONE .......................217

TABLE 3-22. DISTRIBUTION OF SITE TYPES...........................................................................................................................218

TABLE 3-23. CONDITIONS OF RECORDED SITES WITHIN THE DECISION AREA................................................................................218

TABLE 3-24. ACREAGE OF TIMBER HARVEST FOR THE FIRST DECADE IN EACH PROBABILITY ZONE.....................................................219

TABLE 3-25. TOTAL MILEAGE OF NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................219

TABLE 3-26. NUMBER OF AVAILABLE AUTHORIZED LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS, ACRES, AND ACTIVE USE................................. 220

TABLE 3-27. NUMBER OF REPORTED PALEONTOLOGICAL LOCALITIES ........................................................................................222

TABLE 3-28. FIRE REGIME GROUPS AND DESCRIPTIONS USED IN CURRENT LANDFIRE FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS GUIDEBOOK 

VERSION 3 ............................................................................................................................................................224

TABLE 3-29. FIRE RETURN INTERVALS (FRI) BY HISTORIC FIRE REGIME GROUPS ACROSS THE PLANNING AREA..................................225

TABLE 3-30. WILDFIRE IGNITIONS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA BY ACRE SIZE CLASS CATEGORIES, 1984–2013 ................................227

TABLE 3-31. AMOUNT OF DRY FORESTED VEGETATION TYPES IN THE INTERIOR/SOUTH PORTION OF THE PLANNING AREA INCLUDED IN 

DEPARTURE ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................................................233

TABLE 3-32. RESISTANCE TO STAND-REPLACEMENT FIRE BY STRUCTURAL STAGE .........................................................................243

TABLE 3-33. HARVEST LAND BASE ALLOCATIONS IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE INTERIOR/SOUTH.......................................................251
xv | P a g e

TABLE 3-34. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD RATINGS BY STRUCTURAL STAGE ..................................................................................254

TABLE 3-35. TOTAL ACRES BURNED BY WILDFIRES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, 1984–2013 ......................................................258

TABLE 3-36. WILDLAND FIRE POTENTIAL ACRES FOR BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE PLANNING AREA.......................................265

TABLE 3-37. RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF RESIDUAL SURFACE FUEL LOADING BY TIMBER MANAGEMENT TYPE AND INTENSITY...................266

TABLE 3-38. RISK CATEGORY BASED ON PREDICTED RESIDUAL ACTIVITY FUEL FOLLOWING HARVEST, PROXIMAL LOCATION TO WILDLAND 

DEVELOPMENT AREAS, AND WILDLAND FIRE POTENTIAL ...............................................................................................267

TABLE 3-39. CURRENT FIRE RISK CATEGORIES FOR BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS..........................................................................267

TABLE 3-40. NON-COMMERCIAL NATURAL HAZARDOUS FUELS TREATMENT ACRES BY TREATMENT TYPE, 2003–2012 ......................270

TABLE 3-41. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES FOR LISTING STATUS, CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, AND ESA PROTECTIVE REGULATION FOR 

ESA-LISTED ANADROMOUS FISH IN THE PLANNING AREA. ...............................................................................................278

TABLE 3-42. ESA-LISTED FISH SPECIES (OTHER THAN ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS) WITH MILES AND PERCENT OF CRITICAL HABITAT ON 

BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS.....................................................................................................................................279

TABLE 3-43. DIAMETER OF FUNCTIONAL WOOD PIECE AS IT RELATES TO WIDTH OF ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL. ..................................284

TABLE 3-44. ACRES IN EACH STRUCTURAL STAGE FOR STANDS WITHIN ONE SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT FROM ALL STREAMS FOR THE 

CURRENT CONDITION AND IN 2113 ...........................................................................................................................287

TABLE 3-45. THINNING WITHIN THE RIPARIAN RESERVE BY DECADE .........................................................................................296

TABLE 3-46. STATE OF OREGON COLD-WATER PROTECTION CRITERIA FOR TROUT AND SALMON SPECIES..........................................300

TABLE 3-47. 2013 AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION (10-YEAR INCREMENTS); FORESTED ACRES AND PERCENT...........................................310

TABLE 3-48. AVERAGE REGENERATION HARVEST AGE IN YEARS BY DECADE IN THE DECISION AREA ..................................................317

TABLE 3-49. PERCENTAGE OF HARVEST LAND BASE IN EACH LAND USE ALLOCATION CATEGORY.....................................................317

TABLE 3-50. STRUCTURAL STAGE CLASSIFICATION GENERALIZED DEFINITIONS. ............................................................................318

TABLE 3-51. THE STANDING NET TIMBER INVENTORY AT EACH MEASUREMENT PERIOD ................................................................333

TABLE 3-52. 2006 AND 2013 SCRIBNER 16’ SCALE NET STANDING TIMBER VOLUME MMBF INVENTORY ESTIMATES ........................334

TABLE 3-53. PERCENT CHANGE IN INVENTORY BETWEEN 2013 AND 2113 BROKEN OUT BETWEEN THE HARVEST LAND BASE AND 

RESERVES IN THE DECISION AREA ...............................................................................................................................336

TABLE 3-54. REFERENCE ANALYSIS: “MANAGE MOST COMMERCIAL LANDS FOR MAXIMIZING TIMBER PRODUCTION” AND 1995 RMP

DECLARED ASQ.....................................................................................................................................................341

TABLE 3-55. FIRST DECADE ANNUAL ASQ* TIMBER HARVEST (MMBF/YEAR SCRIBNER 16’ SCALE) ...............................................341

TABLE 3-56. ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS TO ANNUAL ASQ FROM WILDLIFE SURVEYS AND SITE PROTECTION........................................346

TABLE 3-57. COMPATIBILITY OF SUSTAINED-YIELD MANAGEMENT REGIMES WITH VRM CLASSIFICATIONS........................................349

TABLE 3-58. TOTAL ANNUAL TIMBER HARVEST VOLUME FOR THE FIRST DECADE BY ASQ AND NON-ASQ SOURCES............................353

TABLE 3-59. ANNUAL NON-ASQ TIMBER HARVEST BY DECADE: COASTAL/NORTH VS. INTERIOR/SOUTH ..........................................355

TABLE 3-60. LOG SIZE GROUPS BY SMALL END DIAMETER INSIDE BARK DIAMETER CLASS ...............................................................356

TABLE 3-61. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL TIMBER HARVEST VOLUME IN THE DECISION AREA BY LOG SIZE GROUP; FIRST 5 DECADES .............356

TABLE 3-62. AVERAGE DECADAL SILVICULTURAL TREATMENT ACCOMPLISHMENT ACRES IN THE DECISION AREA, 1996–2012 .............358

TABLE 3-63. SILVICULTURAL TREATMENT ACREAGES PER DECADE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF THE FIRST TWO DECADES .......................362

TABLE 3-64. MODELED SHADE LOSS* FOR A 150-FOOT-WIDE RIPARIAN RESERVE, WITH A 60-FOOT INNER NO HARVEST ZONE, AT VARIOUS 

THINNING INTENSITIES AND INITIAL CANOPY CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................373

TABLE 3-65. MILES OF STREAMS WITH BLM OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA ...............................................................374

TABLE 3-66. POTENTIAL FINE SEDIMENT DELIVERY FROM EXISTING ROADS.................................................................................403

TABLE 3-67. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR ROAD AND LANDING CONSTRUCTION* ..............................................................404

TABLE 3-68. PROPOSED RMP KEY MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR ROAD AND LANDING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE* .............405

TABLE 3-69. SOURCE WATER PROTECTION..........................................................................................................................412

TABLE 3-70. NUMBER OF WATERSHEDS PER DISTRICT IN EACH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION CATEGORY ...................................................427

TABLE 3-71. RISK OF INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH TIMBER HARVEST OVER THE NEXT 10

YEARS ..................................................................................................................................................................428

TABLE 3-72. RISK OF INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES INTO RIPARIAN HABITATS ASSOCIATED WITH TIMBER 

HARVEST ADJACENT TO THE RIPARIAN RESERVE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS .........................................................................431

TABLE 3-73. RISK OF INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION OVER THE 

NEXT 10 YEARS......................................................................................................................................................433

TABLE 3-74. RISK OF INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS 

DESIGNATIONS.......................................................................................................................................................434

TABLE 3-75. RELATIVE RISK OF INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES BY ANALYSIS FACTOR AND OVERALL...............438
xvi | P a g e

TABLE 3-76. RISK OF INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY 

SUBBASINS OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS. ........................................................................................................................447

TABLE 3-77. RISK OF INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH RMA DESIGNATIONS .................448

TABLE 3-78. RELATIVE RISK OF INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES BY ANALYSIS FACTOR AND OVERALL ...........449

TABLE 3-79. SUDDEN OAK DEATH INFESTATIONS LEVELS BY INFESTATION ZONE OVER THE NEXT 10 AND 20 YEARS ............................454

TABLE 3-80. INITIAL SUDDEN OAK DEATH TREATMENT LEVELS OVER THE NEXT 10 AND 20 YEARS ...................................................455

TABLE 3-81. LAND TENURE ZONE WITHIN THE DECISION AREA BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED RMP ......................................459

TABLE 3-82. RIGHT-OF-WAY AVOIDANCE AND EXCLUSION AREAS IN THE DECISION AREA .............................................................462

TABLE 3-83. BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS IN THE DECISION AREA ...........................................466

TABLE 3-84. INVENTORIED LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA ALLOCATED TO THE DISTRICTDESIGNATED RESERVE – LANDS MANAGED FOR THEIR WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................468

TABLE 3-85. INVENTORIED BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS ALLOCATED TO THE HARVEST LAND BASE471

TABLE 3-86. INVENTORIED BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS WITH INCOMPATIBLE RECREATION 

MANAGEMENT DESIGNATIONS ..................................................................................................................................472

TABLE 3-87. BLM-ADMINISTERED LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN THE DECISION AREA.........................................................476

TABLE 3-88. CURRENT LIVESTOCK GRAZING LEVELS COMPARED TO 1995 RMP LEVELS................................................................477

TABLE 3-89. BLM-ADMINISTERED LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN THE DECISION AREA THAT OVERLAP THE CASCADE SISKIYOU 

NATIONAL MONUMENT (CSNM) .............................................................................................................................478

TABLE 3-90. LIVESTOCK GRAZING AVAILABILITY FOR THE COOS BAY DISTRICT, KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE, AND MEDFORD DISTRICT479

TABLE 3-91. ACRES OF SRMAS WITHIN AVAILABLE ALLOTMENTS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA .....................................................483

TABLE 3-92. ACRES OF ACECS WITHIN AUTHORIZED ALLOTMENTS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED RMP WITHIN THE 

PLANNING AREA.....................................................................................................................................................483

TABLE 3-93. RANGELAND HEALTH STANDARDS ASSESSMENTS FOR THE COOS BAY DISTRICT, KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE, AND 

MEDFORD DISTRICT ...............................................................................................................................................485

TABLE 3-94. ACRES OF SURFACE AND MINERAL ESTATE WITHIN THE DECISION AREA ....................................................................488

TABLE 3-95. ROCK QUARRY SITES IN THE DECISION AREA........................................................................................................493

TABLE 3-96. ACRES OF LANDS CURRENTLY CLOSED TO SALABLE MINERAL MATERIAL DISPOSAL (I.E., THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) ......493

TABLE 3-97. ACRES CLOSED TO SALABLE MINERAL MATERIAL DISPOSAL IN THE DECISION AREA.......................................................494

TABLE 3-98. MINING CLAIMS, NOTICES, AND PENDING OR AUTHORIZED PLANS OF OPERATION IN THE DECISION AREA AS OF 2015......498

TABLE 3-99. ACRES OF LANDS PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN FROM LOCATABLE MINERAL ENTRY IN THE DECISION AREA...........................499

TABLE 3-100. ACRES THE BLM WOULD RECOMMEND FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM LOCATABLE MINERAL ENTRY AND PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN 

ACRES IN THE DECISION AREA....................................................................................................................................500

TABLE 3-101. ACRES THAT WOULD HAVE LEASABLE STIPULATIONS IN THE DECISION AREA FOR ACECS, RMAS, DISTRICT-DESIGNATED 

RESERVE – LANDS MANAGED FOR THEIR WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS, AND ELIGIBLE WSRS.............................................502

TABLE 3-102. PACIFIC CREST TRAIL MILEAGE BY OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE DECISION AREA ............................................................507

TABLE 3-103. CALIFORNIA NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL-APPLEGATE TRAIL ROUTE MILEAGE BREAKDOWN BY OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE 

PLANNING AREA.....................................................................................................................................................508

TABLE 3-104. PACIFIC CREST TRAIL VIEWSHED RESULTS FOR BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN THE 5-MILE VIEWSHED DISTANCE OF 

TRAIL PORTIONS.....................................................................................................................................................510

TABLE 3-105. ACRES OF BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE PLANNING AREA WITHIN PACIFIC CREST TRAIL NATIONAL TRAIL 

MANAGEMENT CORRIDOR.......................................................................................................................................513

TABLE 3-106. NATIONAL RECREATION TRAILS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA ..............................................................................516

TABLE 3-107. BUREAU SENSITIVE AND STRATEGIC PLANT AND FUNGI SITES BY STATUS AND TAXONOMIC GROUP...............................524

TABLE 3-108. BUREAU SPECIAL STATUS, STRATEGIC, AND SURVEY AND MANAGE PLANT AND FUNGI SITES DOCUMENTED BETWEEN 

JANUARY 2009 AND JULY 2013 IN THE DECISION AREA................................................................................................. 524

TABLE 3-109. NUMBER OF SURVEY AND MANAGE PLANT AND FUNGI SPECIES BY TAXONOMIC GROUP AND CATEGORY FOUND WITHIN THE 

PLANNING AREA USING THE CURRENT (2003) SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES LIST..............................................................531

TABLE 3-110. SURVEY AND MANAGE CATEGORIES AND ASSOCIATED SURVEY STATUS BY RARITY ....................................................531

TABLE 3-111. ESA-LISTED PLANTS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA...............................................................................................532

TABLE 3-112. BUREAU SPECIAL STATUS AND BUREAU STRATEGIC PLANT AND FUNGI SITES WITHIN THE HARVEST LAND BASE .............535

TABLE 3-113. SURVEY AND MANAGE PLANT AND FUNGI SPECIES SITES WITHIN THE HARVEST LAND BASE THAT ARE NOT ALSO BUREAU 

SENSITIVE/BUREAU STRATEGIC................................................................................................................................. 536
xvii | P a g e

TABLE 3-114. PERCENT OF KNOWN BLM SITES WITHIN RESERVE ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED RMP FOR 

SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES FOUND TO HAVE UNCERTAIN OUTCOMES IN THE 2004 FSEIS ...............................................539

TABLE 3-115. TOTAL ACRES OF TIMBER HARVEST IN THE FIRST DECADE (2013–2023). ...............................................................541

TABLE 3-116. BUREAU SPECIAL STATUS FUNGI POTENTIAL HABITAT WITHIN THE HARVEST LAND BASE ...........................................543

TABLE 3-117. BUREAU SPECIAL STATUS VASCULAR PLANT SITES WITHIN RESERVE ALLOCATIONS ....................................................543

TABLE 3-118. BUREAU SENSITIVE PLANTS WITHIN ALLOTMENTS NOT MEETING RANGELAND HEALTH STANDARDS DUE TO LIVESTOCK 

GRAZING ..............................................................................................................................................................544

TABLE 3-119. ROAD CONSTRUCTION MILES FOR THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF IMPLEMENTATION ..........................................................547

TABLE 3-120. ACRES OF OAK-DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE PLANNING AND DECISION AREAS..................................550

TABLE 3-121. DISTANCE CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM CLASS BY REMOTENESS.........................557

TABLE 3-122. LEVEL OF HUMAN MODIFICATION AND FOREST STRUCTURAL STAGE CLASS PROXIES BY RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM 

CLASS FOR NATURALNESS.........................................................................................................................................559

TABLE 3-123. CURRENT SRMA ACRES OF MANAGED AND ALLOWED, AND RESTRICTED RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE DECISION 

AREA ...................................................................................................................................................................561

TABLE 3-124. CURRENT ACRES OF BLM-MANAGED LANDS BY REMOTENESS AND NATURALNESS RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM 

CLASSES ...............................................................................................................................................................561

TABLE 3-125. ACRES OF DESIGNATED SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS ....................................................................562

TABLE 3-126. ACRES OF DESIGNATED EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS................................................................. 563

TABLE 3-127. RMA ACRES OF MANAGED AND ALLOWED RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE DECISION AREA ..........................566

TABLE 3-128. RMA ACRES OF RESTRICTED RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE DECISION AREA.............................................567

TABLE 3-129. ACRES OF BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS BY RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM CLASSES FOR NATURALNESS ............568

TABLE 3-130. RIGHT-OF-WAY AVOIDANCE AREAS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY EXCLUSION AREAS WITHIN RMAS........................................569

TABLE 3-131. CURRENT AND PROJECTED LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION BY RECREATION ACTIVITY WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA FROM 2012 TO 

2060 ..................................................................................................................................................................571

TABLE 3-132. ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC RECREATION DEMAND FOR WESTERN OREGON COMMUNITIES....................................................574

TABLE 3-133. SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR HIKING TRAILS WITHIN A 30-MINUTE DRIVING DISTANCE FROM STUDY COMMUNITIES ..........577

TABLE 3-134. SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR HIKING TRAILS WITHIN A 60-MINUTE DRIVING DISTANCE FROM STUDY COMMUNITIES ..........577

TABLE 3-135. SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS WITHIN A 30-MINUTE DRIVING DISTANCE FROM STUDY COMMUNITIES

..........................................................................................................................................................................578

TABLE 3-136. SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS WITHIN A 60-MINUTE DRIVING DISTANCE FROM STUDY COMMUNITIES

..........................................................................................................................................................................579

TABLE 3-137. SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR OHV TRAILS WITHIN A 30-MINUTE DRIVING DISTANCE FROM STUDY COMMUNITIES ............580

TABLE 3-138. SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR OHV TRAILS WITHIN A 60-MINUTE DRIVING DISTANCES FROM STUDY COMMUNITIES...........580

TABLE 3-139. POTENTIAL RMA TRAIL MILES.......................................................................................................................581

TABLE 3-140. RECREATION VISITATION ESTIMATES WITH FULL IMPLEMENTATION IN 2062...........................................................583

TABLE 3-141. PLANNING AREA POPULATION, 1990–2012 ...................................................................................................588

TABLE 3-142. GOODS AND SERVICES DERIVED FROM BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN WESTERN OREGON ........................................ 592

TABLE 3-143. HISTORICAL TIMBER SALE VALUES AND VOLUMES, WESTERN OREGON BLM DISTRICTS, 2000–2014 .........................606

TABLE 3-144. CURRENT MANAGED RECREATION ACREAGE OF BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ..........................................................609

TABLE 3-145. PUBLIC LAND OWNERSHIP SHARES IN 60-MINUTE DRIVING DISTANCES FROM STUDY COMMUNITIES ............................610

TABLE 3-146. NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT (CONSUMER SURPLUS) BY ACTIVITY, PER USER DAY (2012 DOLLARS) ...................................611

TABLE 3-147. TOTAL 2013 VISITOR-DAYS, BY ACTIVITY, TO ALL WESTERN OREGON BLM DISTRICTS, AND NET BENEFIT ESTIMATES (I.E.,

CONSUMER SURPLUS) (2012 DOLLARS) ......................................................................................................................612

TABLE 3-148. TOTAL 2013 VISITOR-DAYS, BY BLM DISTRICT, AND ANNUAL NET BENEFIT ESTIMATES (I.E., CONSUMER SURPLUS) (2012

DOLLARS) .............................................................................................................................................................613

TABLE 3-149. SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS: PERMITS, MINIMUM PRICES, MARKET VALUES, AND REVENUE TO BLM (CY 2012 FOR ALL 

DISTRICTS) ............................................................................................................................................................614

TABLE 3-150. LIVESTOCK GRAZING, NUMBER OF PERMITTEES, FORAGE, MARKET VALUE, AND BLM REVENUE, 2012.........................618

TABLE 3-151. SALABLE MINERAL MATERIALS, MARKET VALUE, AND REVENUE, 2012...................................................................620

TABLE 3-152. QUANTITY OF TOTAL CARBON STORED ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS, ESTIMATED ANNUAL CARBON STORED, AND 

ESTIMATED VALUE (2012 DOLLARS) ..........................................................................................................................621

TABLE 3-153. WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP) VALUES PER HOUSEHOLD, BY SPECIES ......................................................................624

TABLE 3-154. ANNUAL WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP) VALUES PER HOUSEHOLD, BY SPECIES. .........................................................625
xviii | P a g e

TABLE 3-155. ANNUAL WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP) VALUES PER HOUSEHOLD TO PROTECT OLD-GROWTH HABITAT. .........................625

TABLE 3-156. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC VALUE OF GOODS AND SERVICES DERIVED FROM BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN WESTERN 

OREGON, 2012 ....................................................................................................................................................629

TABLE 3-157. ANNUAL TOTAL* BLM HARVEST VOLUMES (SHORT LOG SCALE) OVER TIME............................................................629

TABLE 3-158. GROSS REVENUE, TOTAL COSTS, AND NET REVENUE, 2014–2023 ($ MILLIONS) ....................................................632

TABLE 3-159. TIMBER STUMPAGE PRICES OVER TIME............................................................................................................639

TABLE 3-160. TIMBER GRADE 1 PROPORTION OVER TIME......................................................................................................639

TABLE 3-161. TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE HARVEST VALUES (MILLIONS) FOR SELECTED DECADES BY THE ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED 

RMP, 2023–2113 (2012 DOLLARS) .......................................................................................................................640

TABLE 3-162. MARKET EFFECTS ON OTHER TIMBERLAND OWNERS BY BLM HARVEST IN 2018 (2012 DOLLARS), LONG LOG SCALE ......641

TABLE 3-163. HARVESTS AND PRICES IN SHORT LOG SCALE.....................................................................................................641

TABLE 3-164. BLM RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA ACRES ...............................................................................................642

TABLE 3-165. RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES, ACRES RESTRICTED (ACTIVITY EXCLUDED) WITHIN THE RMAS ......................................643

TABLE 3-166. POTENTIAL TRAIL MILES IN RMAS..................................................................................................................644

TABLE 3-167. RMA ACREAGE BY DRIVING DISTANCE FROM POPULATION CENTERS IN WESTERN OREGON* ......................................644

TABLE 3-168. CONSUMER SURPLUS VALUE PROJECTIONS, 2023 AND NET PRESENT VALUE 2013–2062 (MILLIONS OF 2012 DOLLARS)

..........................................................................................................................................................................650

TABLE 3-169. VALUE OF CARBON STORAGE, 2012 DOLLARS ..................................................................................................653

TABLE 3-170. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON ECONOMIC VALUE OF GOODS AND SERVICES DERIVED FROM BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN 

WESTERN OREGON................................................................................................................................................657

TABLE 3-171. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA, 2012 (JOBS, MILLIONS OF 2012 DOLLARS) ................661

TABLE 3-172. FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT BY DETAILED SECTOR BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA, 2012 (JOBS) ...................664

TABLE 3-173. FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY EARNINGS BY DETAILED SECTOR BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA, 2012 (MILLIONS OF 2012

DOLLARS) .............................................................................................................................................................665

TABLE 3-174. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN TIMBER- AND RECREATION-RELATED INDUSTRIES AS A SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND 

EARNINGS BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA, 2012.................................................................................................................667

TABLE 3-175. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS CONTRIBUTION OF BLM PROGRAMS TO DISTRICT MODEL AREAS, 2012...............669

TABLE 3-176. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTION OF BLM TIMBER PROGRAMS TO FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY BY DISTRICT MODEL 

AREA, 2012 (JOBS) ................................................................................................................................................670

TABLE 3-177. TOTAL EARNINGS CONTRIBUTION OF BLM TIMBER PROGRAMS TO FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA,

2012 (MILLIONS OF 2012 DOLLARS) .........................................................................................................................671

TABLE 3-178. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS CONTRIBUTION OF BLM RECREATION PROGRAMS TO RECREATION-RELATED 

INDUSTRIES BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA, 2012...............................................................................................................672

TABLE 3-179. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN O&C COUNTIES GENERATED BY BLM-BASED FEDERAL PAYMENTS, 2012 (JOBS,

MILLIONS OF 2012 DOLLARS) ...................................................................................................................................673

TABLE 3-180. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN O&C COUNTIES GENERATED BY BLM-BASED FEDERAL PAYMENTS, 2012 (JOBS,

MILLIONS OF 2012 DOLLARS) ...................................................................................................................................674

TABLE 3-181. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN THE PLANNING AREA ..............................................................................678

TABLE 3-182. BLM-BASED TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA ..........................................................681

TABLE 3-183. BLM-BASED TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN TIMBER-RELATED* INDUSTRIES AND RECREATION-RELATED2 INDUSTRIES 

BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA.........................................................................................................................................683

TABLE 3-184. CURRENT AND PROJECTED TOTAL EMPLOYMENT BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA (AVERAGE ANNUAL JOBS, PERCENT) .............685

TABLE 3-185. SRS PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES, 2003–2012 ....................................................................................................692

TABLE 3-186. SRS PAYMENTS AND COUNTY REVENUES .........................................................................................................693

TABLE 3-187. COUNTY PAYMENTS IN 2012, ACTUAL PAYMENTS, AND PAYMENTS BASED ON O&C ACT FORMULA............................694

TABLE 3-188. TOTAL PAYMENTS TO O&C COUNTIES IN 2018 AND 2028 .................................................................................695

TABLE 3-189. PAYMENTS TO O&C COUNTIES BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED RMP FOR 2018 AND 2028 (2012 DOLLARS) .....696

TABLE 3-190. GROWTH AND VOLATILITY OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND SELECTED RESOURCE-RELATED 

INDUSTRIES OVER SIX UNITED STATES BUSINESS CYCLES, 1969–2007..............................................................................700

TABLE 3-191. SELECTED COMMUNITIES (CITIES AND TRIBES) FOR ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY AND RESILIENCY........................................706

TABLE 3-192. CAPACITY AND RESILIENCY METRICS................................................................................................................712

TABLE 3-193. CAPACITY AND RESILIENCY DATA SUMMARY .....................................................................................................717

TABLE 3-194. CHANGE IN BLM-BASED EMPLOYMENT FOR DISTRICT MODEL AREAS.....................................................................719
xix | P a g e

TABLE 3-195. EFFECTS OF CHANGE IN BLM-BASED EMPLOYMENT BY COMMUNITY.....................................................................719

TABLE 3-196. SHARES OF COUNTY PAYMENTS BY BLM DISTRICT .............................................................................................721

TABLE 3-197. COUNTY PAYMENTS IN 2018 (2012 DOLLARS) ................................................................................................721

TABLE 3-198. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF COUNTY PAYMENTS BY COMMUNITY ...............................................................................722

TABLE 3-199. RACIAL MINORITY AND HISPANIC POPULATION CHANGE, 2000–2012..................................................................726

TABLE 3-200. POVERTY POPULATION AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2000 AND 2012 ........................................................727

TABLE 3-201. SUMMARY OF MINORITY POPULATIONS MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CRITERIA...............................................728

TABLE 3-202. SUMMARY OF LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CRITERIA..........................................732

TABLE 3-203. ESTIMATED TIMBER PROGRAM COSTS PER MBF OF TIMBER VOLUME.....................................................................737

TABLE 3-204. BLM BUDGET BY DISTRICT, FY 2012 .............................................................................................................737

TABLE 3-205. BLM EMPLOYEES BY DISTRICT; CURRENT CONDITION AND THE AVERAGE OF THE FIRST DECADE...................................738

TABLE 3-206. BLM BUDGET BY DISTRICT; CURRENT CONDITION AND THE AVERAGE OF THE FIRST DECADE .......................................738

TABLE 3-207. DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM TIMBER HARVEST AND BY HARVEST METHOD DURING THE FIRST DECADE FOR THE 

COASTAL/NORTH AND INTERIOR/SOUTH .....................................................................................................................751

TABLE 3-208. ACRES OF CUMULATIVE DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM ROAD CONSTRUCTION DURING THE FIRST DECADE ........754

TABLE 3-209. ACRES OF DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY ROAD TYPE DURING THE FIRST DECADE.......755

TABLE 3-210. FUEL TREATMENTS BY METHOD, 2003–2012 ................................................................................................. 760

TABLE 3-211. DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM FUEL TREATMENTS BY METHOD, 2003–2012............................................760

TABLE 3-212. DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM FUELS TREATMENTS COMPARED TO THE CURRENT CONDITION........................761

TABLE 3-213. DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM ALL SOURCES, BY THE CURRENT CONDITION AND DURING THE FIRST DECADE .....764

TABLE 3-214. BIOMASS AVAILABLE FROM BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS AS TIMBER HARVEST SLASH................................................771

TABLE 3-215. RIGHT-OF-WAY EXCLUSION AND AVOIDANCE AREAS...........................................................................................772

TABLE 3-216. ACRES THAT WOULD HAVE LEASABLE STIPULATIONS...........................................................................................774

TABLE 3-217. EXISTING 1995 RMP PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA...................................777

TABLE 3-218. PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS......................................................................................................781

TABLE 3-219. AREAS CLOSED TO PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS BY LAND USE ALLOCATION OR DESIGNATION .......................................783

TABLE 3-220. MILES OF BLM-MANAGED ROADS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ................................786

TABLE 3-221. ROAD CONDITION, MILEAGE, REPLACEMENT VALUE, AND DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG....................................787

TABLE 3-222. BRIDGE CONDITION, REPLACEMENT VALUE, AND DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG ...............................................787

TABLE 3-223. MAJOR CULVERT CONDITION, REPLACEMENT VALUE, AND DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG...................................787

TABLE 3-224. FIRST DECADE NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY ROAD SURFACING AND STATUS..........................................................789

TABLE 3-225. FIRST DECADE NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HARVEST METHODS....................................................789

TABLE 3-226. NO ACTION FIRST DECADE NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY ROAD SURFACING AND STATUS..........................................790

TABLE 3-227. ALTERNATIVE A FIRST DECADE NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY ROAD SURFACING AND STATUS ....................................790

TABLE 3-228. ALTERNATIVE B FIRST DECADE NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY ROAD SURFACING AND STATUS ....................................790

TABLE 3-229. ALTERNATIVE C FIRST DECADE NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY ROAD SURFACING AND STATUS.....................................791

TABLE 3-230. ALTERNATIVE D FIRST DECADE NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY ROAD SURFACING AND STATUS ....................................791

TABLE 3-231. PROPOSED RMP FIRST DECADE NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY ROAD SURFACING AND STATUS...................................791

TABLE 3-232. FIRST DECADE PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE......................................................................................................792

TABLE 3-233. FIRST DECADE LONG-TERM ROAD CLOSURE ......................................................................................................792

TABLE 3-234. FIRST DECADE EXISTING ROAD RENOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT .........................................................................793

TABLE 3-235. FIRST DECADE EXISTING ROAD UTILIZATION BY SURFACE TYPE...............................................................................794

TABLE 3-236. FIRST DECADE PAVED ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE COLLECTIONS COMPARED TO ANNUAL MAINTENANCE (AM) NEED.........794

TABLE 3-237. FIRST DECADE ROCKED ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE COLLECTIONS COMPARED TO ANNUAL MAINTENANCE (AM) NEED .......795

TABLE 3-238. FIRST DECADE PAVED AND ROCK-SURFACED ROADS RENOVATION EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO THE DEFERRED 

MAINTENANCE (DM) BACKLOG................................................................................................................................. 796

TABLE 3-239. MILEAGE OF NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND ROAD RENOVATION OR IMPROVEMENT ..............................................809

TABLE 3-240. VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CLASS DISTRIBUTION IN THE DECISION AREA†...........................................................816

TABLE 3-241. ACRES OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASSES IN THE DECISION AREA .........................................................817

TABLE 3-242. VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CLASS DESIGNATIONS BY MANAGEMENT CLASS .......................................................819

TABLE 3-243. COMPATIBILITY OF SUSTAINED YIELD MANAGEMENT REGIMES WITH VRM CLASSIFICATIONS ......................................821

TABLE 3-244. THE HARVEST LAND BASE WITHIN EACH VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CLASS........................................................822

TABLE 3-245. BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA..........................................................................825
xx | P a g e

TABLE 3-246. CURRENT CONDITION IN 2013 OF HABITAT EXPRESSED BY STRUCTURAL STAGE .......................................................836

TABLE 3-247. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF EXISTING (2013) MATURE OR STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA ....842

TABLE 3-248. NUMBER OF SPECIES* THAT WOULD HAVE AN INCREASE IN HABITAT BY 2063 BY STRUCTURAL STAGE ASSOCIATION†

(PERCENT OF SPECIES IN GROUP) ...............................................................................................................................843

TABLE 3-249. NUMBER OF SPECIES* THAT WOULD HAVE AN INCREASE IN HABITAT BY 2063 (PERCENT OF SPECIES IN GROUP) .............845

TABLE 3-250. SIZE OF THE RESERVES WITHIN THE DECISION AREA ............................................................................................850

TABLE 3-251. DEER MANAGEMENT AREAS ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ..............................................................................867

TABLE 3-252. ELK MANAGEMENT AREAS ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS.................................................................................867

TABLE 3-253. CURRENT FISHER HABITAT IN THE DECISION AND PLANNING AREAS........................................................................874

TABLE 3-254. FISHER HABITAT PATCH METRICS....................................................................................................................876

TABLE 3-255. FISHER POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA IN 50 YEARS...................................................................................879

TABLE 3-256. GOLDEN EAGLE BREEDING AREAS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA ............................................................................882

TABLE 3-257. CURRENT MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT .............................................................................................901

TABLE 3-258. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF MARBLED MURRELET TOTAL NESTING HABITAT IN 2013 ................................................905

TABLE 3-259. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF HIGH-QUALITY MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT IN 2013 .....................................905

TABLE 3-260. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT PATCH METRICS ....................................................................................905

TABLE 3-261. DECADAL FORECAST FOR MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT CONSIDERED FOR HARVEST OVER 50 YEARS (2013–2063)

..........................................................................................................................................................................910

TABLE 3-262. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT MODELED FOR HARVEST THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SURVEYS PRIOR TO HARVEST

..........................................................................................................................................................................910

TABLE 3-263. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT MODELED FOR HARVEST THAT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO SURVEYS ................911

TABLE 3-264. KNOWN MARBLED MURRELET SITES IN THE PLANNING AREA ................................................................................914

TABLE 3-265. DECADAL FORECAST FOR MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITES LOST OVER 50 YEARS (2013–2063)..........................915

TABLE 3-266. DECADAL FORECAST FOR MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITES DISCOVERED OVER 50 YEARS (2013–2063) ................915

TABLE 3-267. KNOWN OBSERVATIONS (395) OF RED TREE VOLES WITHIN THE NORTH OREGON COAST DPS...................................924

TABLE 3-268. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS WITHIN THE NORTH OREGON COAST DPS (348,186 ACRES OF BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS) ..924

TABLE 3-269. EXISTING RED TREE VOLE HABITAT AND FORECAST OF OCCUPIED STANDS WITHIN THE NORTH OREGON COAST DPS WITHIN 

THE HARVEST LAND BASE ........................................................................................................................................925

TABLE 3-270. METRICS TO IDENTIFY BLOCKS OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL NESTING-ROOSTING HABITAT.........................................934

TABLE 3-271. METRICS TO IDENTIFY AND MAP LARGE BLOCKS OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL NESTING-ROOSTING HABITAT ..................934

TABLE 3-272. ESTIMATED (OBSERVED) AND MODIFIED BARRED OWL ENCOUNTER RATES..............................................................952

TABLE 3-273. NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS: NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL RANGE-WIDE POPULATIONS (MEAN OF 500

REPLICATE NON-STOCHASTIC SIMULATIONS) BY YEAR.....................................................................................................957

TABLE 3-274. NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS: SIMULATED NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL POPULATIONS (MEAN OF 500 REPLICATE 

NON-STOCHASTIC SIMULATIONS), BY MODELING REGION AND YEAR..................................................................................957

TABLE 3-275. NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS: SIMULATED NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL POPULATIONS (MEAN OF 500 REPLICATE 

NON-STOCHASTIC SIMULATIONS), BY PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE AND YEAR........................................................................957

TABLE 3-276. NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS: ACRES OF HABITAT STRONGLY AVOIDED BY THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL IN 

MOIST FOREST LAND USE ALLOCATIONS RESERVED UNDER THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN, AND IN MOIST FOREST CRITICAL HABITAT 

UNITS, ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE PLANNING AREA.......................................................................................975

TABLE 3-277. ACRES OF RESERVE LAND USE ALLOCATIONS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY HIGH- AND MODERATE-INTENSITY WILDFIRE 

DURING EACH DECADE.............................................................................................................................................980

TABLE 3-278. ACRES OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY HIGH- AND MODERATE-INTENSITY 

WILDFIRE DURING EACH DECADE ...............................................................................................................................981

TABLE 3-279. ACRES AND PERCENTAGES OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE HARVEST 

LAND BASE ...........................................................................................................................................................991

TABLE 3-280. OREGON SPOTTED FROG HABITAT IN THE DECISION AND PLANNING AREAS ...........................................................1003

TABLE 3-281. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PACIFIC COAST DPS OF THE WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER. ..............................1007

TABLE 3-282. DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA ................................................................. 1026

TABLE 3-283. 1995 RMPS SUITABLE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA....................................................1026

TABLE 3-284. ALL ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENTS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA ...............................................................................1029

TABLE 3-285. ELIGIBLE RIVERS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA THAT THE BLM IDENTIFIED AS MEETING SUITABILITY CRITERIA ................1030

TABLE 3-286. ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENT PROTECTION TOTALS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA..........................................................1031
xxi | P a g e

TABLE 3-287. RIVER SEGMENTS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL SYSTEM RECEIVING INCIDENTAL PROTECTION 

FROM MINERAL AND RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................1033

TABLE 3-288. ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENT CORRIDORS WITH OVERLAPPING SCENERY ORVS AND VRM CLASS I OR II, WHERE THE RIVER 

SEGMENT IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE NATIONAL SYSTEM................................................................1034

TABLE 3-289. ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENT CORRIDORS WITH OVERLAPPING ACEC DESIGNATIONS WHERE THE RIVER SEGMENT IS NOT 

RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL SYSTEM ..........................................................................................1036

TABLE 3-290. ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENTS WITH RECREATION ORVS AND OVERLAPPING RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA DESIGNATIONS,

WHERE THE RIVER SEGMENT IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE NATIONAL SYSTEM. ......................................1037

TABLE 3-291. ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENTS THAT HAVE CORRIDOR OVERLAP WITH THE HARVEST LAND BASE LAND USE ALLOCATION WHERE 

THE RIVER SEGMENT IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE NATIONAL SYSTEM .................................................1038

TABLE 3-292. PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATION DESIGNATIONS FOR ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENTS .......................................1039

TABLE 4-1. FORMAL COOPERATORS................................................................................................................................. 1046

TABLE 4-2. LIST OF KEY PROJECT STAFF .............................................................................................................................1053
555 | P a g e

Recreation and Visitor Services 

Key Points 

 Alternative D would provide the largest number of acres allocated as Recreation Management 

Areas. 

 Alternative D would also provide the largest number and acres of Recreation Management Areas 

in closest proximity to the 12 study communities in the planning area. 

 Alternative A would reduce managed recreation opportunities as compared to the No Action 

alternative. 

 The Proposed RMP would provide more acres allocated as Recreation Management Areas than 

Alternatives A, B and C, and less acres then Alternative D. 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect the types and levels of BLM-provided recreation opportunities across 

western Oregon?

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Management actions and allowable use decisions would affect recreation and visitor services. Direct 

effects on recreation are those that allow, restrict, or prohibit recreation opportunities, including both the 

opportunity for access (e.g., public closure) and opportunity to engage in specific activities (e.g., 

camping, recreational target shooting, and riding OHVs). Indirect effects are those that alter the physical, 

social, or operational components of recreation setting characteristics. Effects on settings can either be the 

achievement of a desired recreation setting characteristic or the unwanted shift in recreation setting 

characteristics. 

The BLM does not specifically manage for recreation setting characteristics in areas where the BLM has 

not designated Recreation Management Areas (RMAs), although lands not designated as RMAs do still 

provide intrinsic recreational values and opportunities. The indicator typically used to describe the effect 

on lands not designated as RMAs, is the availability of opportunities as described by either acreage 

restrictions or limiting of recreation-specific activities. 

For areas managed as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA), the BLM used both availability of 

recreation opportunities and changes to physical, social, and operational components of recreation setting 

characteristics as indicators of effects. For areas managed as Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

(ERMA), the BLM considered both availability of activity opportunities and changes to recreation setting 

characteristics. 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014b, pp. 109–114).

Recreation Management Areas 

The BLM evaluated the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on recreation opportunities and 

outcomes by comparing how they would (1) designate RMAs by type; (2) potentially change recreation 

setting characteristics; (3) affect the availability of recreation opportunities and the extent to which they 

meet anticipated recreation demand in the planning area; and (4) restrict available recreation-specific 
556 | P a g e

activities. This analysis includes recreation management strategies and effects from management for other 

program areas on recreation resources under each of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Recreation Opportunities and Restrictions 

The BLM manages, allows, and restricts specific recreation activities within RMAs in order to create and 

sustain high-quality recreation opportunities, achieve desired recreation conditions including recreation 

setting characteristics, and protect public health and safety from potential conflicts between recreationists. 

The BLM considered the extent to which managed, allowable, and restricted recreation activities occur 

among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Visitors seek a diverse range of setting-dependent outdoor recreation opportunities. They choose different 

areas in which to recreate based upon the qualities and conditions of the area as well as a desired set of 

recreation experiences and benefits. The BLM identifies desired recreation setting characteristics for 

RMAs to complement the desired recreation opportunities and activities within those RMAs. 

The BLM categorizes the type of recreation setting characteristic desired in a particular area through its 

Recreation Setting Classification System. The BLM bases the Recreation Setting Classification System 

on a combination of physical, social, and operational components. Physical components include 

characteristics of remoteness, naturalness, and visitor facilities. Social components include characteristics 

of contacts, group size, and evidence of use. Operational components include characteristics of access, 

visitor services, and management controls. 

Remoteness and Naturalness Characteristics 

With the exception of the characteristics of remoteness and naturalness, the BLM discusses effects on all 

the recreation setting characteristics through analysis of RMAs, recreation opportunities, and recreation 

demand. The BLM has focused the discussion of effects remoteness and naturalness on how the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would change the existing recreation opportunity spectrum for these 

characteristics. 

The recreation opportunity spectrum framework describes the mix of possible outdoor recreation settings 

that produce recreation experiences. The recreation opportunity spectrum is divided into six classes 

ranging from primitive to urban (Figure 3-120). The classes are named only to help describe a recreation 

setting spectrum for recreation management. For example, the ‘primitive’ class is not exclusive to 

Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or lands with wilderness characteristics and may be used elsewhere. 

Figure 3-120. Recreation opportunity spectrum classes 

‘Remoteness’ is defined by an area’s proximity to human modifications associated with roads or trails. 

The BLM identified the recreation opportunity spectrum class for remoteness by using its functional road 

classification system to assign road types by recreation opportunity spectrum class and identifying 

distance criteria. The distance criteria used account for the project area’s topography, vegetation, and road 

type. Road types consist of arterial, collector, local, and resource roads (USDI BLM 1996b, updated 

2002). Table 3-121 shows the criteria for defining the recreation opportunity spectrum class for 

remoteness. 
557 | P a g e

Table 3-121. Distance criteria for establishing recreation opportunity spectrum class by remoteness 

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Class Distance Criteria

Primitive Greater than 1 mile from any class of road, excluding those that are 

permanently closed or decommissioned

Backcountry 0.25 to 1 mile from any class of road, excluding those that are permanently 

closed or decommissioned

Middle Country Within 0.25 mile of local* or resource†roads

Front Country Within 0.25 mile of collector‡roads

Rural Within 0.25 mile of arterial roads or highways

Urban Within 0.25 mile of arterial roads or highways

* Local roads. Roads that normally serve smaller areas than collector roads, accommodate fewer uses, have lower traffic 

volumes, and connect with collector roads or State and County road systems. 

† Resource roads. Roads that provide point access to public lands, typically exist for a single use, carry very low traffic 

volumes, and connect with local or collector roads. 

‡ Collector roads. Roads that primarily provide access to large blocks of public land, accommodate multiple uses, have BLM’s 

highest traffic volumes, and connect with State and County road systems. 

The BLM used the total amount of roads—including new road construction projected to occur under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP over the next 10 years—to classify recreation opportunity spectrum 

classes for remoteness. This analysis does not consider the proximity of non-BLM roads located on 

adjacent lands, since they do not aid in the comparison of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

‘Naturalness’ is defined by the level of an area’s influence by human modifications other than roads and 

trails. Human modifications can include areas of development, utilities, rights-of-way, livestock 

structures, fences, habitat treatments, or landscape alternations. Naturalness considers the presence of 

human modifications and how these modifications may, or may not, affect the visitor’s experience. 

Management considerations in this planning process would predominately influence landscape 

alternations through forest and habitat management actions. As such, the BLM’s analysis of naturalness 

uses forest structural stage classes as a proxy to measure changes in recreation opportunity spectrum 

classes for naturalness. Figure 3-121 shows a visual representation of forest structural stage 

classifications for naturalness for the five recreation opportunity spectrum classes with forest stand 

proxies. 
558 | Page

Figure 3-121. Stand visualizations for recreational setting classifications 

Table 3-122 contains the levels of human modification and forest structural stage classes used as proxies 

by recreation opportunity spectrum class for naturalness. 
559 | P a g e

Table 3-122. Level of human modification and forest structural stage class proxies by recreation 

opportunity spectrum class for naturalness 

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Class

Level of Human Modification and

BLM Forest Structural Stage Class Proxies

Primitive  Undisturbed natural landscape

 Structurally-complex with Existing Old or Very Old Forest

Backcountry  Natural-appearing landscape having modifications not readily noticeable

 Mature Single- or Multi-layered Canopy

Middle Country

 Natural-appearing landscape having modifications that do not overpower 

natural features

 Young High Density with Structural Legacies, or Young Low Density 

with or without Structural Legacies

Front Country  Partially modified landscape with more noticeable modifications

 Young High Density without Structural Legacies

Rural  Substantially modified natural landscape

 Stand Establishment with or without Structural Legacies

Urban  Urbanized developments dominate the landscape

The BLM used the amount of timber harvest by type and acres that would occur over the next 10 years to 

analyze the effects to recreation opportunity spectrum classes for naturalness. For example, timber harvest 

that involves thinning dense, young stands would shift the naturalness of an area from the Front Country 

to the Middle Country setting. In contrast, the regeneration harvesting of older stands would modify the 

naturalness of an area from Primitive to Rural. These actions would influence the distribution of 

recreation for visitors who prefer these different settings. 

Background 

The BLM’s Recreation and Visitor Services Program manages recreation resources and visitor services to 

offer the largest benefits possible to individuals and communities and to enable communities to achieve 

their own desired social, economic, and environmental outcomes. The BLM manages recreation resources 

and visitor services primarily through designation of RMAs and their associated managed recreation 

activities, opportunities, and recreation setting characteristics. The BLM policy direction on designation 

of RMAs was revised in 2011 (USDI BLM 2011), and included changes to the designation process of 

RMAs. Current RMAs within the planning area were established under the previous policy direction 

(1981). 

In previous planning efforts, SRMAs were established in accordance with the 1981 BLM policy on BLMadministered lands that were experiencing heavy recreation use or where the BLM planned on making 

large investments in staff, funding, facilities, or time. All remaining BLM-administered lands were 

designated as ERMAs, regardless of whether recreation occurred or was a management objective. 

Under the new policy, the BLM only designates SRMAs where it recognizes recreation management as 

the predominant land use plan focus and where the BLM intends to manage and provide specific 

recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics on a long-term basis. In addition, ERMAs 

are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use 

or demand, but where recreation management is commensurate and considered in context with the 

management of other resources and resource uses. BLM-administered lands that do not meet these policy 

definitions are not identified for recreation or visitor services management. 
560 | P a g e

A majority of the BLM-administered lands in western Oregon are intermingled with private lands. Legal 

public access is often not available where private lands surround BLM-administered lands. In such cases, 

reciprocal right-of-way agreements, easements, and unsecured access rights across adjacent private lands 

all have a determining effect on public access, which, in turn, influence visitor use. This lack of 

comprehensive legal public access constrains the BLM’s ability to manage for recreational opportunities 

on a substantial portion of its lands in western Oregon. See the Trails and Travel Management section in 

this chapter for further discussion about public access within the planning area. 

Affected Environment 

BLM-administered lands in western Oregon offer diverse opportunities for a variety of outdoor recreation 

activities and related benefits. Typical recreation activities on BLM-administered lands include camping, 

hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, public motorized vehicle use, and picnicking. 

Recreation Management Areas 

The BLM currently manages 29 SRMAs in western Oregon that total 201,258 acres, accounting for 8 

percent of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. These 29 SRMAs include landscapes that 

generally encompass more lands than the BLM required for development of recreation sites and services, 

and, as such, it is extremely difficult to compare number and acres of currently designated SRMAs to 

actual acres of recreation sites, trails, or other recreation facilities. Under the 1995 RMPs, the BLM 

identified BLM-administered lands not delineated as a SRMA as ERMAs. In ERMAs, current 

management consists primarily of providing basic information and access. Dispersed recreation occurs in 

ERMAs, and visitors have the freedom of recreational choice with minimal regulatory constraints. 

Recreation issues or management concerns are apparent in ERMAs throughout the planning area where 

limited recreation management is present. These issues are most apparent in ERMAs within the ruralurban interface where increased recreation activities (including off-highway vehicle use and recreational 

target shooting) have led to social and natural resource impacts. The BLM currently manages 14 ERMAs 

in western Oregon totaling 2,277,604 acres, accounting for 92 percent of BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area. 

Recreation Opportunities and Restrictions 

Current SRMA and ERMA designations are consistent with 1981 BLM policy, which was the applicable 

policy at the time of the 1995 RMPs. Under this policy, the BLM identified SRMAs where BLMadministered lands were experiencing heavy recreation use or where the BLM planned to make large 

investments in staff, funding, facilities, or time. All remaining BLM-administered lands were designated 

as an ERMA, regardless of whether recreation occurred or was a management objective. Because of this 

difference, the 1995 RMPs did not designate recreational opportunities or restrictions to lands identified 

as ERMAs and, therefore, there are no recreational opportunities or restrictions identified for ERMAs. As 

such, current managed recreation opportunities and restrictions only apply to the acres designated as 

SRMAs within the planning area (Table 3-123). Because the currently designated 29 SRMAs generally 

encompass more lands than actual acres of recreation sites, trails, or other recreation facilities, the 

identification of total SRMA acres where recreation opportunities are managed and allowed or restricted 

is equally difficult to compare to current BLM recreation management within the planning area. For 

example, the BLM does not actively manage for overnight camping outside of the portion of a SRMA 

that contains the developed campground and associated recreation facilities. As such, the calculations of 

managed and allowed or restricted acres of recreation opportunities are likely overestimates of current 

management. 
561 | P a g e

Table 3-123. Current SRMA acres of managed and allowed, and restricted recreation opportunities within 

the decision area

Recreation Opportunities Managed and Allowed

(Acres)

Restricted

(Acres)

Horseback Riding 199,008 2,250

Hiking 201,258 -

Mountain Bicycling 188,169 13,089

Public Motorized Use 170,127 31,131

Overnight Camping 194,952 6,306

Recreational Target Shooting 172,819 28,439

Note: The BLM can manage, allow, and restrict more than one opportunity within the same RMA, so totals of opportunities 

exceed total acreage. 

Recreation Setting Characteristics 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area currently provide a mix of remoteness and naturalness 

recreation opportunity spectrum classes that provide a variety of recreational opportunities and 

experiences for visitors (Table 3-124). The BLM currently only manages remoteness and naturalness 

characteristics in SRMAs, and does so under management commensurate with other resource 

considerations. 

Table 3-124. Current acres of BLM-managed lands by remoteness and naturalness recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes 

Recreation

Setting

Characteristic

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class

Primitive

(Acres)

Back

Country

(Acres)

Middle

Country

(Acres)

Front

Country

(Acres)

Rural

(Acres)

Urban

(Acres)

Remoteness 5,919 527,206 1,024,296 794,109 146,454

Naturalness 588,776 516,118 178,922 443,170 435,232 -

Environmental Consequences 

Defining adverse or beneficial effects is often subjective for the purposes of recreation and visitor 

services. A management action may be adverse to one individual or user group, while beneficial to 

another individual or user group. Therefore, the BLM does not use the terms adverse or beneficial in this 

analysis without defining the recreation-specific user group. 

Recreation Management Areas

The BLM manages recreation resources and visitor services primarily through designation of RMAs and 

their associated managed recreation activities, opportunities, and recreation setting characteristics. The 

acreage and spatial distribution of RMA types varies under the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, 

C, and D, and the Proposed RMP; thus, varying the provision of BLM-managed recreation opportunities. 

During the development of the 1995 RMPs, the BLM identified the locations of the current SRMAs in 

accordance with the 1981 BLM policy on BLM-administered lands that were experiencing heavy 

recreation use or where the BLM planned to make large investments in staff, funding, facilities, or time. 

All remaining BLM-administered lands were designated as ERMAs, regardless of whether recreation 

occurred or was a management objective. The No Action alternative would manage SRMAs and ERMAs 
562 | P a g e

under the guidance of the 1995 RMPs as written, although this would be inconsistent with current BLM 

policy. The fundamental differences between previous and new BLM policy guidance for both 

identification of SRMAs and ERMAs and their management create a difficulty in being able to compare 

RMAs from the No Action alternative to the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. For the purposes 

of providing a comparison of the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, Alternative B represents an 

approximate continuation of the current recreation opportunities, but consistent with current definitions 

and policy for RMAs. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, western Oregon BLM districts would continue to manage the 29 

SRMAs totaling 201,258 acres and 14 ERMAs totaling 2,277,604 acres under the direction set forth in the 

1995 RMPs and related amendments. While the No Action alternative maintains the designation of the 

largest acres of SRMAs and ERMAs of all the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, their 

management would be greatly different and the representation of large acres does not correlate to a large 

acreage of protected recreation resources or provided recreation management. 

Where current recreation management objectives and direction do not provide adequate management for 

emerging recreation trends and increased visitation, recreational users of all types would likely have 

substantial but localized negative recreation experiences. Recreation management on BLM-administered 

lands would continue under previous policy guidance to be commensurate with the management of other 

resources and resource uses in SRMAs, which could allow other land management actions to result in 

undesired changes to managed recreation sites and associated recreation setting characteristics, managed 

activities, and recreation opportunities. Over time, recreation opportunities would be lost where recreation 

conflicts with other resource uses including forest management, incompatible recreation activities, and 

lands and realty actions. 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would designate 141 SRMAs totaling 20,065 acres (Table 3-125). 

Alternative A would designate SRMAs where existing developed recreation sites or facilities currently 

exist within the planning area, and recreation would be recognized as the predominant land management 

focus within the SRMAs. The BLM would not designate ERMAs within the planning area (Table 3-126). 

In effect, Alternative A places an emphasis on the management and protection of developed recreation 

facilities on BLM-administered lands, which would protect recreation opportunities on less than 1 percent 

of the planning area. 

Table 3-125. Acres of designated Special Recreation Management Areas 

District/

Field Office

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Coos Bay 468 468 468 1,600 1,661

Eugene 104 95 241 8,645 240

Klamath Falls 612 2,691 7,451 23,873 3,306

Medford 17,199 19,782 46,155 48,235 51,164

Roseburg 167 165 2,413 2,413 2,412

Salem 1,515 1,771 2,318 1,927 11,947

Totals 20,065 24,972 59,046 86,693 70,730
563 | P a g e

Table 3-126. Acres of designated Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

District/

Field Office

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Coos Bay - 6,146 14,790 19,758 21,881

Eugene - 20,416 23,971 26,323 23,899

Klamath Falls - 66,779 89,842 192,262 89,337

Medford - 12,283 135,837 219,169 193,651

Roseburg - 6,819 39,083 40,502 18,483

Salem - 26,877 54,248 82,444 73,061

Totals - 139,320 357,771 580,458 420,311

When compared to Alternatives B, C, and D, and the Proposed RMP, Alternative A would designate the 

fewest acres for recreation management and fewest acres of SRMAs. Alternative A would not provide for 

recreation management outside of established SRMAs. This would result in little to no management for 

recreation resources, opportunities, or recreation setting characteristics for intensively visited areas, such 

as motorized and non-motorized trails, that exist outside of these SRMAs. The BLM would reactively 

manage these areas where recreational use resulted in unwanted effects to other resources, and reactive 

management would be subject to the objectives of the landscape and could result in on-the-ground 

management not in favor of continued recreational use. Existing trails and other non-facility recreation 

features would deteriorate over time and could be removed from the landscape in favor of other resource 

uses. 

The BLM’s lack of proactive management of public visitation to high use areas outside of SRMAs in 

Alternative A would create management issues. These include continued private property trespass, public 

motorized vehicle incursion, and route proliferation. The BLM expects visitation within the decision area 

to increase, elevating these issues and leading to the continued decline in both recreation settings and 

environmental resources as the BLM could not provide or manage for additional recreation opportunities. 

Under this alternative, the BLM would provide sufficient management direction to preserve the desired 

physical recreation setting characteristics within SRMAs. These restrictions would restrict or prohibit the 

type of development that would affect these settings and shift the setting characteristics to an undesirable 

setting. This alternative provides the fewest opportunities for managed recreation compared to 

Alternatives B, C, and D, or the Proposed RMP. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would designate 134 SRMAs totaling 24,972 acres and 75 ERMAs totaling 139,320 acres. 

Alternative B would designate SRMAs at currently developed recreation facilities and on lands where 

there are both unique recreation opportunities and where SRMA designation would not conflict with 

sustained-yield timber harvest. This alternative would designate ERMAs where the BLM has developed 

and managed recreation areas, primarily where the BLM has authorized motorized and non-motorized 

trails, and where the BLM currently manages dispersed recreation activities. Alternative B would place an 

emphasis on the management and protection of recreation opportunities on approximately 6 percent of the 

decision area and would allocate less than 1 percent of the decision area as a SRMA to protect the 

management and protection of recreation opportunities as the primary land use focus. 

Under this alternative, the BLM would provide sufficient management direction to preserve the desired 

physical recreation setting characteristics within both SRMAs and ERMAs. These restrictions would 
564 | P a g e

restrict or prohibit the type of development that would affect these settings and shift the setting 

characteristics to an undesirable setting. 

When compared with Alternative A, Alternative B would provide for the protection of the majority of 

existing recreation opportunities, visitor activities, experiences, and outcomes that are currently available 

to visitors of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. Compared to the No Action alternative, 

Alternative B would continue to manage recreation opportunities consistent with current levels, but 

consistent with current definitions and policy for RMAs. Alternative B would also establish allowable use 

activities and restrictions within ERMAs. Limiting incompatible activities and adequately managing 

anticipated increases in visitor use (see Issue 2) would lead to the long-term protection of desired targeted 

recreation setting characteristics. Alternative B provides more managed recreational opportunities than 

Alternative A, but less than Alternatives C and D, and the Proposed RMP. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would designate 139 SRMAs totaling 59,046 acres and 119 ERMAs totaling 357,771 acres. 

Alternative C would designate SRMAs at currently developed recreation facilities, and on lands where 

designation does not conflict with sustained-yield timber harvest. This alternative would designate 

ERMAs where the BLM has developed and currently manages recreation activities outside of developed 

facilities, primarily where the BLM has authorized motorized and non-motorized trails, and where the 

BLM currently manages dispersed recreation activities. Alternative C would also designate SRMAs and 

ERMAs where the BLM is seeking to address activity-specific recreation demand scarcity. Alternative C 

places an emphasis on the management and protection of recreation opportunities on approximately 16 

percent of the decision area. Alternative C would allocate 2 percent of the decision area as an SRMA to 

provide the management and protection of recreation opportunities as the primary land use focus. 

Compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would allocate approximately three times as many acres 

as SRMAs. Alternative C would allocate more acres as ERMA when compared to Alternatives A and B, 

and less when compared with Alternative D. Under this alternative, the BLM would provide sufficient 

management direction to preserve the desired physical recreation setting characteristics within both 

SRMAs and ERMAs. These restrictions would restrict or prohibit the type of development that would 

affect these settings and shift the setting characteristics to an undesirable setting. The BLM assumed that 

increased visitor use (see Issue 2) would result from the increased protection of unique recreation settings 

and the establishment of recreation outcome objectives over RMA levels in Alternatives A and B, but this 

would be less than the protections in Alternative D and the Proposed RMP. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would designate 141 SRMAs totaling 86,693 acres and 143 ERMAs totaling 580,458 acres. 

Alternative D builds off the RMA designations in Alternatives A, B, and C. Alternative D includes 

designation of SRMAs at currently developed recreation facilities, and on lands where designation does 

not conflict with sustained-yield timber harvest. Alternative D would include designation of ERMAs on 

all lands within the decision area where existing recreation use is occurring and the BLM has legal public 

access. In addition, the BLM would designate RMAs where known historic recreation use has occurred; 

and where the BLM seeks to address activity-specific demands. The BLM would designate these to the 

maximum extent possible without precluding sustained-yield timber harvest. 

Alternative D would allocate the largest number of acres as RMAs as when compared to Alternatives A, 

B, and C. Alternative D places an emphasis on the management and protection of recreation opportunities 

on approximately 27 percent of the decision area. Alternative D allocates 3 percent of the decision area as 

a SRMA providing the management and protection of recreation opportunities as the primary land use 
565 | P a g e

focus. The BLM would provide sufficient management direction to preserve the desired physical 

recreation setting characteristics within both SRMAs and ERMAs. These restrictions would restrict or 

prohibit the type of development that would affect these settings and shift the setting characteristics to an 

undesirable setting. The BLM assumed that Alternative D would have the largest increase in visitor use 

(see Issue 2) from the increased protection of unique recreation settings and the establishment of 

recreation outcome objectives when compared to Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP. 

Proposed RMP 

The Proposed RMP would designate a total of 491,042 acres as Recreation Management Areas. This 

includes 116 SRMAs totaling 70,730 acres and 132 ERMAs totaling 420,312 acres. The Proposed RMP 

builds upon the RMA designations that were established across the range of the action alternatives. 

Specifically, the Proposed RMP uses SRMAs and ERMAs identified in Alternative C as a baseline, 

refining them to address resource consistency with the Proposed RMP land use allocations and resource 

management needs, and to incorporate unique opportunities for activity-specific demands within the 

planning area. A listing of SRMAs and ERMAs by district, RMA type, and associated acreage for the 

action alternatives and the Proposed RMP can be found in Appendix O. 

When compared with Alternatives A, B, and C, the Proposed RMP would provide for the protection of 

the majority of existing recreation opportunities, visitor activities, experiences, and outcomes that are 

currently available to visitors of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. The Proposed RMP 

would also establish additional RMAs across the planning area to account for increased recreation use 

levels and the protection of unique settings and activity specific recreation opportunities. The total acres 

designated to recreation management under the Proposed RMP are higher when compared to Alternatives 

A, B, and C, but less than Alternative D. 

The BLM assumed that increased visitor use (see Issue 2) would result from the protection of these 

unique recreation settings and the establishment of recreation outcome objectives on the 491,042 acres. 

Compared to Alternatives A, B, and C, the Proposed RMP would establish a greater amount of activityspecific recreation restrictions by establishing allowable use activities within both SRMAs and ERMAs. 

Limiting incompatible activities and adequately managing anticipated increases in visitor use would lead 

to the long-term protection of desired targeted recreation setting characteristics and recreation outcomes. 

Recreation Opportunities and Restrictions 

The BLM manages for or allows specific recreation activities within RMAs in order to create and sustain 

high-quality recreation opportunities, to achieve desired recreation conditions, or to protect recreation 

setting characteristics. Managing for, or allowing, specific recreation activities within SRMAs and 

ERMAs ensures that investments in recreation facilities are as efficient and effective as possible, and help 

to provide for public safety. Many SRMAs and ERMAs, are managed for specific recreational uses or 

opportunities, but allow other recreational uses that do not present conflicts for the primary recreational 

opportunities the BLM manages at the site. 

Table 3-127 identifies the acres by alternative and the Proposed RMP within SRMAs and ERMAs where 

the BLM manages and allows each type of activity. 
566 | P a g e

Table 3-127. RMA acres of managed and allowed recreation opportunities within the decision area 

Recreation Opportunities No Action

(Acres)*

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Horseback Riding 199,008 19,017 155,480 367,402 603,530 459,939

Hiking 201,258 20,065 162,796 381,671 625,203 489,884

Mountain Bicycling 188,169 18,817 150,494 359,326 591,748 406,134

Public Motorized Use 170,127 2,551 104,148 329,594 561,685 452,728

Overnight Camping 194,952 19,235 146,301 356,611 600,539 458,652

Recreational Target Shooting 172,819 1,829 122,627 350,409 531,687 326,289

Note: The BLM can manage for and allow more than one opportunity within the same RMA, so totals of managed and allowed 

opportunities exceed total acreage. 

* Because the currently designated 29 SRMAs generally encompass more lands than actual acres of recreation sites, trails, or 

other recreation facilities, the identification of total SRMA acres where recreation opportunities are managed and allowed is 

equally difficult to compare to current BLM recreation management within the planning area or compare against the action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Under the action alternatives, the acres where the BLM would manage for specific recreation activities 

increase progressively from Alternatives A–D. The acres targeted for specific recreation activities under 

the No Action alternative are larger than Alternative A and less than those acres identified in Alternative 

B. The acres targeted for specific recreation activities under the Proposed RMP are larger than Alternative 

C and less than those acres identified in Alternative D. 

For all areas, the BLM considered the potential for increases or decreases in conflict between 

recreationists from recreation management actions, opportunities, and restrictions. Recreational conflict 

occurs when incompatible activities take place in the same area, or when certain types of recreational use 

could result in unwanted impacts to other resources. Certain activities interfere with the experience 

expectations of other recreational users (Marcouiller et al. 2008). For example, a hiker with the 

expectation of a quiet experience that encounters an OHV on a trail might consider the encounter as a 

conflict. The presence of an OHV interferes with the expectation of a quiet outing. Conflict among 

recreational users is generally asymmetrical; that is, one user might perceive there is a conflict while 

another user might not perceive there is a conflict (Jackson and Wong 1982). The BLM manages these 

potential conflicts by applying restrictions on certain recreation activities. In some cases, this results in 

seasonal restrictions, but can also result in prohibition of the recreational activity within the SRMA or 

ERMA if necessary. Restrictions of certain activities would preclude the opportunities for these activities 

on BLM-administered lands. Table 3-128 identifies the acres by alternative and the Proposed RMP 

within SRMAs and ERMAs where activity-specific recreation restrictions occur. 
567 | P a g e

Table 3-128. RMA acres of restricted recreation opportunities within the decision area 

Recreation Opportunities No Action

(Acres)*

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Horseback Riding 2,250 1,048 8,828 49,414 63,620 31,102

Hiking - - 1,511† 35,144

(2,924†)

41,907

(2,924†)

1,157†

Mountain Bicycling 13,089 1,248 13,814 57,490 75,402 84,907

Public Motorized Use 31,131 17,514 60,144 87,223 105,466 38,313

Overnight Camping 6,306 829 18,006 60,205 66,611 32,389

Recreational Target Shooting 28,439 18,236 41,681 66,407 135,464 164,752

* Because the currently designated 29 SRMAs generally encompass more lands than actual acres of recreation sites, trails, or 

other recreation facilities, the identification of total SRMA acres where recreation opportunities are restricted is equally difficult 

to compare to current BLM recreation management within the planning area or compare against the action alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. 

† Acres of the total shown for restricted hiking acres would have seasonal restrictions applied to the trail systems. All other acre 

restrictions would prohibit or otherwise set conditions for year-round hiking. 

Note: The BLM can restrict more than one opportunity within the same RMA, so totals of restricted opportunities exceed total 

acreage. 

Under the No Action alternative, all action alternatives, and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would restrict 

recreation opportunities at levels shown in Table 3-128 to protect resources, reduce recreation conflicts, 

and provide for public safety. Under the action alternatives, the acres where specific recreation activities 

the BLM would manage for or allow increase progressively in Alternatives A–D. The acres targeted for 

specific recreation activities under the No Action alternative are larger than Alternative A and less than 

those acres identified in Alternative B. The acres targeted for specific recreation activities under the 

Proposed RMP vary in their comparative levels to the action alternatives depending on the recreation 

opportunity. 

Recreation Setting Characteristics 

As explained in the Analytical Methods section, the BLM has focused the discussion of effects to 

recreation setting characteristics to the discussion of remoteness and naturalness and how the alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP would change the existing recreation opportunity spectrum for these recreation 

setting characteristics. 

Timber management actions that require new road construction would affect the recreation opportunity 

spectrum class for the remoteness of an area. Increasing the amount or improving the type of access into 

an area can change distance zones, thus changing the recreation opportunity class, and lead to higher 

levels of certain types of use. New road construction for timber harvest under each alternative and the 

Proposed RMP would only require small increases in additional local and resource roads. The BLM 

anticipates changes to remoteness recreation opportunity spectrum classes from estimated road 

construction would be localized and minor when considered at the planning-area scale. However, these 

minor changes cannot be modeled or shown because new road construction is only projected numerically 

and not mapped spatially. So even though estimated miles of new road construction may be calculated, 

there is no way to determine where new construction would occur and if it would increase or decrease 

acres in a given recreation opportunity spectrum class for remoteness. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, there would be localized effects to the variety of 

recreational opportunities that exist on BLM-administered lands when considering recreation opportunity 
568 | P a g e

spectrum classes for remoteness. The BLM used forest structural stage classes as a proxy (Table 3-122) 

to measure changes in recreation opportunity spectrum classes for naturalness for all classes excepting 

urban, which would not contain forested components and would not change based upon BLM 

management. 

Table 3-129 shows the acres of BLM-administered lands in each of the five classes of recreation 

opportunity spectrum for naturalness. 

Table 3-129. Acres of BLM-administered lands by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes for 

naturalness 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class

Primitive 

(Acres)

Back Country 

(Acres)

Middle Country 

(Acres)

Front Country 

(Acres)

Rural

(Acres)

No Action 649,799 692,016 161,105 389,069 270,236

Alt. A 627,043 623,388 156,681 396,966 357,621

Alt. B 621,105 617,535 161,534 427,101 334,424

Alt. C 590,837 566,186 149,499 414,083 441,094

Alt. D 629,097 659,078 162,275 398,293 312,956

PRMP 616,678 612,852 164,791 425,527 341,851

Although some localized effects would occur within each of these five recreation opportunity spectrum 

classes, none of the changes would be measurable enough to influence visitor use patterns that are 

associated with any single recreation activity within the decision area. As a result, all alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP would continue to maintain a mix of naturalness recreation opportunity spectrum classes 

that provide a variety of recreational opportunities and experiences for visitors. These minor changes in 

naturalness recreation opportunity spectrum classes for each alternative and the Proposed RMP cannot be 

modeled or shown because timber harvest is only projected numerically and not mapped spatially. So 

even though estimated acres of timber harvest may be calculated, there is no way to determine where 

harvest would occur and if it would increase or decrease acres in a given recreation opportunity spectrum 

class for remoteness. 

Effects from the Management of Other Resources 

The management of other resources would affect recreation and visitor services. Forest management, 

lands and realty actions, special designations, and mineral resource development would have both shortterm and long-term effects to localized recreation opportunities. Some land management actions, such as 

timber harvest and wildland fire and fuels management, would change landscapes, or result in temporary 

closures within and surrounding RMAs. Other land management actions, such as protections of ESAlisted species or sensitive resources, would not alter the landscapes, but could result in changes to access 

or even result in interpretive educational opportunities. Other actions, such as special area designations 

like Wild and Scenic rivers or National Trails, would usually identify those areas as valuable for a variety 

of recreation activities, and result in benefits to the focus recreation opportunities, which typically include 

low-impact opportunities such as wildlife viewing or hiking. 

Land management decisions associated with the issuance of a right-of-way could result in permanent 

changes to recreation opportunities within the planning area. Construction of new roads or development 

on lands adjacent to BLM-administered lands can change the physical recreation setting characteristics of 

naturalness and remoteness, or effect developed recreation sites and trails, depending on the location of 

roads or development. 
569 | P a g e

The BLM designates right-of-way avoidance or exclusion areas to protect resources from these types of 

unwanted actions. See the Lands and Realty section in this chapter for further explanation of rights-ofway, and avoidance and exclusion areas. All alternatives and the Proposed RMP result in some 

protections to RMAs from right-of-way exclusion or avoidance (Table 3-130). Alternatives C and D, and 

the Proposed RMP would have the most acres in both right-of-way avoidance areas and right-of-way 

exclusion areas. 

Table 3-130. Right-of-way avoidance areas and right-of-way exclusion areas within RMAs 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

ROW Avoidance Area

(Acres)

ROW Exclusion Area

(Acres)

No Action 8,207 1,321

Alt. A 18,543 7,075

Alt. B 38,731 14,754

Alt. C 416,617 17,010

Alt. D 666,862 12,140

PRMP 390,080 100,892

Issue 2 

How would the alternatives affect the types and levels of BLM-provided recreation supply and demand 

across western Oregon?

Summary of Analytical Methods 

This analysis considered the effect of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on recreation supply and 

demand specific to motorized and non-motorized trail use. See the Socioeconomics section of this chapter 

for discussions on the overall and more general recreation supply and demand within the planning area. 

The BLM estimated recreation demand by considering the estimated number of visitors projected to 

participate in a particular recreation opportunity over the next 10 years and beyond. The BLM measured 

recreation demand in two ways: (1) total number of visitors per year, and (2) total number of participants 

by 13 primary recreation activity categories. Because a single visitor usually participates in more than one 

activity, the number of participants is generally higher than the number of actual visitors. Since visitor use 

patterns are difficult to estimate and dependent on many factors beyond the scope of management (e.g., 

recreation trends and economy) only qualitative language is used to describe anticipated effects on 

visitation. 

This recreation demand assessment considers the market area or ‘visitation range’ where the majority of 

the current or potential visitors are likely to reside. The BLM selected 12 population centers within the 

planning area to serve as study communities for this analysis. The BLM conducted a recreation demand 

analysis throughout the planning area in 2013–2014.86 This analysis focused on proximity to user 

populations as well as both scarcity and demand for recreation opportunities. A number of factors 

influence the demand for outdoor recreation in western Oregon. This analysis examined recreation 

context, supply, and demand drivers, and is incorporated here by reference (ECONorthwest, April 2015). 

 

86 ECONorthwest, an economics, planning, and financial consulting firm, conducted the recreation demand analysis 

under contract from the BLM.
570 | P a g e

Since visitor use patterns are difficult to estimate and are dependent on many factors beyond the scope of 

management, such as recreational trends and the economy, the BLM only used qualitative language to 

describe anticipated effects on visitation. 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014b, pp. 109–114).

Background 

BLM-administered lands are not the sole provider of recreational settings and opportunities in western 

Oregon, and many additional opportunities exist on other Federal, State, and County lands throughout the 

planning area. Other recreation-tourism markets also affect the amount of use on BLM-administered 

lands. An estimated 18 percent of all outdoor recreation participation in western Oregon occurs on BLMadministered lands (USDI BLM 2014a). For comparison purposes, BLM-administered lands account for 

12 percent of all lands within the planning area. Recreation visitors to the planning area come from three 

primary sources: national and international locations, major metropolitan areas, and local communities. 

As part of its 2010 revision of the Resources Planning Act Assessment, the U.S. Forest Service developed 

national projections of participation for 17 outdoor recreation activities through 2060 (Bowker et al.

2012). These projections take into account various scenarios of climate change based on the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios, population and income growth, and land 

use change. The BLM applied these projections to each of the 13 relevant BLM recreation categories, 

using the base scenario (A1B, corresponding to mid-range population growth and the highest average 

personal and household income level of the 3 IPCC scenarios). These participation trends are consistent 

with those observed over the last few decades in Oregon (Hall et al. 2009).

Table 3-131 and Figure 3-122 provide the current level of participation for the 13 primary recreation 

activities on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, the annual rate of change to participation for 

each activity (based on statewide trends), and their projected levels by the year 2060. 
571 | P a g e

Table 3-131. Current and projected levels of participation by recreation activity within the planning area 

from 2012 to 2060 

BLM Recreation 

Categories

Current

Number of

Participants

(2012)

Projected Number of Participants

(By End of Decade)

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Wildlife Viewing, 

Interpretation, and Nature 

Study

2,564,574 2,810,926 3,149,289 3,456,865 3,751,811 4,056,276

Driving for Pleasure 

(Along Designated BLM 

Roadways)

1,959,729 2,140,696 2,388,704 2,610,605 2,819,454 3,033,896

Camping and Picnicking 1,273,349 1,389,106 1,548,035 1,689,978 1,822,216 1,956,881

Non-motorized Travel 

(Hiking, Biking, and 

Horseback Riding)

1,211,201 1,334,041 1,499,867 1,666,874 1,841,117 2,031,541

Hunting (Big Game, 

Upland Game, and 

Migratory Game Birds)

1,063,709 1,111,142 1,159,767 1,197,012 1,232,188 1,270,468

Motorized Off-highway 

Vehicle Travel

826,256 887,031 955,996 1,035,266 1,128,804 1,238,989

Fishing 598,420 645,558 706,223 760,591 814,388 872,763

Specialized Nonmotorized Activities and 

Events

458,870 501,333 559,264 612,440 663,431 716,455

Swimming and Other 

Water-based Activities 424,376 467,997 526,296 583,388 640,883 701,192

Non-motorized Boating 224,876 242,296 262,362 286,958 315,870 349,744

Motorized Boating 97,622 107,563 119,936 133,508 149,019 167,485

Non-motorized Winter 

Activities 50,444 56,687 64,711 73,679 84,205 97,138

Snowmobile and other 

Motorized Winter 

Activities

6,903 7,428 7,998 8,734 9,629 10,697

Total All Activities 10,760,329 11,701,804 12,948,448 14,115,898 15,273,015 16,503,525
572 | P a g e

Figure 3-122. Projected levels of change by recreation activity within the planning area from 2012–2060 

The BLM evaluated activity-specific recreation demand for 12 population centers within the planning 

area, achieving a wide spatial coverage and capturing a majority of the area’s population (Figure 3-123). 

Table 3-132 provides a summary of 2,262 responses to the 2012–2013 interactive BLM website that 

solicited public input from the 12 selected study communities. Results show community level and activity 

specific recreation demand preferences for 16 distinct recreation activities across the 12 population 

centers in western Oregon. 

+1.0%

+0.9%

+0.9%

+1.1%

+0.4%

+0.8%

+0.8%

+0.9%

+1.1%

+0.9%

+1.1%

+1.4%

+0.9%

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, & Nature Study

Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM Roads)

Camping/Picnicking

Non-motorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, & Horseback)

Hunting (Big/Upland Game, Migratory Game Birds)

Motorized Off-highway Vehicle Travel

Fishing

Specialized Non-motorized Activities & Events

Swimming & Other Water-based Activities

Non-motorized Boating

Motorized Boating

Non-motorized Winter Activities

Snowmobile & Other Motorized Winter Activities

Recreation Participation (+ Percent Average Annual Rate of Change, 2012–2060)

2012 2060
573 | Page

Figure 3-123. Population centers within the planning area 
574 | P a g e

Table 3-132. Activity-specific recreation demand for western Oregon communities 

Recreation Activity

Percentage of Activities in Each Community

Coos BayCorvallisEugeneGrants PassMcMinnvilleMedfordNewbergPortlandRoseburgSalemSandyTillamook

Nature Viewing 4% 3% 6% 2% 7% 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3%

Non-motorized Trails 6% 5% 6% 11% 4% 12% 4% 5% 5% 8% 6% 5%

Water Trail - 1% - - - - - 1% - - 1% 1%

Hiking 2% 6% 6% 9% 7% 8% 2% 1% 6% 5% 6% 4%

Mountain Biking 17% 34% 29% 17% 18% 16% 21% 37% 14% 23% 27% 19%

Horseback Riding 1% 3% 5% 7% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 7% 5% 3%

Motorized OHV Travel 48% 19% 25% 29% 28% 31% 29% 21% 43% 26% 30% 25%

Hunting-Fishing 4% 6% 9% 3% 5% 2% 5% 4% 6% 7% 4% 7%

Camping-Picnicking 2% 2% 3% 3% 7% 2% 4% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2%

Hang GlidingParagliding 10% 8% 4% 10% 11% 11% 20% 13% 4% 4% 6% 22%

Recreational Target 

Shooting 2% 5% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4% 4% 1% 7% 4% 2%

Gold PanningDredging 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1%

River Recreation 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 1% 2% 2% 2% - 2% 2%

Rock Hounding 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% - 2% 1% 1% 1% 2%

Rock Climbing - 1% 1% 1% - 1% - 1% 6% - 2% -

Winter Activities - - 1% 1% 1% 6% - 1% 1% 2% 1% 2%

Affected Environment 

Applying travel time distances from the 12 study communities in western Oregon (Figure 3-124) reveals 

the portions of BLM-administered lands that can be accessed relatively easily for recreational activities. 
575 | Page

Figure 3-124. Thirty- and sixty-minute driving times from the 12 western Oregon study communities and 

population center size 

Population centers and access tend to drive demand for outdoor recreation opportunities. The northern 

Willamette Valley is the most heavily populated portion of the region, dominated by the Portland Metro 

Area (Figure 3-125). Recreation opportunities within proximity to these population centers experience 

the most demand, and consequently have the potential to provide the most value, when they provide the 

types of recreation of interest. While access is often quite difficult through rugged and mountainous areas, 

the majority of BLM-administered lands within the planning area are within 50 miles of one of the 12 

population centers the BLM has used as a study community (Figure 3-124). 
576 | Page

Figure 3-125. Western Oregon population density 

Motorized and Non-Motorized Supply and Demand 

Self-reported participation on the BLM’s interactive mapping site revealed differences in outdoor 

recreation as a function of both supply opportunities and demand preferences. Currently, trail use 

accounts for 69 percent of the identified demand within the planning area (Table 3-132). Among 

respondents, motorized trail use is slightly greater than non-motorized trail use in the Coos Bay and 

Roseburg communities, while the opposite holds true for respondents in the rest of the study 

communities. 

Hiking Trails 

The availability of all identifiable non-motorized hiking trails (BLM and non-BLM) within a 30-minute 

and 60-minute drive of the study communities varies, with Sandy having the most trail miles available 

within both the 30-minute and 60-minute driving distances (Table 3-133 and Table 3-134) Based on the 
577 | P a g e

available trail data, accessible hiking trails are generally scarcer for Coos Bay and Tillamook than the 

other communities are when looking at a 60-minute driving distance.

Table 3-133. Supply and demand for hiking trails within a 30-minute driving distance from study 

communities 

Community Community

Participation Rate

Local User

Population

Trail

Miles

Trail Miles

Per User

Coos Bay 40% 21,353 51 0.0024

Corvallis 54% 108,473 300 0.0028

Eugene 47% 160,078 73 0.0005

Grants Pass 46% 55,592 345 0.0062

McMinnville 46% 56,994 30 0.0005

Medford 47% 85,002 437 0.0051

Newberg 46% 236,095 187 0.0008

Portland 55% 773,649 298 0.0004

Roseburg 41% 39,120 66 0.0017

Salem 50% 213,239 326 0.0015

Sandy 45% 177,305 1,528 0.0086

Tillamook 34% 8,366 111 0.0133

1st Quartile 44% 51,474 72 0.0007

Median 46% 96,737 242 0.0020

2nd Quartile 48% 186,289 330 0.0054

Table 3-134. Supply and demand for hiking trails within a 60-minute driving distance from study 

communities 

Community Community

Participation Rate

Local User

Population

Trail

Miles

Trail Miles

Per User

Coos Bay 40% 32,674 157 0.0048

Corvallis 54% 498,958 443 0.0009

Eugene 47% 305,863 846 0.0028

Grants Pass 46% 150,993 1,162 0.0077

McMinnville 46% 760,939 641 0.0008

Medford 47% 137,371 512 0.0037

Newberg 46% 963,756 901 0.0009

Portland 55% 1,136,424 2,142 0.0019

Roseburg 41% 73,796 859 0.0116

Salem 50% 937,711 928 0.0010

Sandy 45% 704,886 2,800 0.0040

Tillamook 34% 26,923 269 0.0100

1st Quartile 44% 121,477 495 0.0010

Median 46% 402,411 853 0.0032

2nd Quartile 48% 805,132 986 0.0055
578 | P a g e

Hiking trail miles per capita with respect to the local residential population within 30 minutes is lowest 

for Portland, followed by Eugene and McMinnville. At the 60-minute radius, McMinnville, Newberg, 

Corvallis, and Salem have the fewest hiking trail miles with respect to population. When available trail 

miles per capita for these communities are low increased visitor interactions can be expected to degrade 

the user experience near in these areas. 

Mountain Bike Trails 

The availability of all identifiable mountain bike trails (BLM and non-BLM) within 30-minute and 60-

minute driving distance of the study communities varies, with Corvallis having the most trail miles 

available within 30 minutes and Sandy having the most trail miles available within 60 minutes (Table 3-

135 and Table 3-136). Based on the available trail data, mountain bike trails are generally scarcer for 

Salem and Tillamook than other communities are when looking at a 30-minute drive. 

Table 3-135. Supply and demand for mountain bike trails within a 30-minute driving distance from study 

communities 

Community Community

Participation Rate

Local User

Population

Trail

Miles

Trail Miles

Per User

Coos Bay 11% 5,716 30 0.0052

Corvallis 17% 34,276 183 0.0053

Eugene 11% 36,811 11 0.0003

Grants Pass 10% 11,990 56 0.0047

McMinnville 9% 11,698 27 0.0023

Medford 14% 25,988 16 0.0006

Newberg 9% 48,456 42 0.0009

Portland 11% 159,198 47 0.0003

Roseburg 9% 8,554 15 0.0018

Salem 12% 50,348 9 0.0002

Sandy 7% 26,005 79 0.0030

Tillamook 11% 2,651 8 0.0030

1st Quartile 9% 10,912 14 0.0005

Median 11% 25,996 29 0.0020

2nd Quartile 12% 39,723 49 0.0035
579 | P a g e

Table 3-136. Supply and demand for mountain bike trails within a 60-minute driving distance from study 

communities 

Community Community

Participation Rate

Local User

Population

Trail

Miles

Trail Miles

Per User

Coos Bay 11% 8,746 42 0.0048

Corvallis 17% 157,663 193 0.0012

Eugene 11% 70,336 284 0.0040

Grants Pass 10% 32,567 155 0.0048

McMinnville 9% 156,175 187 0.0012

Medford 14% 41,999 221 0.0053

Newberg 9% 197,801 202 0.0010

Portland 11% 233,849 225 0.0010

Roseburg 9% 16,137 147 0.0091

Salem 12% 221,404 170 0.0008

Sandy 7% 103,383 280 0.0027

Tillamook 11% 8,531 244 0.0286

1st Quartile 9% 28,460 166 0.0012

Median 11% 86,859 197 0.0034

2nd Quartile 12% 167,698 230 0.0049

Mountain bike trails per capita with respect to the local residential population within 30 minutes is lowest 

for Salem followed by Portland and Eugene. At the 60-minute radius, Salem, Newberg, and Portland have 

the fewest mountain bike trails with respect to population. 

Off-highway Vehicle Trails 

The availability of all identifiable OHV trails (BLM and non-BLM) within 30-minute and 60-minute 

driving time of the study communities varies, with Grants Pass having the most trail miles available 

within both a 30-minute and 60-minute drive (Table 3-137 and Table 3-138). Based on the available trail 

data, OHV trails are negligible for Eugene and Portland when looking at 30-minute driving distances. 
580 | P a g e

Table 3-137. Supply and demand for OHV trails within a 30-minute driving distance from study 

communities 

Community Community

Participation Rate

Local User

Population

Trail

Miles

Trail Miles

Per User

Coos Bay 29% 15,853 51* 0.0032

Corvallis 10% 19,356 21 0.0011

Eugene 6% 19,925 34 0.0017

Grants Pass 10% 12,354 177 0.0143

McMinnville 11% 13,440 58 0.0043

Medford 10% 18,589 89 0.0048

Newberg 11% 55,673 58 0.0010

Portland 2% 20,947 - -

Roseburg 19% 18,551 53 0.0028

Salem 11% 44,848 2 0.0000

Sandy 9% 34,673 80 0.0023

Tillamook 16% 3,989 58 0.0146

1st Quartile 9% 15,250 31 0.0020

Median 10% 18,972 55 0.0029

2nd Quartile 12% 24,379 64 0.0026

* Trail miles shown for Coos Bay reflect designated and user-created trail miles found within the Oregon Dunes National 

Recreation Area. These trail miles under-represent the supply available for this geographic area, since there are more than 6,000 

acres of open riding available within the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. 

Table 3-138. Supply and demand for OHV trails within a 60-minute driving distances from study 

communities 

Community Community

Participation Rate

Local User

Population

Trail

Miles

Trail Miles

Per User

Coos Bay 29% 24,258 175* 0.0072

Corvallis 10% 89,033 22 0.0002

Eugene 6% 38,072 35 0.0009

Grants Pass 10% 33,554 653 0.0194

McMinnville 11% 179,435 124 0.0007

Medford 10% 30,041 278 0.0093

Newberg 11% 227,261 150 0.0007

Portland 2% 30,770 168 0.0054

Roseburg 19% 34,994 243 0.0069

Salem 11% 197,21 119 0.0006

Sandy 9% 137,844 162 0.0012

Tillamook 16% 12,835 78 0.0061

1st Quartile 9% 30,587 109 0.0036

Median 10% 36,533 156 0.0043

2nd Quartile 12% 148,242 192 0.0013

* Trail miles shown for Coos Bay include 51 designated and user-created trail miles found within the Oregon Dunes National 

Recreation Area. These trail miles under-represent the supply available for this geographic area, since there are more than 6,000 

acres of open riding available within the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area.
581 | P a g e

Off-highway vehicle trails per capita with respect to the local residential population within 30 minutes are 

lowest for Eugene and Portland. At the 60-minute radius, Eugene, Corvallis, and Salem have the fewest 

OHV trails with respect to population. 

Environmental Consequences 

The BLM focused on the 12 population centers within the planning area to serve as study communities 

when evaluating effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP to recreation supply and demand. The 

BLM focuses discussions here on recreation demand for trails, as this accounts for 69 percent of the 

identified demand within the planning area (Table 3-132). As such, this analysis focuses on trails in 

general87 and RMAs that target popular trail based activities within the planning area, specifically hiking, 

mountain biking, and riding OHVs. See the Socioeconomics section of this chapter for further discussion 

of more general recreation demand within the planning area. 

Individual RMAs do not identify total miles of trail per area, but extrapolating from available trail miles 

per acre under current conditions allows an approximation of the number of trail miles that would be 

available under each alternative and the Proposed RMP. Currently there are approximately 395 miles of 

trails on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, which could increase to the highest levels at 1,734 

miles under the Proposed RMP and to 2,037 miles under Alternative D (Table 3-139). 

Table 3-139. Potential RMA trail miles 

District/

Field Office

No Action 

(Miles)

Alt. A 

(Miles)

Alt. B 

(Miles)

Alt. C 

(Miles)

Alt. D 

(Miles)

PRMP 

(Miles)

Coos Bay 35 2 35 81 114 125

Eugene 46 - 46 54 78 54

Klamath Falls 29 - 29 42 92 40

Medford 146 79 146 831 1,221 1,103

Roseburg 39 1 39 230 238 116

Salem 100 5 100 197 294 296

Totals 395 88 395 1,435 2,037 1,734

No Action Alternative 

Existing developed recreation sites would often meet the current level of recreation demand in the 

planning area. However, the anticipated increase in recreation could result in the demand for additional or 

expanded recreation sites and trail systems because of user conflicts and degraded recreation experiences. 

Existing motorized and non-motorized trails within the decision area would continue to attract users, but a 

need to manage trail systems commensurate with other resources and resource uses within the planning 

area would limit effective management and allow for increased conflict between recreation and 

competing uses along both motorized and non-motorized trails. Seasonal crowding at certain developed 

sites (e.g., Fishermen’s Bend and Sandy Ridge Trail System) would affect user enjoyment of the area 

because use exceeds management capability. While expansion of existing sites or development of new 

 

87 Data sources for trail miles within 30- and 60-minute driving distances were sourced from – AllTrails (hiking and 

OHV), Singletracks and MTB Project (mountain biking), and RiderPlanet USA (OHV) (ECONorthwest 2015). 
582 | P a g e

sites to address crowding would be considered, it would only occur where it would be commensurate with 

other resources and resource uses within the planning area. 

Action Alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

Overall, the alternatives and the Proposed RMP increase RMA acreage progressively from Alternative A 

through D with the Proposed RMP providing the second highest number of acres, although the changes in 

RMA acreage do not follow consistent patterns for all of the identified communities. Recreation 

opportunities that are close to population centers experience the most participants and visitor-days, and 

consequently result in the highest value for residents within the 12 study communities. 

In terms of proximity to the 12 study communities, the overall acreage accessible within 30-minute and 

60-minute driving distances under each alternative and the Proposed RMP track with their overall RMA 

acreage. The study communities with the least existing non-motorized and motorized trail miles within 

30-minute proximities for the various recreation activities see some improvement under the Proposed 

RMP and Alternative D, while other study communities with little trail mileage within 30-minutes would 

see substantial increase in total RMA acreage (including non-trail) under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative D (Table 3-133). Moving out from 30- to 60-minute driving distances increase the recreation 

area acreage by more than double, and increases to five- or six-fold under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative D. While all communities would see increased total RMA acreage progressively in 

Alternatives A–D, the Grants Pass and Medford communities would experience the highest increase in 

RMA acreage under the Proposed RMP and Alternative D. 

Recreation Participation Changes 

This analysis includes estimates of changes in outdoor recreation participation based on different levels of 

outdoor recreation opportunities in the form of RMA total acreage by alternative and the Proposed RMP. 

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS includes estimates of participation based on elasticity of demand (i.e., 

demand responsiveness) estimates derived from data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau as part of the 

American Time Use Survey sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is, as the quantity of 

available RMA acreage increases, there is some proportionate increase in participation based on existing 

levels. The BLM applied outdoor recreation visitor day and visit forecasts to these estimated changes in 

participation that would occur under each alternative and the Proposed RMP. See Appendix P for more 

detail on the methods for estimating and applying demand elasticity.

The BLM applied changes in demand resulting from differing quantities of RMA acreage to provide a 

breakdown by district and local vs. non-local participation. The BLM does not directly measure local vs. 

non-local recreation participation. Local and non-local breakdowns for these analyses are based on 

proportions observed for the nearest U.S. Forest Service lands, which does measure the breakdown. The 

BLM applied the general forecasts for trends in future outdoor recreation participation to all alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP as a multiplier on the demand effects of increases in RMA acreage. These demand 

analyses do not include any consideration of changes in quality of RMAs. To this extent, any 

improvements in RMA quality that would occur and would be likely to increase participation are not 

included and corresponding participation estimates would likely be underestimates. 

Table 3-140 displays the change in recreation visitation that would result from an increase in designated 

RMA acreage by alternative and the Proposed RMP with full implementation in 2062. 
583 | P a g e

Table 3-140. Recreation visitation estimates with full implementation in 2062 

District/

Field Office

No Action

(Visits)

Alt. A

(Visits)

Alt. B

(Visits)

Alt. C

(Visits)

Alt. D

(Visits)

PRMP

(Visits)

Coos Bay 909,878 760,199 909,878 1,119,515 1,267,736 1,320,747

Eugene 1,433,945 1,181,424 1,433,945 1,479,730 1,612,827 1,478,836

Klamath Falls 191,562 157,954 191,562 206,216 265,531 203,895

Medford 1,750,602 1,606,946 1,750,602 3,199,395 4,024,774 3,774,585

Roseburg 1,501,923 1,242,401 1,501,923 2,815,480 2,869,646 2,031,426

Salem 2,318,837 1,930,109 2,318,837 2,718,855 3,117,211 3,126,341

Totals 8,106,746 6,879,033 8,106,746 11,539,191 13,157,726 11,935,831

The changes in recreation visitation resulting from differing quantities of RMA acreage increases 

proportionately from Alternatives A to D. Recreation visitation for the Proposed RMP would be higher 

than Alternatives A, B, and C and less than Alternative D. 

Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail 

How would BLM management affect significant caves? 

The Federal Caves Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 4301) defines a cave as significant if it meets at 

least one of the following criteria: size, mineral formations, endemic or other unusual species or 

subspecies, seasonally important habitat for non-endemic species or subspecies, archaeological or 

paleontological site, historical or religious significance, hydrologic connectivity to other caves or springs, 

unusual geologic strata or processes, recreationally important, or pristine in that human contact has been 

minimal or nonexistent. 

The BLM has designated five caves within the decision area as significant under this Act. All of these 

caves are in the Medford District: three in the Grants Pass Field Office and two in the Butte Falls Field 

Office. The size and extent of these caves are unknown. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would continue to apply current management to 

protect the resources associated with these caves and protect visitor safety. All alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP would maintain conditions at significant caves, and there would be no meaningful 

difference among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

How would BLM management affect public health and safety at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS)? 

The decision area includes a portion of one Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS): the Modoc Aerial 

Gunnery and Bombing Range (Modoc Range), which is located in Modoc County, California, and 

Klamath and Lake Counties, Oregon. The estimated acreage of the Modoc Range varies depending on the 

source of the information, but it covers between 623,328 and 2,872,000 acres in southern Oregon and 

northern California, most of which is outside of the planning area. The Modoc Range was constructed by 

the U.S. Navy in the 13th Naval District during World War II. Prior to the 13th Naval District operations at 

the site, the predominant land use was agricultural for forestry and livestock grazing. The Modoc Range 

was associated with the Naval Air Station, in Klamath Falls, and was used as a practice area for aerial 

gunnery, bombing, and strafing. Currently, the majority of the land comprising the Modoc Range is 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the 

BLM, and is mostly used for recreational purposes. 
584 | P a g e

The Army Corps of Engineers Modoc Aerial Gunnery and Bombing Range Site Inspection Report (2009) 

indicates that the BLM has two Munitions Response Sites within the planning area, which are potentially 

affected with munitions and explosives of concern. These sites were Navy bomb target areas that may 

present an explosive risk. The affected BLM-administered lands are located at two recreation sites: 

Gerber Lake Reservoir (937 acres) and Willow Valley Lake (649 acres). These lakes were used as 

practice bombing targets for approximately 15 months in the 1940s, with targets set at the center of the 

lakes. Munitions debris (i.e., non-explosive remnants) from practice bombs have been found on the shores 

of the lakes and on an island in Gerber Lake. Although the munitions used in bombing were practice, 

these rounds originally had spotting charges and other energetic components that could potentially 

represent an explosive hazard if they did not function properly upon impact. Until Unexploded 

Ordinance-trained technicians inspect the munitions, certify them as safe, and remove them from the site, 

all munitions are presumed to be a hazard. The Army Corps of Engineers has scheduled additional 

investigations at these two locations in 2021 to assess hazardous materials, explosives, and explosive 

remnants. Based on current information, the two sites on BLM-administered lands in the decision area are 

considered low risk compared to others in the FUDS Inventory, with a score of 6 out of 9 (with 1 being 

the highest risk and 9 the lowest risk). However, the investigation and cleanup of the sites and the 

eventual remedy may affect recreational use over the long-term, depending on the risks identified. 

Discovery of munitions at any time may result in a change in the schedule to address these areas and an 

increase in the need for site access controls. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would apply the same management to protect 

public health and safety in the portion of the Modoc Range within the decision area. All alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP would maintain conditions at the Modoc Range, and there would be no meaningful 

difference among the alternatives or the Proposed RMP that the BLM can discern at this scale of analysis 

with the information currently available to the BLM. 

References 

Bowker, J. M., A. E. Askew, H. K. Cordell, C. J. Betz, S. J. Zarnoch, and L. Seymour. 2012. Outdoor recreation participation in 

the United States—projections to 2060: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. General

Technical Report SRS-160. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 34 pp.

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs160.pdf.

ECONorthwest. 2015. Outdoor Recreation Scarcity and Abundance in Western Oregon: A Spatial Analysis. Portland, OR. 39 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/recreation.php. 

Hall, T. E., H. Heaton, and L. E. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: trends in activity 

participation. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-778. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Portland, OR.108 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr778.pdf.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working 

Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing 

Team, Pachauri, R. K and A. Reisinger (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf.

Jackson, E. L., and R. A. Wong.1982. Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta.

Journal of Leisure Research 14(1): 47–62.

Marcouiller, D. W., I. Scott, and J. Prey. 2008. Outdoor recreation planning: a comprehensive approach to understanding use 

interaction. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 3(090): 1–12.

http://urpl.wisc.edu/sites/urpl.wisc.edu/files/people/marcouiller/publications/CAB.pdf.

USDI BLM. 1996. [Updated 2010]. Transportation Management Plan for Western Oregon Districts.

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/roadaccess/files/transport-plan.pdf. 

---. 2011. Manual 8320 – Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.82237.File.dat/83

20.pdf. 

---. 2014a. Recreation Management Information Systems Visitor Use Numbers. 

---. 2014b. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, 

OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 
585 | P a g e

Socioeconomics 

Background 

The analysis of socioeconomic resources has two broad emphases: economic growth and stability; and 

social capacity and resiliency. To address these topics, the BLM assessed the value of goods and services 

derived from BLM-administered lands, economic activity in the planning area, county payments, 

economic stability, the capacity and resiliency of communities, and environmental justice. This section 

also describes the cost to the BLM to implement the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

This section also presents an analysis of the cumulative effects on economic activity of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land management on BLM-administered lands and 

non-BLM-administered lands, presenting the effects of alternatives and the Proposed RMP in relation to 

the broader economic context in western Oregon. 

Geography and Population 

The planning area contains 19 counties in western Oregon. For several BLM districts, the district 

boundaries are generally consistent with county boundaries, with most of the area of each county in one 

BLM district. The planning area also contains the lands of seven federally recognized Indian Tribes (Map 

3-5). 
586 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map 3-5. Counties, BLM administrative boundaries, and Tribal lands within the planning area 
587 | P a g e

As of 2012, the planning area’s population was approximately 3.4 million or 88 percent of the State’s 

total population (Table 3-141). The population of the 12 counties in the BLM’s Salem District is almost 

2.5 million, almost 75 percent of the planning area population. All of the counties in the planning area 

have experienced some level of population growth from 1990–2000 and from 2000–2012. However, only 

four counties’ growth rates have been higher than the State of Oregon since 2000 (12 percent): Linn, 

Polk, Washington, and Yamhill. All of these are in the BLM’s Salem District. Several counties have 

experienced very little recent growth (less than 2,600 people). These tend to be the more geographically 

isolated parts of the planning area: Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln counties in the northwest; Curry and 

Coos counties in the southwest; and Klamath County in the southeast. 
588 | P a g e

Table 3-141. Planning area population, 1990–2012 

Geography Population Population Change, 

1990–2012

Population Change, 

2000–2012

1990 2000 2010 2012 Number Percent Number Percent

Oregon 2,842,321 3,421,399 3,831,074 3,836,628 994,307 35% 415,229 12%

Planning Area 2,535,122 3,033,622 3,387,980 3,393,160 858,038 34% 359,538 12%

Benton County 70,811 78,153 85,579 85,501 14,690 21% 7,348 9%

Clackamas County 278,850 338,391 375,992 377,206 98,356 35% 38,815 11%

Clatsop County 33,301 35,630 37,039 37,068 3,767 11% 1,438 4%

Columbia County 37,557 43,560 49,351 49,317 11,760 31% 5,757 13%

Coos County 60,273 62,779 63,043 62,937 2,664 4% 158 0.3%

Curry County 19,327 21,137 22,364 22,344 3,017 16% 1,207 6%

Douglas County 94,649 100,399 107,667 107,391 12,742 13% 6,992 7%

Jackson County 146,389 181,269 203,206 203,613 57,224 39% 22,344 12%

Josephine County 62,649 75,726 82,713 82,636 19,987 32% 6,910 9%

Klamath County 57,702 63,775 66,380 66,350 8,648 15% 2,575 4%

Lane County 282,912 322,959 351,715 351,794 68,882 24% 28,835 9%

Lincoln County 38,889 44,479 46,034 45,992 7,103 18% 1,513 3%

Linn County 91,227 103,069 116,672 116,871 25,644 28% 13,802 13%

Marion County 228,483 284,834 315,335 315,391 86,908 38% 30,557 11%

Multnomah County 583,887 660,486 735,334 737,110 153,223 26% 76,624 12%

Polk County 49,541 62,380 75,403 75,448 25,907 52% 13,068 21%

Tillamook County 21,570 24,262 25,250 25,254 3,684 17% 992 4%

Washington County 311,554 445,342 529,710 531,818 220,264 71% 86,476 19%

Yamhill County 65,551 84,992 99,193 99,119 33,568 51% 14,127 17%

Lands of Federally Recognized Tribes Within the Planning Area

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

of Oregon (Coos County)

4 25 47 24 20 500% -1 -4%

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde 

Community of Oregon (Yamhill 

County)

57 55 434 473 416 730% 418 760%

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Reservation of Oregon 3,076 3,314 4,012 3,960 884 29% 646 19%

Coquille Tribe of Oregon (Coos 

County) See note 258 323 297 See note 39 15%

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Reservation (Lincoln and Polk 

Counties)

5 308 506 476 471 9420% 168 55%

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians 

of Oregon (Douglas County) 58 22 104 21 -37 -64% -1 -5%

Klamath Tribes, Oregon (Klamath 

County) See note 29 26 17 See note -12 -41%

Notes: 

In 1990, the Coquille Tribe and the Klamath Tribes did not have a legally established land base. The 1990 Census gives data for a 

Tribal Designated Statistical Area (TDSA) that is a much larger area than the 2012 Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Lands 

with approximately 5,500 American Indian and Alaska Native persons in the Coquille TDSA and approximately 1,850 in the 

Klamath TDSA 

The County totals include the populations of lands of federally recognized tribes, but the table shows them separately for 

clarification 

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau; 1990 Census of Population and Housing Public Law 94-171 Data Age by Race and Hispanic Origin, 

(Official), http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/pl94/pl94data.pl (accessed September 17, 2014) 

U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 1 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 Census Restricting Data, Table DP05; American FactFinder; 

http://factfinder2.census.gov; (July 2014) 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

DP05, S1901 and S1701; American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov; (July 2014) 
589 | P a g e

The lands of seven federally recognized Indian Tribes range in size from a few dozen acres (i.e., the 

reservation and off-reservation lands for the Coos/Lower Umpqua/Siuslaw Tribes) to more than 18,000 

acres (the Warm Springs reservation is nearly 650,000 acres; of which approximately 18,000 acres are 

within the planning area). 

Some of the Tribal lands had large population percentage increases between 1990 and 2012, but this is 

because the base population in 1990 was very low, or, in the cases of the Coquille Tribe and the Klamath 

Tribes, because the land base had not yet been established. Table 3-141 includes only the population 

living on Tribal lands and not the entire Tribal membership population, which may be considerably 

larger. 

Projected Growth 

Since 1950, Oregon’s population has increased at a faster pace than the U.S. population as a whole. 

Between 1950 and 2010 Oregon’s population increased by 150 percent, whereas the United States’ 

population increased by 104 percent. The 2007–2009 recession hit Oregon harder than many other states, 

reducing net migration and slowing Oregon’s population growth. As of 2012, Oregon’s growth rate was 

below the national growth rate. However, Oregon’s growth rate is expected to rise higher than the U.S. 

growth rate (Vaidya 2012). 

Between 2010 and 2030, the State’s Office of Economic Analysis projects that the population of the 

planning area will be approximately 4.2 million, an increase of approximately 832,000. The State projects 

that approximately 80 percent of this increase will be in the twelve counties in the BLM’s Salem District 

(State of Oregon 2012). The State does not currently prepare population projections for geographies 

below the county level, such as cities. 

Distressed Areas 

The State of Oregon Business Development Department conducts economic assessments to determine 

which counties, cities, communities, or other geographic areas qualify as ‘distressed.’

Pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 123-024-0031, the Department defines ‘distressed’ areas 

based on indicators that take into account unemployment rates, per capita personal income, change in 

average covered payroll per worker over 3 years and change in the county’s weighted average 

employment change over 2 years. As of March 2014, the Department identifies as distressed 24 of 

Oregon’s 36 counties (and all geographic areas within a designated county). Of the 19 planning area 

counties, the Department identifies 14 as distressed, and only Benton, Clackamas, Multnomah, 

Washington and Yamhill Counties are not identified as distressed (Business Oregon 2014, contains the 

listing and the methodology). 

Within the non-distressed counties, the Department has identified the following cities and places as 

distressed: 

 Benton: Albany, Alpine CDP,88 Alsea CDP 

 Clackamas: Barlow, Estacada, Johnson City, Molalla, Oregon City, Sandy 

 Multnomah: Fairview, Gresham, Troutdale, Wood Village 

 Washington: Cornelius, Forest Grove 

 Yamhill: Amity, Carlton, Dayton, Lafayette, McMinnville, Sheridan, Willamina 

 

88 Census Designated Places (CDPs) are settled concentrations of population that identifiable by name but are not 

legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. State and local officials and the Census 

Bureau delineate CDPs cooperatively. 
590 | P a g e

Of these 22 cities and places, all but six meet the minority or income criteria for environmental justice. 

Socioeconomic Issue 6 – Environmental Justice contains more information. 

In 2012, the Oregon Secretary of State identified eight counties, all in the planning area, whose financial 

condition may indicate a higher risk of distress than other counties: Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, 

Josephine, Klamath, Lane, and Polk (Oregon Secretary of State 2012). In 2014, the Secretary of State 

added Columbia and Linn counties to the list, and took Klamath County off (Oregon Secretary of State 

2014). 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect the supply, demand, and value of goods and services derived from 

BLM-administered lands? 

Key Points 

 BLM-administered lands provide a wide variety of market and non-market goods and services to 

the planning area such as timber, recreation, carbon storage, minerals, and source water 

protection. 

 The annual harvest value of timber, compared to $23 million in 2012, would increase under all 

alternatives (first decadal average), from $37 million under Alternative D to $135 million under 

Alternative C. The Proposed RMP would increase harvest value to $51 million. 

 The revenue BLM receives from other commodity uses of land, including permits for special 

forest products, livestock grazing, energy production, and mineral extraction would remain 

largely unchanged under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, with one exception: under 

Alternative D, the BLM would cease to authorize any livestock grazing within the decision area, 

and the value would go to $0. 

 Using non-market valuation techniques (social cost of carbon), the annual value of net carbon 

storage would increase under all alternatives from a current average of $85 million per year in 

2012, except Alternative C. The smallest increase would occur in the No Action alternative ($118 

million) and the largest increase would occur in Alternative D ($216 million). Under the 

Proposed RMP, the value of net carbon storage would increase to $159 million. Under 

Alternative C, the value of net carbon storage would decrease to $43 million. 

 Other goods and services provided by the BLM-administered lands in the planning area currently 

provide economic value through increased property values associated with scenic views and 

through cultural and spiritual values. Data are currently unavailable to quantify the current value 

or expected change in value of these resources under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

 BLM-administered lands provide over $200 million in value to recreation participants annually, 

and this number will increase based on trends in preferences and demographics. 

 Outdoor recreation visits would increase based on trends as well as response to increased quality 

and quantity of Recreation Management Areas under Alternatives C and D and the Proposed 

RMP. 

 Compared to the alternatives, the Proposed RMP provides the largest increase in access to 

recreation opportunities, including developing sites close to where people live and providing 

recreation types that are particularly scarce for that region. 

 Using non-market valuation techniques (net willingness to pay) the analysis estimates the 2012 

value of recreation on BLM-administered lands at $223 million. Based on a phased recreation 

development timeline of 50 years, the value of recreation by the end of the first decade (2023) 

would range from $243 million under Alternative A to $278 million under Alternative D. Under 
591 | P a g e

the Proposed RMP, the value of recreation in 2023 under a 50 year phased timeline would be 

$271 million in 2023. Assuming a 20-year phase-in period rather than a 50-year period, the value 

of recreation in 2023 would range from $230 to $331 million, with the Proposed RMP value at 

$311 million. 

 Over a 50-year period, the total net present value of recreation would range from a low of $5.1–

$5.4 billion for Alternative A (based on 20- and 50-year phased development timelines 

respectively) to a high of $8.1–$6.9 billion for Alternative D. The Proposed RMP would have a 

range of total net present value for recreation of $6.7 to $7.6 billion. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM has—

 Added analysis to estimate increasing participation in and associated value of recreation resulting 

from change in the supply of recreation opportunities on BLM-administered lands; 

 Revised the net carbon storage analysis with updated values of the social cost of carbon based on 

new values released by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (IWG 

2015), and included a more detailed discussion of uncertainty in these estimates; 

 Revised the scenic amenities discussion to reflect a clearer definition of the Visual Resource 

Management methodology used to analyze the effects on visual resources; and 

 Revised data to reflect revisions in underlying data on sustainable energy production, livestock 

grazing, minerals, and net carbon storage. 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

This analysis describes the socioeconomic contribution of the goods and services derived from BLMadministered lands in western Oregon under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Table 3-142 shows 

the categories of goods and services included in this analysis. These goods and services fall into two 

categories: those that are sold or traded in markets, for which the BLM or others earn revenue from their 

use or extraction (market goods and services); and those that are consumed or otherwise enjoyed without 

direct payment, but for which value may materialize in indirect ways in the economy (non-market goods 

and services). 
592 | P a g e

Table 3-142. Goods and services derived from BLM-administered lands in western Oregon 

Goods and Services Method of Valuation

Market Non-Market

Timber X

Recreation and Visitation X

Special Forest Products X X

Sustainable Energy Production X

Livestock Grazing X

Minerals X

Net Carbon Storage X

Source Water Protection X

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species X

Scenic Amenities X

Cultural Meaning X

Source: USDI BLM 2014 

The BLM’s management activities affect the supply of the goods and services that BLM-administered 

lands provide, in terms of both quality and quantity. These changes in the supply interact with current and 

expected future demand for each good or service, leading to changes in economic value. The analysis 

expresses the value of each good or service in terms of market prices (e.g., stumpage prices) or in nonmarket values, as indicated in Table 3-142. The analysis assesses the value of goods and services not 

traded in markets using measures of willingness to pay, derived using scientifically validated and 

professionally accepted techniques outlined in official BLM guidance for estimating non-market values 

(USDI BLM 2013a). These non-market valuation techniques result in monetary estimates for non-market 

goods and services. 

Non-market values may be compared to market-based values in some but not in all circumstances. Market 

and non-market values are comparable insofar as they both reflect changes in society’s overall economic 

well-being. However, they are not comparable in how they contribute to the fiscal status of the economy. 

The analysis of these impacts, such as to jobs and earnings, is located in Issue 2. By definition, market 

values are associated with monetary transactions that have real financial impacts in communities. Nonmarket values reflect the importance people place on goods and services for which they do not have to 

pay real money. They also estimate likely payments if market conditions did exist, such as if the BLM 

charged people what they would be willing to pay to use outdoor recreation resources. People’s 

interactions with these non-market goods and services (e.g., participating in a mountain biking trip) may 

produce financial impacts traceable in the economy (some of which are included in the analysis in Issue 

2), but these impacts likely do not reflect the entire value associated with the good or service. 

Several comments on the Draft RMP/EIS reflected the belief that non-market resources do contribute to 

economic well-being in planning area communities, by retaining residents, attracting new residents 

including retirees and entrepreneurs who bring human and financial capital, and through other 

mechanisms. These beliefs have been supported by research showing how scenic amenities, open space, 

healthy watersheds, public lands and protected areas, and other non-market resources contribute to local 

economic development (e.g., Rasker et al. 2013). 

The BLM-administered lands in the planning area provide all of the goods and services listed in Table 3-

142 within the scope of current and proposed management activities. Market and non-market goods and 
593 | P a g e

services are not necessarily mutually exclusive and, in many cases, are complementary. That is, the lands 

can supply multiple goods and services at the same time. For example, recreational uses and timber 

harvest are not mutually exclusive; many types of recreation take place on lands managed also for timber 

harvest. 

General Methodology for Estimating Supply, Demand, and Value 

In this analysis, the BLM describes the past and current condition of each good and service, and 

incorporated the following information—

 Supply of the good or service, in terms of both quantity and quality 

 Demand for the good or service 

 Market price and value or non-market value of the good or service 

In determining value, the BLM considered both use and non-use values of goods and services. Use values 

arise from the extraction or consumption of a resource and are typically (though not always) revealed 

through market transactions. Market activity does not typically reflect non-use values associated with 

BLM-administered lands, so market prices are not available to reveal their value. In these cases, the BLM 

relied on non-market techniques to estimate or describe economic value. 

This methodology is consistent with Federal guidelines for conducting economic analyses (USDI BLM 

2005, 2013a, 2013b, CEQ 2013, EPA 2010). The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on 

analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 130–134). 

This analysis reports all values in 2012 dollars unless otherwise noted. 

The supply description of each good or service relies on information from BLM resource programs; other 

sections in this chapter contain much of this information. To streamline the discussion, this section 

summarizes that information and refers to the appropriate section for more detail. 

Other sources of supply for forest-based goods and services exist in Oregon besides those available from 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area. For example, the forestland on BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area (approximately 2.4 million acres) accounts for approximately 8 percent of total 

forestland in Oregon, or approximately 30.5 million acres (Oregon Department of Forestry, no date). The 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area includes approximately 13 percent of the total number of 

acres in western Oregon in designated Wild and Scenic River areas and approximately 4 percent of 

designated Wilderness (The Nature Conservancy and Wild Salmon Center 2012).

The demand assessment for each good or service relies on information from the BLM, the U.S. Forest 

Service, and economic and related literature, such as journal articles and professional reports. The types 

of information that describe demand vary by good or service, but generally includes user counts, permit 

counts, goods produced, patterns of use, and other evidence from people who directly or indirectly 

interact with the good or service. 

Methodology for Estimating Market Values 

The analysis reports both fair market values, as revealed by market prices, and BLM revenue, as data are 

available. The BLM collects revenue from the harvest or use of many of the goods and services in Table 

3-142. Revenue is an indication of the value of the good or service, but may not capture the full market 

value of the good or service, for the following reasons: 

 The BLM permit or sale price (and thus collected revenue) is set below market value. 
594 | P a g e

 The BLM does not collect revenue for all goods or services harvested or used in a particular 

category, in some cases legitimately, and in other cases because illicit harvest occurs. 

The value assessment of each good or service relied on information from the BLM regarding permit and 

market prices, and, where BLM data does not reflect market prices, the assessment relied on external 

information about commodity prices. The data sources and methods of valuation of each market-based 

good or service are described in more detail below. 

Methodology for Estimating Non-market Values 

The BLM assessed the economic importance of some goods and services using non-market values (see 

Table 3-142). As the name implies, non-market goods and services are not traded in markets. As a result, 

it is not possible to calculate how BLM actions could affect the values of these goods and services using 

market prices. Instead, when sufficient data are available, the analysis used non-market values to estimate 

their economic importance. If data were not available to estimate a dollar value, the analysis relied on 

other information to describe their economic importance, without monetary quantification. The BLM 

(USDI BLM 2013a) describes non-market values and methods of incorporating them in socioeconomic 

analyses for resource management plans. 

Two broad categories of non-market values exist: use values and non-use or passive use values. People 

enjoy use values when they make use of the environment, such as through fishing, hunting, boating, or 

bird watching. Unlike other use values (e.g., from the production of commodities), these activities are 

usually not captured through market transactions. Non-use values reflect value derived in a manner other 

than directly interacting with natural resources. Existence value is a type of non-use value that describes 

the value that society places on the existence of a species, place, or habitat. For example, people may be 

willing to pay to protect an area with wilderness characteristics, even though they have no plans to visit 

the area (King and Mazzotta 2000).

In this analysis, the BLM did not attempt to estimate values for non-market goods and services on BLMadministered lands directly. Instead, the analysis relied on unit values from studies of similar goods and 

services, and applied the unit values as appropriate for goods and services on BLM-administered lands. 

This technique, known as benefit transfer, provides a method for valuing non-market goods and services 

when data or resources are limited (EPA 2010). 

Where data describing the amount or unit value of goods and services were not available, the analysis 

used several types of information to indicate economic importance qualitatively: 

 Values of similar goods and services studied elsewhere 

 Surveys of people’s preferences and actions

 Values of substitute goods and services 

 Descriptive evidence of the importance of a good or service to society 

Valuation Methodologies for Specific Goods and Services 

Timber 

Analysis of the economic value of timber harvested on BLM-administered lands involved the input of 

economic and forestry data and modeling. The BLM developed data sets describing the costs of the 

various logging techniques and other costs associated with timber sales based on current data. Stumpage 

prices provided the basis for the timber revenue estimates. These prices rely on the long-term trend for 

timber prices in western Oregon. Appendix P contains more detail regarding the price projection 

methodology. The BLM developed a timber harvest model within the Woodstock software platform to 
595 | P a g e

project harvest volumes by grade, species type, district, and other parameters for the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP, including the No Action alternative. The model outputs, all in 2012 dollars, provide detail 

on the harvest volumes, costs, and revenues in 10-year blocks. 

The BLM also developed a model to project the effects of changes in BLM harvests on private timber 

producers in the western Oregon timber market. 

Recreation and Visitation 

The assessment of the economic value of recreation on BLM-administered lands in the planning area 

required consideration of the BLM’s recreation management under the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP, the overall supply of recreation resources in the planning area, the user population and participation 

rates, and how changes in supply could address scarcities that would increase usage and benefit. The 

BLM’s Recreation Management Information System (RMIS) provides estimates of visitor-days and 

numbers of participants by activity and district. These are combined with estimates of economic value 

associated with visitor-days in terms of consumer surplus (benefits net of costs to the participant) (Loomis 

2005). 

Increased recreation opportunities would not necessarily result in proportionate increases in participation 

and visitor-days. The BLM currently provides approximately one-third of all public land within an hour’s 

driving distance of the major population centers. If the BLM-administered areas near such communities 

were improved to provide more and better recreation opportunities, the additional demand could be 

substantial. Because of population growth and increasing interest in outdoor recreation, participation 

numbers and visitation are both expected to increase over time (see the Recreation section of this 

chapter).

In order to estimate changes in the number of outdoor recreation visitor-days in the planning area as a 

result of changes in Recreation Management Area (RMA) acreage, the BLM developed a time use model 

based on Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Time Use Survey (U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015). The model provides a measure of the elasticity, or 

responsiveness, of outdoor recreation demand to changes in the available and accessible supply of 

outdoor recreation acreage. The BLM developed estimates of how demand would change in terms of time 

spent participating in outdoor recreation with changes in RMA acreage. The model data suggest that a 

100 percent increase in total RMA acreage would lead to a 17 percent increase in outdoor recreation 

activity. In economic terms, this reflects an inelastic, or relatively low, demand response with respect to 

RMA supply. Elasticity incorporates current supply and demand when estimating future demand 

response. The visitation change results were based upon applying the 17 percent elasticity estimate to 

each district or office outdoor recreation activity, baseline RMA acreage, and RMA acreage for the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. See Appendix P for more details on the data, model, and results. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the BLM assumed that the full implementation of actual increases in 

recreation opportunities resulting from increases in RMA acreage would not occur immediately upon 

adoption of the RMPs, particularly where alternatives include the development of new RMAs, facilities, 

or uses. There is considerable uncertainty about the rate of increase in recreation opportunities that would 

result from increased RMA acreage. For example, where increased recreation opportunities would depend 

on development of new campgrounds, new trail systems, or other recreational facilities and developments, 

substantial increases in recreation opportunities would likely take decades. The BLM based this 

assumption on past BLM experience with planning, analyzing, and developing recreation facilities and 

developments. 
596 | P a g e

For the purpose of this analysis, the BLM considered two scenarios: (1) increases in recreation 

opportunities associated with increased RMA acreage phased in over 20 years (complete at 20 years) and 

(2) increases in recreation opportunities associated with increased RMA acreage phased in over 50 years 

(complete at 50 years).89 For these analyses, the BLM assumed a linear incremental increase from current 

levels to final alternative and Proposed RMP levels at 20- and 50-year periods. Conceptually, for the 50-

year phasing, 1/50th of increase in recreation opportunities would be implemented in the first year, with 

full implementation in the 50th year. For Scenario 1, the median level of recreation opportunities would be 

implemented in the 10th or 11th year of the analysis period, while for Scenario 2, the median level of 

recreation opportunities would be implemented in the 20th or 21st year. This analysis generally compared 

the effects on the economic value of recreation that would occur in 2018 along the trajectories to full 

implementation in 20 years or 50 years (Figure 3-136). Consequently, for the purposes of modeling, the 

BLM assumed all districts would see equal timing of increases in recreation opportunities over each 

scenario timeframe. The BLM also assumed that visitation response and associated valuation estimates 

would be proportional and consistent over each phasing timeframe. 

Actual implementation of increased recreation opportunities within RMAs would be at the discretion of 

BLM managers and would not be expected to occur at a constant rate over time or at similar rates across 

districts. The BLM has conducted this analysis under these dual-scenarios to present a range of plausible 

implementation rates for comparison. If the BLM were to fully implement the increases in recreation 

opportunities under Alternatives C or D, or the Proposed RMP in less than 20 years, the economic 

benefits associated with recreation management in 2018 would be greater than those described in this 

analysis. 

The recreation opportunities associated with new RMAs provide the capacity for increased and improved 

outdoor recreation and consequent economic value. The specific types and quantities of improvements are 

not defined at this time. For this analysis, the BLM applied RMA acreage as a proxy for recreation 

opportunities, so that as RMA acreage increases, so do recreation opportunities in a proportionate manner. 

Scaling from current outdoor recreation visitation, this assumes similar types and proportions of 

opportunities to existing BLM-administered recreation opportunities. To the extent that new RMAs would 

provide higher quality opportunities, opportunities in greater demand, or more accessible opportunities, 

the resulting value would be greater. 

In addition, the BLM analyzed spatial data on the BLM’s own recreation areas, their attributes, and other 

public recreation opportunities, as well as census data on population and outdoor recreation participation 

rates. In this way, the BLM identified the nearby populations that use BLM recreation resources and how 

recreation opportunities on BLM-administered lands relate to other opportunities. Source information 

included estimates for total outdoor recreation activity in western Oregon using survey data from 

Oregon’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. This analysis (ECONorthwest 2015) 

qualitatively informed this section of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS but did not directly factor into the 

quantitative estimates of use and economic value that would result under the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. 

The BLM considered all these data and calculated consumer surplus values, which represent the net 

economic benefit to a participant in recreation activity after deducting market-based costs associated with 

the activity. Consumer surplus values are non-market values. They do not represent dollars exchanged, 

but, rather, the amount of net benefit beyond expenditures for the activity (e.g., fuel, equipment, meals, 

and lodging) that represent additional willingness to pay. 

 

89 The No Action alternative and Alternative B involve no change in RMA acreage, so do not involve phasing of an 

increase in recreation opportunities over time. 
597 | P a g e

To compare the alternatives and Proposed RMP regarding accessibility and local recreation scarcities, the 

BLM used the acreage of RMAs designated under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The BLM 

compared the overall and district-level change in total RMA acreage. The BLM then identified the change 

in RMA acreage within 30-minute and 60-minute driving distances of 12 study communities90 in western 

Oregon. Recognizing that quality, accessibility, and congestion all contribute to variation in demand for 

recreation opportunities and resulting value, the BLM compared the changes in accessible RMA acreage 

as a proportion of total current recreation-oriented acreage. The BLM also considered how these 

proportional changes in recreation acreage correspond to existing conditions and estimates of recreation 

value from BLM-administered lands. 

The BLM applied projections for growth and composition of outdoor recreation participation over the 

next 50 years to outdoor recreation to incorporate long-term trends as well. As part of the 2010 revision of 

the Resources Planning Act Assessment, the U.S. Forest Service developed national projections of 

participation for 17 outdoor recreation activities through 2060 (Bowker et al. 2012). These projections 

take into account various scenarios of climate change (based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) scenarios), population and income growth, and land use change. The BLM applied these 

projections to each of the relevant BLM recreation categories, using the base scenario (A1B, 

corresponding to mid-range population growth and the highest average personal and household income 

level of the 3 IPCC scenarios). These participation trends are consistent with those observed over the last 

few decades in Oregon (e.g., Hall et al. 2009). This analysis assumed that the outdoor recreation 

participation trends through 2060 would extend through 2062. 

Across the recreation analyses and presentation of results, the BLM uses three separate measures of 

outdoor recreation activity. ‘Visits’ are individual trips for an outdoor recreation activity, regardless of the 

length of time. ‘Visitor-days’ are summation of visits to 12-hour units. Consumer surplus estimates are 

based on these 12-hour visitor-day measures. ‘Participants’ are a count of the number of individuals who 

participate in outdoor recreation activity, and might involve several visits per year. 

The BLM does not directly track residence location of outdoor recreation participants, but the U.S. Forest 

Service does. The BLM applied local, non-local, and non-primary breakdowns of participants from the 

nearest national forest. Locals refer to participants claiming to have traveled 50 miles or less from home 

to the U.S. Forest Service recreation interview location (White 2013, USDA FS 2013). Non-primary 

refers to visits that are secondary to other travel purposes. All outdoor recreation participation time is 

included in the benefit estimates in Issue 1, but recreation expenditures for visits that are secondary to 

other travel purposes are not included in market impacts under Issue 2 (White 2014, USDA FS 2014a). 

Special Forest Products 

This analysis focused on special forest products from forested areas. Non-forested areas may produce 

goods akin to these forest products that have value (e.g., sagebrush). However, the BLM assumed in this 

analysis that non-forested areas would remain non-forested under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, 

so there would be no change in the supply or value of these goods. 

The Forest Management section in this chapter describes the supply of special forest products in terms of 

acreage suitable for the production of Category I and Category II species.91 Category I species thrive in 

 

90 The BLM selected 12 population centers within the planning area to serve as study communities, achieving a wide 

spatial coverage and capturing a majority of the area’s population. These communities include Coos Bay, Corvallis, 

Eugene, Grants Pass, McMinnville, Medford, Newberg, Portland, Roseburg, Salem, Sandy, and Tillamook. 

91 These categories are not a formal designation but simply a way to characterize similar special forest products for 

ease of analysis. 
598 | P a g e

disturbed forest conditions, and Category II species rely on undisturbed forest conditions. This section 

reports acreages for two areas: the coastal/north areas (Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem Districts) and the 

interior/south areas (the Klamath Falls Field Office, and the Medford and Roseburg Districts).

The analysis describes the demand for special forest products using data derived from the BLM harvest 

database, reviews of the literature, and interviews with BLM district staff. The harvest database reports 

quantity of special forest products collected by species, number of permits issued, and revenue collected. 

The analysis relied on interviews with BLM district staff and other experts to understand the harvest 

database and better understand patterns of use and markets for special forest products. 

The analysis reports both market prices and BLM revenue to describe value of special forest products. 

The harvest database reports BLM-collected revenue for special forest products. The analysis 

supplemented this information with information from the literature on market prices for special forest 

products. The literature indicates that BLM prices for special forest products are often below fair market 

value, so the analysis provides data for market values of special forest products when available. 

Sustainable Energy Production 

The BLM estimated the supply of sustainable energy resources within the decision area based on 

information provided in the Sustainable Energy section of this chapter. The analysis describes the demand 

for sustainable energy using information from government reports and professional literature, as well as 

information from the BLM database on special forest products. Two categories of special forest products 

reported in the database are relevant for sustainable energy production: biomass and fuelwood. 

Information on the value of biomass energy production came from revenue data collected by the BLM 

and from data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

Livestock Grazing 

The BLM estimated the supply of livestock grazing within the decision area based on information 

provided in the Livestock Grazing section in this chapter. The analysis describes the demand for livestock 

grazing using information about the utilization of available livestock grazing allotments. Information on 

the value of livestock grazing came from Federal livestock grazing fees and from market prices for 

private and State livestock grazing fees and forage. 

Minerals 

The BLM estimated the supply of salable mineral material within the decision area for the affected 

environment and effects analyses based on information provided in the Minerals section in this chapter. 

The economic analysis described the current demand for salable mineral material disposal using 

information from a BLM database of mineral material sales. The analysis relied on data included in the 

database about the value of each sale. The BLM sells mineral materials at fair market value, so the 

analysis did not incorporate additional information about the market value of salable mineral materials. In 

this analysis, the BLM assumed that demand would not change from current conditions and that the BLM 

would continue to sell mineral materials at fair market value. 

Carbon Storage 

The BLM estimated carbon storage and emissions in the Climate Change section in this chapter. The 

carbon storage reported in that section is ‘net carbon storage’ representing carbon stored less carbon 

emitted through wildfire, prescribed burning, decomposition, and through the lifecycle of wood products. 
599 | P a g e

Other sources of emissions (e.g., enteric fermentation) are minor and are discussed in Issue 2 of the 

Climate Change section. 

In this economic analysis, the BLM calculated the annual amount and value of net carbon storage based 

on the information presented in the Climate Change section. To estimate value, the analysis used values 

developed by the U.S. Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Estimating 

the SCC is complex, incorporating data from a variety of models and systems in climate science, ecology, 

and economics projected decades into the future. Each piece of data involves uncertainties, which the 

IWG discusses at length in Technical Support Documentation reports (IWG 2010, 2013, 2015). Examples 

of factors resulting in uncertainty in the IWG’s SCC result include incomplete treatment of damages, and 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change. The IWG discusses these uncertainties in 

detail in the first Technical Support Document (IWG 2010), which is incorporated here by reference. 

The IWG provides several estimates of SCC that are dependent on three variables: 

 The year emissions are expected to occur 

 The discount rate (2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent) 

 The estimated severity of future damages 

The IWG estimates consider two scenarios of damage. The ‘Average’ case reflects the average costs 

across climate models and socioeconomic scenarios. The ‘95th percentile’ case reflects higher than 

average damages that might occur, but that have a probability of future occurrence of 5 percent. 

To estimate the value of the stored carbon on BLM-administered lands in 2012 for the affected 

environment, the analysis used the IWG estimates for emissions in year 2015, a 3 percent discount rate, 

and both the average and 95th percentile cases. According to the IWG, the estimated social cost per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2015 in 2007 dollars is $36 (average) and $105 (95th percentile case). 

These dollar values apply to carbon dioxide (CO2), but net stored carbon is estimated in terms of tons of 

carbon (C). The BLM analysis converted dollars per metric ton of CO2 to dollars per metric ton of C 

using a conversion factor of 3.67. The BLM converted dollar values to 2012 dollars using the Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP) deflator. The final per ton values multiplied by metric tons of net stored carbon 

are about $143 (average) and $417 (95th percentile case). The analysis presents both estimates to illustrate 

the uncertainty about the SCC due to uncertainty of the damage caused by carbon emissions. However, 

they do not represent the full range of possible SCC estimates that would be based on other discount rates 

or cost assumptions. Of the two estimates presented, the BLM considers the ‘Average’ scenario to be 

more likely. 

To estimate the value of the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on net stored carbon, the 

analysis used a similar procedure. Using the results of the effects analysis presented in Issue 1 of the 

Climate Change section of this chapter, the economic analysis calculated the marginal change in stored 

carbon between 2013 and 2023 and between 2013 and 2063 by alternative and the Proposed RMP. The 

estimated social cost per metric ton of CO2 for emissions in year 2017 (the midpoint of the first decade) is 

$38 (average) and $112 (95th percentile) in 2007 dollars. These values were converted to dollars per 

metric ton of C and to 2012 dollars as described above, and were applied to the marginal change in net 

stored carbon over the first decade. After conversions to dollars per metric ton of C and to 2012 dollars, 

the estimated social cost per metric ton of C in year 2017 is about $152 (average) and $445 (95th

percentile). The estimated value of the marginal change over the 50-year period of analysis was calculated 

using the social cost per metric ton for emissions in year 2050 (the last year for which SCC is calculated 

by the IWG). Applying the 2050 SCC value to carbon storage in year 2063 approximates its value in that 

year, but may underestimate it somewhat. The estimated social cost per metric ton of CO2 for emissions 

in year 2050 is $69 (average) and $212 (95th percentile case) in 2007 dollars. After conversions to dollars 
600 | P a g e

per metric ton of C and to 2012 dollars, the estimated social cost per metric ton of C in year 2050 is about 

$274 (average) and $841 (95th percentile case). 

Source Water Protection 

The BLM estimated the supply of land that produces water potentially used for drinking water in the 

Analysis of the Management Situation (USDI BLM 2013). The economic analysis describes the current 

demand for source water protection using information derived from agreements between the BLM and 

State and local governments, and spatial information developed by the Wild Salmon Center and the 

Nature Conservancy. Qualitative information on the value of source water came from the professional 

literature. In this economic analysis, the BLM assumed that the quantity and quality of the supply of 

water available for drinking would not change from current conditions and necessarily would meet all 

State and Federal drinking water standards. The Hydrology section in this chapter contains more 

information on effects on water quantity and quality. 

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species 

The BLM estimated the current conditions and effects on forest structure and threatened and endangered 

species in Forest Management, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Rare Plants and Fungi sections in this chapter. 

The economic analysis describes the demand and value for biodiversity and sensitive species using 

information derived from the professional literature, and laws and regulations governing environmental 

protection. Although the professional literature includes some quantitative estimates of willingness to pay 

for protection of species and their habitat, insufficient information is available at the scale of analysis to 

produce quantitative estimates of the specific economic value or changes in value that would result from 

the Proposed RMP or alternatives. 

Scenic Amenities 

The BLM estimated the supply of scenic amenities within the planning area based on information 

provided in the Visual Resource Management section in this chapter. The economic analysis derived 

changes in supply under each alternative and the Proposed RMP based on the number of acres where the 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) class designation would not be commensurate with the landscape’s 

scenic value, as described within the Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) classification, thereby reducing the 

level of visual protection (VRM class) that is more customary of areas with higher scenic values (i.e., 

where management activities would allow changes to the landscape that are characteristic of more 

disturbance, lowering the quality rating and resulting in a downgraded VRI class assignment). The 

analysis describes the demand for scenic amenities and their value using information from professional, 

peer-reviewed literature. Although the professional literature includes quantitative information on the 

relationship between scenic amenities and property values, insufficient information is available at the 

scale of analysis to produce quantitative estimates of the specific economic value or changes in value that 

would result from the alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 

Cultural Resources 

The BLM estimated the supply of cultural resources within the decision area based on information 

provided in the Cultural Resources section in this chapter. The economic analysis describes demand for 

and value of cultural resources based on laws and regulations governing archaeological sites and cultural 

artifacts and descriptions of non-physical elements of cultural importance based on the framework for 

cultural meaning outlined in the United Nations’ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Sarukhán and 

Whyte 2005). Insufficient information is available at the scale of analysis to produce quantitative 
601 | P a g e

estimates of the economic value or changes in value associated with changes in cultural resources by 

alternative and the Proposed RMP. 

Affected Environment 

Timber 

Supply 

Western Oregon continues to be a national leader in the production of timber and timber products. The 

Timber and Socioeconomic sections of the Analysis of the Management Situation (USDI BLM 2013c, pp. 

2-98 – 2-99, 2-120 – 2-128), and the Forest Management section in this chapter provide information on 

the overall market supply and conditions. The past 50 years have seen dramatic changes in timber harvest 

for western Oregon, particularly from Federal lands including BLM-administered lands. Figure 3-126

and Figure 3-127 show the declines and fluctuations in both volume and prices over the past 50 years. 

These changes provide the context for assessing the economic consequences of possible changes in timber 

management on BLM-administered lands. 
602 | P a g e

Figure 3-126. Western Oregon historical timber harvest, BLM and total 

Source: Zhou and Warren 2012 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

19621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012

Western Oregon TImber Harvest (MMbf) 

Year 

BLM Harvest Total Harvest

Figure 3-127. Western Oregon historical stumpage prices, BLM and State/private 

Source: Zhou and Warren 2012

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1962196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010

Stumpage Price ($/Mbf)

Year

BLM State/Private USFS
603 | P a g e

Figure 3-126 shows both the declines in total harvest in western Oregon, starting first on private 

timberlands in the early 1970s and BLM-administered lands in the early 1990s. In the early 1960s, about 

20 percent of western Oregon’s timber harvest occurred on BLM-administered lands; this had dropped to 

an average of 7 percent between 2008 and 2012. The nearly 85 percent drop in harvest on BLMadministered lands mirrors a similar drop on U.S. Forest Service lands following the implementation of 

the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. Figure 3-127 shows stumpage prices representing private stumpage 

markets.92 The declines in stumpage prices of timber from BLM-administered lands reflect the higher 

logging costs and lower value log mixes associated with the predominance of thinning harvest, rather than 

regeneration harvest, under current implementation (see the Forest Management section in this chapter). 

Federal lands (including BLM-administered lands and U.S. Forest Service lands) in western Oregon make 

up 61 percent of all timberland acreage, but have 73 percent of the growing stock in terms of volume 

(OFRI 2012). This suggests that, on average, Federal lands have more volume per acre than all 

timberlands in western Oregon. See the Forest Management section for detail on the BLM’s forest 

inventory conditions. 

Demand 

Figure 3-126 and Figure 3-127 show how historical timber production and regional price trends tend to 

fluctuate with overall economic conditions, as, for example, prices and harvest levels declined during the 

2007–2009 recession, repeating patterns of past recessions. 

Stumpage prices paid or bid for timber offered for harvest provide an indication of demand for BLM 

timber in western Oregon. Figure 3-126, in spite of the variability, shows an almost flat trend in real 

(inflation-adjusted) stumpage prices in western Oregon over the 50-year period of 1962–2011. The 

overall trend since 1962 is a 0.23 percent increase per year, which this analysis uses as the most 

appropriate representation of future prices (Haynes et al. 2007, Haynes 2008). The regional market 

includes other private and public timber producers, with private supply particularly dominating (77 

percent for the past 5 years). Since the end of the 2007–2009 recession, State, Forest Service, BLM, and 

private harvests are increasing, as prices recover towards the long-term trend. Prices for public harvests 

have been rising (Figure 3-127).

Demand for BLM timber supply is a function of a variety of factors associated with both the final demand 

for timber products, as well as competition with other supply sources. Potential timber buyers compare 

the species composition, timber quality, accessibility, and other harvest cost differences when comparing 

Federal, State, local, and private timber sources. Federal timber sales have restrictions prohibiting foreign 

export, which potentially reduces demand, particularly when foreign markets such as Asia are strong. 

A wide array of final market goods and services incorporate timber products; consequently, overall timber 

demand trends strongly with overall economic conditions. New housing starts are a particularly important 

component of this broad economic demand. In 2008, of the $6 billion in total wood product sales for the 

state of Oregon as a whole, $2.8 billion came from pulp and paper, $1.5 billion came from sawmills 

(lumber), followed by plywood, veneers, and other boards (OFRI 2012). 

Value 

At the BLM district level, harvests have increased in real value since 2012, although price per Mbf has 

generally declined since 2000 (Figure 3-128 and Figure 3-129 and Table 3-143). Year-to-year value at 

 

92 The stumpage price series shown is for western Oregon Department of Forestry sales and, like all Federal sales, is 

limited to domestic markets only.
604 | P a g e

the district level fluctuates as volume varies, within the overall context of generally increasing harvest 

volumes and total value for BLM-administered lands in western Oregon as a whole since 2001. For 

example, the Coos Bay District saw the largest overall timber harvest volume and value in 2007, while 

typically, it is in the bottom half of districts by these measures in other years since 2000. Between 2009 

and 2014, the Salem District had the largest timber volume and value, both in total and per Mbf. The 

Klamath Falls Field Office consistently had the lowest timber harvest volume and value, except for 2007 

when Medford was lower. The average value per Mbf for all western Oregon districts over the period 

2000 to 2014 was $148. The overall western Oregon BLM harvest value over that period was $322 

million. 

A wide array of local and non-local supply and demand forces contribute to observed market prices for 

timber. While short-term conditions for supply in the U.S. and elsewhere, as well as final market demand 

for timber and timber products, can fluctuate somewhat widely, the long-term trends are relatively 

consistent. For the purposes of this long-term planning process, the BLM applied long-term price 

projections as detailed in Appendix P. The BLM did not include short-term analyses of potential market 

conditions based on current events or economic conditions in any price projections. 
605 | P a g e

Figure 3-128. Total harvest value by BLM district, 2000–2014 

Notes: All data are in 2012 dollars. Harvest data reflect the value and volume of wood removed from approved contracts during a 

calendar year, and correspond to sales that were offered and approved within the previous 1–36 months. 

Source: USDI BLM 2014h

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total Harvest Value (Millions)

Year

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem

Figure 3-129. Average value per Mbf harvested by BLM district, 2000–2014 

Notes: All figures are in 2012 dollars. Harvest data reflect the value and volume of wood removed from approved contracts 

during a calendar year, and correspond to sales that were offered and approved within the previous 1–36 months. 

Source: USDI BLM 2014h 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average Value per Mbf

Year

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem
606 | P a g e

Table 3-143. Historical timber sale values and volumes, western Oregon BLM Districts, 2000–2014 

District/

Field 

Office

Harvest Metric 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals

Coos 

Bay

Harvest Value (Millions) $6.6 $1.4 $1.6 $0.9 $1.3 $2.3 $6.0 $9.2 $5.2 $2.1 $2.5 $2.7 $4.1 $3.7 $6.0 $55.6

MMbf Harvested 22.7 5.3 10.6 10.4 15.3 22.9 45.5 56.8 42.1 23.0 48.4 50.0 54.5 39.1 46.7 493.3

Value/Mbf (Dollars) $291 $256 $152 $88 $83 $101 $132 $162 $123 $90 $52 $54 $76 $95 $128 $113

Eugene

Harvest Value (Millions) $4.5 $1.6 $1.9 $2.9 $4.9 $6.4 $6.9 $8.5 $8.0 $5.9 $3.6 $4.1 $3.0 $6.9 $8.8 $78.0

MMbf Harvested 18.9 7.2 9.5 16.6 30.1 29.7 32.2 40.1 38.9 36.1 34.6 52.9 30.6 55.2 51.7 484.3

Value/Mbf (Dollars) $241 $215 $201 $175 $164 $217 $216 $211 $207 $163 $104 $78 $98 $125 $170 $161

Klamath 

Falls

Harvest Value (Millions) $0.6 $0.0 $0.4 $0.7 $0.5 $0.9 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $0.1 $0.5 $0.4 $0.3 $0.1 $0.1 $7.7

MMbf Harvested 5.3 0.4 4.4 5.9 5.3 10.2 10.0 9.0 7.2 1.6 5.2 3.1 3.3 2.0 2.5 75.3

Value/Mbf (Dollars) $119 $112 $83 $112 $87 $90 $104 $117 $153 $62 $89 $117 $81 $67 $40 $102

Medford

Harvest Value (Millions) $4.8 $2.0 $3.8 $4.1 $3.2 $3.9 $0.9 $0.5 $0.8 $4.3 $0.8 $0.9 $1.6 $2.1 $2.6 $36.2

MMbf Harvested 23.9 16.7 23.9 25.7 22.8 24.8 11.0 2.9 5.3 33.3 9.9 9.2 12.1 14.5 24.6 260.5

Value/Mbf (Dollars) $202 $117 $160 $160 $140 $157 $83 $173 $145 $130 $78 $92 $134 $145 $106 $139

Roseburg

Harvest Value (Millions) $6.9 $1.2 $0.3 $1.4 $1.8 $3.7 $4.4 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.2 $2.1 $1.9 $5.0 $4.5 $46.9

MMbf Harvested 20.6 4.2 1.4 8.1 13.0 26.2 24.3 18.8 23.0 32.0 34.2 27.3 20.4 46.5 27.4 327.3

Value/Mbf (Dollars) $336 $282 $227 $170 $138 $143 $182 $176 $151 $111 $94 $77 $95 $109 $165 $143

Salem

Harvest Value (Millions) $7.1 $3.3 $2.7 $4.2 $4.0 $4.7 $5.6 $7.3 $5.7 $8.9 $4.4 $7.9 $9.8 $8.9 $13.0 $97.3

MMbf Harvested 29.7 12.1 12.1 18.5 24.3 30.5 32.2 33.7 29.2 45.8 35.9 55.4 53.3 51.0 70.6 534.5

Value/Mbf (Dollars) $238 $273 $220 $224 $166 $153 $173 $216 $194 $193 $121 $142 $184 $174 $185 $182

Totals

Harvest Value 

(Millions) $30.6 $9.4 $10.7 $14.1 $15.7 $22.0 $24.9 $29.8 $24.2 $24.8 $14.9 $18.0 $20.8 $26.8 $35.0 $321.7

MMbf Harvested 121.0 45.9 61.8 85.1 110.8 144.3 155.2 161.3 145.7 171.9 168.3 197.9 174.3 208.2 223.4 2,175.1

Value/Mbf (Dollars) $253 $205 $172 $166 $142 $152 $160 $185 $166 $144 $89 $91 $119 $129 $157 $148

Note: All data are in 2012 dollars. Harvest data reflect the value and volume of wood removed from approved contracts during a calendar year, and correspond to sales that were 

offered and approved within the previous 1-36 months. 2014 data are preliminary and subject to change. 

Source: USDI BLM 2014h 
607 | P a g e

Recreation and Visitation 

Supply 

Sites managed for outdoor recreation are concentrated primarily on federally owned lands. These sites can 

be costly to establish and maintain, and include costs of forgoing other revenue generating uses. However, 

they can add substantial social value. Individuals who visit these sites directly benefit from access to 

recreation and nearby businesses are affected by increased expenditures due to visitation. 

The BLM is a major provider of outdoor recreation opportunities throughout western Oregon. The BLM 

administers approximately 50 percent of all public land within 30-minute driving distance of the 12 

largest communities in western Oregon, and 34 percent within 60-minute driving distance (Map 3-6). The 

U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Oregon 

Department of Forestry, and a variety of local agencies and private entities provide a wide variety of 

outdoor recreation opportunities for residents and visitors. Participation on BLM-administered lands in 

western Oregon numbered approximately 10.8 million participants in 2013, with wildlife/nature viewing, 

scenic driving, camping and picnicking, non-motorized trail use, and hunting all experiencing over a 

million participants (see Table 3-132 in Recreation). The recreation section of the Analysis of the 

Management Situation (USDI BLM 2013, pp. 2-72 – 2-82) describes the current conditions and trends for 

recreation facilities and user numbers in the planning area. Table 3-144 provides an approximation of 

current acreage under recreation management, totaling approximately 164,000 acres. 
608 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map 3-6. Travel times from major communities in relation to BLM-administered lands 

Sources: Portland State University; U.S. Census 2014

Sources: Portland State University; U.S. Census 2014
609 | P a g e

Table 3-144. Current managed recreation acreage of BLM-administered lands 

District/

Field Office

Current Managed Recreation

(Acres)

Coos Bay 6,614

Eugene 20,511

Klamath Falls 69,470

Medford 32,065

Roseburg 6,984

Salem 28,648

Totals 164,292

Notes: Under the No Action alternative, all BLM-administered lands in the decision area are allocated to RMAs, and the 

management of RMAs described in the 1995 RMPs differs from current definitions and policy. Alternative B represents an 

approximate continuation of the current recreation management, but consistent with current definitions and policy for RMAs. 

Source: BLM Recreation Management Area data, estimates prepared for Alternative B.

Demand 

The BLM projects overall participation levels to increase; reaching 16.5 million participants annually by 

2060 (see the Recreation section in this chapter). 

Population centers and surrounding access tend to be the primary factors for demand for outdoor 

recreation opportunities. Researchers consider site attributes and travel costs, including time, to be the 

primary factors for variation in demand from one site to another, and for decisions between recreation and 

other forms of leisure (Loomis and Walsh 1997). Western Oregon is recognized nationally and globally 

for providing excellent outdoor recreation opportunities, with extensive forests, rivers, and mountains that 

include access, facilities, and trails throughout. The northern Willamette Valley is the most heavily 

populated portion of the region, dominated by the Portland metro area (see Figure 3-140 in Recreation). 

Recreation opportunities within proximity to these population centers experience the most demand, and 

consequently have the potential to provide the most value, when they provide the types of outdoor 

recreation of interest. Some of the highest participation levels for trail use on BLM-administered lands are 

within these proximities. 

Extending the analysis of travel distances and BLM-administered lands to the 12 study communities in 

western Oregon increases the coverage of BLM-administered lands within 60 minutes of travel. 

Proximities to study communities tend to correspond to BLM-administered lands with high recreation use 

(Map 3-6). While access is often quite difficult through rugged and mountainous areas, 45 percent of 

western Oregon is accessible within a 60-minute drive time from one of the 12 study communities, and 56 

percent of the BLM-administered lands within this region fall within the 60-minute travel proximity. 

When considering the overall ownership shares of public lands within these travel proximities, the U.S. 

Forest Service is the largest landowner, at 48 percent, followed by the BLM at 34 percent (Table 3-145).
610 | P a g e

Table 3-145. Public land ownership shares in 60-minute driving distances from study communities 

Community

Other

Ownership

(Percent)

Local

Government

(Percent)

State of

Oregon

(Percent)

BLM

(Percent)

U.S. Fish

and

Wildlife

Service

(Percent)

Forest

Service

(Percent)

Coos Bay 3% - 39% 46% 1% 12%

Corvallis 10% 4% 21% 49% 4% 12%

Eugene 2% 1% 4% 35% 1% 58%

Grants Pass - - 2% 80% - 18%

McMinnville 5% 5% 38% 19% 3% 30%

Medford - - 1% 46% - 53%

Newberg 1% 8% 58% 29% 4% 1%

Portland - 3% 30% 5% 1% 61%

Roseburg - - 1% 47% - 52%

Salem 1% 2% 7% 12% 2% 76%

Sandy 1% 3% 2% 6% 2% 85%

Tillamook 3% 4% 53% 12% - 27%

Totals (Percent) 1% 2% 14% 34% 1% 48%

Totals (Acres) 86,571 128,766 914,736 2,315,100 72,480 3,223,677

Value 

The most commonly used measure of value associated with outdoor recreation activity is consumer 

surplus,93 which represents the net benefit to the participant after deducting market-based costs associated 

with the activity (e.g., equipment, transportation, and access fees). Consumer surplus is used to 

demonstrate the value, expressed in monetary terms, that participants experience but do not have to pay 

for. Consumer surplus values do not represent dollars exchanged, but, rather, the amount of net benefit 

beyond expenditures that represent additional willingness to pay. Expenditures on items such as 

equipment and transportation, while not directly representing value of the recreation site and activity 

itself, do reflect value to the recreation consumer. Issue 2 describes the effects of recreation expenditures 

on jobs and earnings. 

The U.S. Forest Service (Loomis 2005) provides regional estimates by recreation type for the net value 

(consumer surplus; Table 3-146). These estimates derive from a meta-analysis of individual studies to 

estimate average recreation consumer surplus by recreation type and region. These data represent the 

average amount participants would pay beyond their total costs for the activity. Therefore, roughly half of 

participants would receive less consumer surplus, and half would receive more. The ranges for values 

reflect differing estimates from different contexts. The ranges also demonstrate that differing conditions 

for recreation opportunities can have very different values to users. Some of the factors that might 

contribute to variation in value for an activity is the site and facility quality, the attractiveness of the 

physical characteristics, and the accessibility (travel time). Several factors drive variation in net benefit 

between individuals, including people’s differing preferences for amount and type of outdoor recreation 

 

93 Consumer surplus is the commonly used measure of value for recreation activity, because while equipment and 

travel expenses are determined in markets, recreation sites and access are not typically priced according to market 

forces. 
611 | P a g e

activity. Participants can experience a range of values across participation visits themselves, with 

typically some level of diminishing returns with increased number of visits, up to the point where a 

participant decides not to make one more visit. Again, these data represent an average of all visit values. 

Table 3-146. Net economic benefit (consumer surplus) by activity, per user day (2012 dollars) 

Activity

Minimum

Benefit

(Dollars)

Mean

Benefit

(Dollars)

Maximum

Benefit

(Dollars)

Camping and Picnicking $9-$18 $76-$123 $169-$265

Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM Roadways) $6 $24 $72

Fishing $5 $52 $122

Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, and Migratory Game Birds) $7 $54 $132

Motorized Boating $15 $32 $76

Motorized Off-highway Vehicle Travel $48 $48 $48

Non-motorized Boating $30 $33 $35

Non-motorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, and Horseback Riding) $0-$37 $21-$62 $21-$153

Non-motorized Winter Activities $57 $57 $57

Snowmobile and other Motorized Winter Activities $13 $43 $147

Specialized Non-motorized Activities and Events $2 $38 $148

Swimming and Other Water-based Activities $7 $32 $70

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature Study $8 $86 $411

Notes: 

- All net economic benefit (consumer surplus) values reported in 2012 dollars. Consumer surplus value does not represent actual 

financial transaction, but rather value experienced by the participant. 

- Activity categories from RMIS reports were aggregated to match the BLM reporting categories shown above. These underlying 

categories were cross-referenced with corresponding categories from Loomis (2005). Consumer surplus values associated with 

‘general recreation’ were applied those activities without representative values.

‘Camping and Picnicking’ used values associated with ‘Camping’ and ‘Picnicking’

‘Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM Roadways)’ used values associated with ‘Sightseeing’

‘Fishing’ used values associated with ‘Fishing’

‘Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, and Migratory Game Birds)’ used values associated with ‘Hunting’

‘Motorized Boating’ used values associated with ‘Motorboating’

‘Motorized Off-highway Vehicle Travel’ used values associated with ‘Off-road vehicle driving’

‘Non-motorized Boating’ used values associated with ‘Floatboating/rafting/canoeing’

‘Non-motorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, and Horseback Riding)’ used values associated with ‘Backpacking’, ‘Hiking’, 

‘Horseback Riding’, and ‘Mountain biking’

‘Non-motorized Winter Activities’ used values associated with ‘Cross-country Skiing’

‘Snowmobile and other Motorized Winter Activities’ used values associated with ‘Snowmobiling’. ‘Specialized Non-motorized 

Activities and Events’ used values associated with ‘General Recreation’. These values therefore also represent a general 

recreation value that can be applied with specific type of activity is not identified. 

‘Swimming and Other Water-based Activities’ used values associated with ‘Swimming’

‘Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature Study’ used values associated with ‘Sightseeing’ and ‘Wildlife Viewing’

Source: Loomis 2005 

The most common outdoor recreation activities, requiring the least equipment or specialized skill, have 

the largest participation numbers, and, based on the values in Table 3-146, provide the greatest total net 

benefit (e.g., Camping and Picnicking, and Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature Study). Outdoor 

recreation participants in 2013 on BLM-administered lands numbered approximately 10.8 million 

participants. Note that visitor-days are fewer than the number of participants because visitor-days are 

summed across users to full 12 hours of recreation activity. Therefore, if an individual’s recreation visit 

participation time is less than 12 hours, the data combine it with time from another participant. Based on 
612 | P a g e

the data in Table 3-146 and Table 3-147, and using the average (mean) value, recreation activity 

contributed approximately $223 million in net economic benefit gains to residents of and visitors to 

western Oregon. Table 3-147 shows 3.2 million visitor-days in 2013, which corresponds to 5.3 million 

total visits, demonstrating the general proportion of visits to visitor-days for outdoor recreation on BLMadministered lands. 

Table 3-147. Total 2013 visitor-days, by activity, to all western Oregon BLM districts, and net benefit 

estimates (i.e., consumer surplus) (2012 dollars) 

Activity Visitor-days

(Number)

Participants

(Number)

Total Net Benefit 

(Consumer Surplus) 

(Thousands of 2012 

dollars)

Camping and Picnicking 938,290 1,273,349 $111,728

Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM 

Roadways) 376,562 1,959,729 $9,020

Fishing 181,746 598,420 $9,528

Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, and 

Migratory Game Birds) 485,911 1,063,709 $26,122

Motorized Boating 41,843 97,622 $1,332

Motorized Off-highway Vehicle Travel 272,792 826,256 $13,014

Non-motorized Boating 74,580 224,876 $2,454

Non-motorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, and 

Horseback Riding) 243,325 1,211,201 $9,558

Non-motorized Winter Activities 14,723 50,444 $842

Snowmobile and other Motorized Winter 

Activities 1,896 6,903 $81

Specialized Non-motorized Activities and 

Events 111,012 458,870 $4,244

Swimming and Other Water-based Activities 106,537 424,376 $3,436

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature 

Study 385,596 2,564,574 $31,512

Totals 3,234,813 10,760,329 $222,872

Notes: Activity categories provided in the BLM RMIS reports were cross-referenced with corresponding categories from Loomis 

2005. Consumer surplus values associated with ‘general recreation’ were applied those activities without representative values.

A visitor-day represents 12 visitor hours at a site or area. So, for example, 12 one-hour visits equate to one visitor-day. As a 

result, there are more participants than visitor-days. Participants include both local and non-local people. 

Sources: Loomis 2005 and 2013, and USDI BLM 2014f 

Table 3-148 shows the breakdown by BLM district. The Salem and Eugene Districts have the highest 

visitor-day counts and, consequently, the highest recreation values. 
613 | P a g e

Table 3-148. Total 2013 visitor-days, by BLM district, and annual net benefit estimates (i.e., consumer 

surplus) (2012 dollars) 

District/

Field Office

Visitor-days

(Number)

Total Net Benefit

(Consumer Surplus)

(Thousands of 2012 

dollars)

(Mean)

Coos Bay 272,757 $23,858

Eugene 914,175 $59,122

Klamath Falls 48,099 $3,243

Medford 462,463 $28,914

Roseburg 303,727 $20,681

Salem 1,233,592 $87,055

Totals 3,234,813 $222,872

Source: Loomis 2005 and 2013 and USDI BLM 2014f, applying activity-specific use of consumer surplus values 

Special Forest Products 

Supply 

Special forest products include all non-timber products harvested or collected from BLM-administered 

lands in western Oregon. The BLM classifies these products into two broad categories. Category I 

products, such as Christmas trees, huckleberries, beargrass, pine cones, and some mushrooms (e.g., 

morels) grow in areas of disturbance. Timber harvesting, commercial thinning, and prescribed burning, 

create the types of disturbed conditions in which these products grow. Category II products, such as ferns, 

wild ginger, mosses, and some mushrooms (e.g., chanterelles), grow in undisturbed areas. Table 3-149

identifies the special forest products found on BLM-administered lands for which the BLM issues 

permits, and the applicable category. 
614 | P a g e

Table 3-149. Special Forest Products: permits, minimum prices, market values, and revenue to BLM (CY 2012 for all districts) 

Special Forest 

Product Category Unit of Measure

Quantity 

Harvested

Permits

(Number)

BLM 

Minimum 

Price per Unit

Market 

Price 

(Low)

Market 

Price 

(High)

BLM 

Revenue

Market 

Value 

(Low)

Market 

Value 

(High)

Boughs 2 Pounds 182,075 70 $0.03 $0.19 $0.71 $5,700 $34,600 $129,300

Burls & Misc. 2 Pounds 3,600 7 $0.05 $1.94 $2.91 $200 $7,000 $10,500

Christmas Trees 1 Count 581 818 $3.00 $16.94 $16.94 $4,500 $9,800 $9,800

Edibles & 

Medicinals 1, 2 Pounds 17,400 31 $0.05 $2.46 $3.24 $900 $42,800 $56,400

Floral & Greenery 1, 2 Pounds 1,192,125 1,467 $0.05 $2.52 $4.40 $82,200 $3,004,200 $5,245,400

Mosses 2 Pounds 1,000 1 $0.10 $2.51 $3.77 $100 $2,500 $3,800

Mushrooms 1 (Morels)

2 (Chanterelles) Pounds 315,138 1,621 $0.10 $2.70 $125.40 $48,500 $850,900 $39,518,300

Seeds & Seed 

Cones

1 (Pine)

2 (Hemlock) Bushels 1,000 3 $0.20-$0.25 $0.42 $3.05 $100 $400 $3,100

Transplants & 

Ornamentals 1, 2 Count 650 11 $1.00-$10.00 $0.02 $18.24 $400 < $100 $11,900

Totals - - 4,029 - - - $238,200 $3,952,200 $44,988,300

Note: All revenue and market values rounded to the nearest hundred 

Sources: Barnard 2014, Blatner and Alexander 1998, USDI BLM 2014, Draffan 2006, Muir et al. 2006, Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree Association 2014, USDI BLM Salem 

2011, Schlosser and Blatner 1997, Schlosser and Blatner 1995, Thomas and Schumann 1993
615 | P a g e

Under current conditions, in the coastal/north region of the decision area, approximately 111,300 acres 

(11 percent) of stands on BLM-administered lands support Category I (disturbance-associated) products 

and 864,600 acres (89 percent) of stands on BLM-administered lands support Category II (disturbanceaverse) products. In the interior/south region of the decision area, approximately 195,300 acres 

(16 percent) of forest on BLM-administered lands support Category 1 products and 992,000 acres 

(84 percent) of forest on BLM-administered lands support Category II products in the interior/south area. 

The Forest Management section in this chapter describes the distribution of Category I and Category II 

special forest products in more detail. 

Demand 

All the BLM districts in the planning area report harvests of non-timber forest products. The BLM 

manages the collection of these products via a permit system, issuing permits to both commercial 

collectors and for personal use. Districts report that people seeking permits to harvest are primarily local, 

and many are immigrants or non-English speakers. However, the BLM does not systematically collect 

information about the origin or other characteristics of people who receive permits. 

Table 3-149 shows the quantity harvested of the special forest products for issued permits, for all 

products except biomass and wood products, which are addressed in other sections of Issue 1. The data 

reflect demand for these products, especially floral and greenery and mushrooms, but they likely 

underestimate the demand for several reasons: 

 In some cases, there is a limit or cap on the number of permits issued or on the quantity of goods 

harvested. For such goods, demand would be greater than indicated by quantity harvested. 

 Permittees may inaccurately report quantity harvested, resulting in these numbers under- or 

overestimating demand, though the tendency is likely toward underestimation. 

Some harvest may take place without a permit (illegal trespass), so that demand is not captured in BLM 

data. BLM law enforcement reports that trespass does occur (Babcock 2014, personal communication). In 

2012, the Roseburg District issued the most permits (1,440), followed by the Eugene (1,152), Coos Bay 

(980), Medford (241), and Salem (122) Districts, and the Klamath Field Office (94). 

Value 

Table 3-149 also shows the BLM’s minimum price list for permitted special forest products, and a range 

of market values found in the literature (see table sources). Some districts price special forest products 

higher on a per-unit basis than the BLM’s minimum price, though most districts reported using the 

minimum prices for most products. 

Researchers with the U.S. Forest Service conducted the most thorough research on the market for special 

forest products in the Pacific Northwest in the 1980s and 1990s. These studies estimated that annual 

permitted harvest values across these markets totaled to $400 million for the Pacific Northwest annually 

(Schlosser et al. 1992). Later researchers noted, “There is very little information about year-to-year prices 

for products within the different industries [for various special forest products], so although large general 

trends can be discussed, specific prices and industry trends are not well understood” (Blatner and 

Alexander 1998). This research also suggests high levels of unpermitted use, and corresponding greater 

actual value harvested. Schlosser and Blatner (1997) estimated Christmas greens contributing 

approximately $128.5 million in product sales in the region in 1989, while edible mushrooms contributed 

$41.1 million in product sales. 

Table 3-149 shows the revenue the BLM received from permit sales for the special forest products in 

2012, and the value of each type of special forest product based on the range of market values. BLM 

revenue was highest in the Eugene district ($78,500), followed by the Roseburg ($60,300), Coos Bay 
616 | P a g e

($44,300), Medford ($29,200), and Salem ($22,300) Districts, and the Klamath Falls Field Office 

($3,500). 

As Table 3-149 shows, special forest products in each grouping may contain species that thrive in either 

Category I or Category II lands. For example, some mushrooms, such as morels, grow best in disturbed 

areas, while others, such as chanterelles, require undisturbed land to flourish. The BLM collects some 

data on the type of mushroom harvested, but for about 80 percent of the permit records related to 

mushrooms, the species is unspecified. This data insufficiency makes it difficult to determine the 

distribution of value between Category I and Category II lands for species that are in both categories. 

Sustainable Energy Production 

Supply 

The potential sustainable sources of energy from BLM-administered lands in the planning area include 

biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind. The Sustainable Energy section of the Analysis of the Management 

Situation (USDI BLM 2013, pp. 2-117 – 2-120) discusses in more detail the background and potential for 

development of each on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon. As of 2014, there were no 

geothermal, solar, or wind developments on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, though, the 

U.S. Department of the Interior has identified one site with the potential for generating energy from 

geothermal resources. 

BLM-administered lands in western Oregon generate several types of biomass, including slash, lumber 

and paper byproducts (e.g., pulp), firewood, and scrap and salvaged wood. The source of biomass the 

BLM is most likely to offer for energy production is slash from logging (see the Sustainable Energy 

section in this chapter). Thus, the quantity of biomass available for energy production each year is derived 

from the volume of timber harvests. According to the Sustainable Energy section, almost 153,000 bone 

dry tons of biomass from slash were available based on 2012 harvest levels. Supplies of other sources of 

biomass, such as firewood, are also available to produce additional energy. 

Demand 

Although BLM-administered lands in western Oregon provide some areas suitable for wind production, 

there is currently no demand for developing these areas, because their proximity to transmission capacity 

and centers of demand make development too costly under today’s economic conditions (Peter Broussard, 

BLM, personal communication, 2013). Currently, demand for generating energy via geothermal resources 

is limited by technology and a lack of infrastructure to convey energy to population centers. There is no 

current demand for solar energy in the decision area based on current solar generation technology. 

Markets for biomass fuel are close in proximity to the production areas, but other Federal, State, and 

private sources supply these markets. State and Federal mandates that require energy companies and 

communities to invest in renewable energy resources are driving investors to consider the energy 

resources available on BLM-administered lands, including those in western Oregon (USDI BLM 2014c). 

The BLM is actively working with communities and companies in western Oregon to develop 

information, infrastructure, and other resources to better-utilize biomass for renewable energy production 

(USDI BLM 2006 and 2010). Several co-generation facilities exist in western Oregon that utilize biomass 

to produce electricity, most commonly associated with existing sawmills. Industrial landowners and other 

partners are exploring opportunities for installing new generation capacity at existing sawmills, and 

building small-scale generation and heating projects for institutional facilities, such as schools (USDI 

BLM 2006). 
617 | P a g e

Utilization of biomass (using sold amounts as a proxy for utilization, and utilization to represent demand) 

from BLM-administered lands in the planning area has varied over the last few years, ranging from 

almost 70,000 green tons in 2010 to less than 10,000 green tons since 2011. Incentives provided through 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 likely contributed to the peak in 2010. In 2012, 

among the district/field offices in the planning area, only the Klamath Falls Field Office reported 

production of biomass materials totaling 3,000 bone dry tons. All six districts reported issuing permits for 

fuel wood, amounting to 5,578 green tons produced. Assuming 40 percent moisture content, this equals 

3,347 bone dry tons. Thus, the total quantity of biomass utilized in 2012 was 6,347 bone dry tons. 

Value 

In 2012, the BLM received $1,500 in revenue from selling a permit for 3,000 bone dry tons of biomass. 

This equates to $0.50 per bone dry ton or about $0.03 per million BTUs. This transaction occurred in the 

jurisdiction of the Klamath Falls Field Office. The BLM also granted permits for the procurement of 

about 5,600 green tons of fuel wood across all six districts, and received in exchange about $30,700 in 

revenue. Assuming that the average moisture content of the biomass is 40 percent, this equates to about 

$9 per bone dry ton or about $0.5 to $0.6 per million BTUs. In total, BLM earned about $32,200 in 

revenue from all sources of biomass burned for energy in 2012. Data are unavailable to quantity the 

amount or value of biomass from BLM-administered lands that industrial landowners and paper mills 

utilized to produce energy. 

Livestock Grazing 

Supply 

Only the Coos Bay District, Klamath Falls Field Office, and Medford District administer livestock 

grazing in the decision area. The Livestock Grazing section in this chapter provides detail on the current 

and historic supply of livestock grazing resources. In 2012, the decision area had approximately 23,000 

active animal unit months (AUMs; Table 3-150).
618 | P a g e

Table 3-150. Livestock grazing, number of permittees, forage, market value, and BLM revenue, 2012 

District/

Field Office

Supply Indications of Demand Indications of Value

Active

Use

(AUMs)

*, 

†

Permittees

(Number)

Billed

AUMs*, ‡

Market Value 

Based on 

Private 

Forage Price 

($16.80/AUM)

Market 

Value Based 

on State 

Forage Price

($8.48/AUM)

BLM 

Revenue 

Based on 

Federal 

Livestock 

Grazing Fee

($1.35/AUM)

Coos Bay 120 4 23 $386 $195 $31

Eugene - - - - - -

Klamath Falls 13,210 63 8,474 $142,363 $71,860 $11,440

Medford 10,255 43 6,878 $115,550 $58,325 $9,285

Roseburg - - - - - -

Salem - - - - - -

Totals§

23,585 63 15,375 $258,300 $130,380 $20,756

* An animal unit month (AUM) is the amount of forage required to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or 

goats for a month on lands in western Oregon. Active Use is a measure of the amount of available forage designated for livestock 

grazing in a given year 

† Active Use is used in this section to describe the supply of livestock grazing land provided by BLM-administered lands. Not all 

of this land is actually used for livestock grazing, even though livestock grazing is allowed by regulation 

‡ A billed AUM is the amount of forage actually used for livestock grazing, and is the unit used to calculate revenue to the BLM. 

§ Totals may not sum due to rounding 

Sources: Livestock Grazing section of this chapter, USDI BLM Data: Allotments Use Summary for Billing Year 2012 by 

Districts, USDI BLM 2014b, USDI BLM 2014e 

Demand 

Demand for livestock grazing permits is from private landowners in the vicinity of and adjacent to BLMadministered rangelands, whose property the BLM has recognized as having preference for the use of 

public livestock grazing privileges. Public rangelands are made available for livestock grazing through a 

system of permits and leases tied to particular areas (allotments) and quantities of forage. In 2012, there 

were 110 permittees leasing or permitted to graze on BLM allotments in the management area (Table 3-

150). These 110 permittees billed the BLM for the use of 16,333 AUMs of forage. 

Value 

The Federal government sets the Federal livestock grazing fee annually, which applies to BLM- and U.S. 

Forest Service-administered lands in the 16 western states. The fee is adjusted based on a formula set by 

Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 and modified by subsequent presidential 

Executive orders. While the fee takes into account market factors, such as production costs and beef 

prices, the price is not set in an open market, so may not reflect the actual value of the right to graze 

animals on BLM-administered lands. 

The Federal livestock grazing fee in 2012 was $1.35 (USDI BLM 2013, USDI BLM 2014d). By law, the 

fee cannot fall below $1.35 per AUM, and cannot increase or decrease more than 25 percent year-overyear (Vincent 2012). Since 2004, the fee has ranged from $1.35 to $1.79. The BLM collected 

approximately $21,000 in revenue for the AUMs within the decision area in 2012 (Table 3-150).

Disputes persist about the extent to which Federal livestock grazing fees actually reflect ‘fair market 

value’ (USDI BLM 2013). The average price of private forage on land in the western United States in 
619 | P a g e

2011 was $16.80 per AUM (USDI BLM 2013). The livestock grazing fee on State trust lands in Oregon 

in 2012 was $8.48 per AUM (Oregon Department of State Lands 2012). At these prices, the value of 

livestock grazing would have ranged from about $130,000 to $258,000. However, the value of an AUM 

on BLM-administered lands may not compare directly to livestock grazing fees for private land, because 

private livestock grazing fees may include other services that enhance its value, such as fencing and water 

infrastructure that BLM allotments do not provide. State livestock grazing fees may provide a better 

comparison, although differences in proximity, density of forage, and herd security between State trust 

and BLM-administered lands may still factor into a lower average value associated with using BLMadministered lands for livestock grazing. 

Rangeland provides a broad range of goods and services. See the recreation and biodiversity subsections 

of this issue for discussion of the value of other goods and services associated with rangeland. 

Minerals 

Supply 

BLM-administered lands include approximately 2.5 million acres that could provide mineral resources to 

the public. These lands include salable, locatable, and leasable mineral resources. 

 Salable Minerals—The primary salable mineral resources associated with BLM-administered 

lands in western Oregon are sand, gravel, and crushed stone, referred to collectively as ‘mineral 

material.’

 Locatable Minerals—Locatable minerals in western Oregon include precious metals (e.g., 

gold, silver, nickel, mercury, and uranium), nonmetallic minerals (e.g., fluorspar and 

gemstones), and uncommon variety minerals (e.g., certain limestone and silica). 

 Leasable Minerals—Leasable minerals in western Oregon include oil, gas, coalbed natural 

gas, coal, and geothermal energy. 

Those interested in mineral development have access to a large majority of BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area. Currently, approximately 13 percent, or 319,000 acres, of BLM-administered lands are 

closed to salable mineral material disposal, and approximately 4 percent, or 98,400 acres, are withdrawn 

from locatable mineral entry. The decision area would remain open to leasable mineral development 

under all alternatives and the proposed RMP except where legislation has already closed lands. The 

Minerals section of this chapter provides more detail on the supply of mineral resources. 

Demand 

Demand for minerals on BLM-administered lands comes from several sources: commercial (e.g., 

industrial landowners), governmental agencies utilizing materials for government projects with free use 

permits, and individuals looking for mineral resources (mostly locatable minerals) primarily for personal 

use or enjoyment. All these types of demand have the potential to generate economic benefits. This 

section focuses on demand from larger-scale mineral production. There are no current leases for oil, gas, 

or coal on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, and limited activity related to locatable minerals. 

The BLM does not collect information about the quantity of locatable minerals removed from mining 

claims. 

There are over 1,000 developed quarries for salable mineral materials on BLM-administered lands in 

western Oregon. In 2012, producers removed approximately 35,555 cubic yards of mineral material from 

these quarries, primarily crushed and specialty stone. Approximately 85 percent was from the Roseburg 

District (Table 3-151). Between 2005 and 2012, producers removed on average about 25,000 cubic yards 

in the Eugene, Medford, and Roseburg Districts. The most common uses for these minerals are road 

construction and resurfacing, and building other surfaces for use during logging operations. Recreation 
620 | P a g e

facilities (e.g., boat ramps) and conservation activities (e.g., stream improvements) use some material. 

The relatively close proximity of the source of salable mineral materials to roads, logging units, and 

recreation areas on BLM-administered lands helps reduce costs of associated activities. 

Table 3-151. Salable mineral materials, market value, and revenue, 2012 

District/

Field Office

Mineral Material Removed

from BLM-administered Lands

(Cubic Yards)

Market Value and

Revenue to BLM

(Dollars)

Coos Bay - -

Eugene 27 $188

Klamath Falls - -

Medford 5,285 $3,584

Roseburg 30,243 $15,141

Salem - -

Totals 35,555 $15,328

There were 1,045 active mining claims for locatable minerals on BLM-administered lands in western 

Oregon in 2013, an increase of 25 percent since 2005 (USDI BLM 2013). Most of the increase is in the 

Medford District, where claims increased by 200, or about 30 percent. 

Value 

Federal law authorizes the BLM to sell salable mineral materials at fair market value. Prices for mineral 

material are set by district rate sheets, or by appraisal for larger or specialized quantities. The price per 

cubic yard in 2012 ranged from $0.50 to $10.00 per cubic yard. The Eugene and Roseburg Districts 

charged $0.50 per cubic yard for most sales, while the Medford District charged $3.00 per cubic yard for 

most sales. The market value to the BLM in 2012 was approximately $15,300 (Table 3-151). The value 

of locatable minerals would also be based on their market value. However, the BLM does not collect 

information on production from these claims. 

The value of recreational mining, where people participate for the experience as much or more than the 

prospect of earning income, is partially captured in the Recreation section of Issue 1. The BLM does not 

explicitly track user days for recreational mining, but some of these users are likely captured in the data 

for other recreational activities (e.g., hiking and public motorized travel activities).

Carbon Storage 

Supply 

The Climate Change section in this chapter describes the current conditions regarding climate change and 

carbon storage for the decision area. Forests in the decision area as a whole are a sink for carbon, fixing 

more carbon above- and below-ground than they emit. The BLM-administered lands in the planning area 

store an estimated 366 teragrams of Carbon (Tg C) (1 teragram is equivalent to 1 million metric tons. The 

carbon density (the amount of carbon per acre) varies by district with the Klamath Fall Field Office 

having the lowest density and the Eugene District the highest. Each year the net amount of carbon stored 

in forests changes, with some released through fire, decay, and other processes, and some fixed through 

growth. In 2012, the forests in the decision area fixed and stored a net total of about 769,000 metric tons 

of carbon. 
621 | P a g e

Demand 

Across the world, many individuals, businesses, and governments recognize a need to address climate 

change through greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation, to avoid costs associated with climate change 

now and in the future. Some markets exist where greenhouse gas producers pay dollars for so-called 

‘carbon offsets’ or ‘carbon credits.’ However, there is no active trading market in western Oregon, and 

the BLM does not participate in these markets. Among individuals and groups, demand exists to maintain 

existing carbon sinks and increase opportunities for carbon storage in western Oregon, but a funding 

mechanism to achieve this does not exist. 

Value 

Absent a market for carbon, this analysis addresses the value of carbon storage from a social perspective, 

where the value of carbon storage is derived from non-market valuation techniques such as avoided cost 

and avoided risk. The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the anticipated future damages from 

greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Interagency Working Group convened by the Council of 

Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget to analyze the social cost of carbon, SCC 

“is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change” 

(Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government 2013). The 

Interagency Working Group most recently revised the estimates of the SCC in 2015. 

Combining the BLM estimates of the amount of carbon stored in forests in the decision area with the 

most recent average SCC estimates at the 3 percent discount rate, yields a value of carbon stored annually 

by forests in the decision area of approximately $85 million (Table 3-152). Using estimates that reflect 

higher risk of damage—the 95th percentile—yields a value of about $247 million. 

Table 3-152. Quantity of total carbon stored on BLM-administered lands, estimated annual carbon stored, 

and estimated value (2012 dollars) 

District/

Field Office

Stock of Stored 

Carbon

(Million Metric Tons)

Estimated Annual

Carbon Storage

(Million Metric Tons)*

Value of Estimated

Annual Stored Carbon

(Millions)

Average†95th Percentile†

Coos Bay 59.61 0.15 $21 $62

Eugene 59.65 0.15 $21 $62

Klamath Falls 8.71 0.01 $1 $3

Medford 93.94 0.02 $2 $6

Roseburg 63.63 0.06 $9 $25

Salem 75.71 0.21 $31 $89

Totals‡

361.25 0.59 $85 $247

* Estimated Annual Carbon Storage based on calculated per-year carbon storage for total carbon stored over the first decade of 

analysis (2013 to 2023). 

† Values are based on 2015 SCC estimates converted from per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) to per metric ton of carbon (C) 

and converted to 2012 dollars, as described in the methodology at the beginning of this section. Both the average and 95th

percentile scenarios reflect a 3 percent discount rate. 

‡ Totals throughout this analysis do not include carbon stored in harvested wood products. These carbon amounts are reported in 

the Climate Change section. 

Source: USDI BLM and Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon 2015 
622 | P a g e

Source Water Protection 

Supply 

The BLM-administered lands in western Oregon capture, filter, and convey water that people in 

communities across western Oregon drink. There are approximately 20,400 miles of streams and rivers 

and 218,000 acres of lakes, ponds, and wetlands on BLM-administered lands (USDI BLM 2013). In 

2011, the BLM and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) signed a memorandum of 

understanding that documents the efforts that both agencies will take for “managing and controlling point 

and nonpoint source water pollution from BLM-managed lands in the State of Oregon” (ODEQ and USDI 

BLM 2014, p. 1). Specific to the BLM’s resource management plans, the memorandum of understanding

states that RMPs will identify and include best management practices (BMPs) to control non-point 

sources of pollution, to the “maximum extent practicable” (ODEQ, no date, p. 1; ODEQ 2014). The 

Hydrology section in this chapter discusses the quantity and quality of water produced from the planning 

area. 

Demand 

Approximately 80 percent of Oregonians depend on drinking water from public water systems. These 

public water systems draw surface water and groundwater from areas designated to protect the quality of 

drinking water. There are approximately 80 source water watersheds in the planning area, with varying 

amounts of BLM-administered lands. According to the Atlas of Conservation Values, 73 percent of the 

BLM-administered lands in western Oregon are in areas the ODEQ identifies as drinking water protection 

areas (TNC and WSC 2012). The ODEQ and the Oregon Health Authority have identified the source 

water areas in the State and conducted inventories of sources of contamination (USDI BLM 2013, 

p. 2-44). Source water areas for many public water systems encompass lands with multiple ownerships 

and varying forest management policies where BLM-managed lands are often a minority portion of the 

total watershed. Many BLM-administered lands in these watersheds occupy headwaters locations miles 

upstream from surface water sources (D. Carpenter, personal communication, 2014). 

Value 

The economics literature on water-treatment costs includes a growing number of studies that find a 

relationship between the quality of forest cover in source-water areas, and treatment costs for utilities that 

source from these areas. These studies conclude that greater and higher quality forest cover helps reduce 

treatment costs (USDA FS 2000, Freeman et al. 2008, Earth Economics 2012, World Resources Institute 

no date). Utilities manage water systems to address sources of risk to drinking water supplies. To the 

extent that forest management practices influence the risk of threats to a watershed’s integrity and its 

ability to provide clean drinking water, those changes would generate benefits or create costs for utilities 

(USDA FS 2000, Freeman et al. 2008, Earth Economics 2012, World Resources Institute no date). 

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species 

Supply 

The BLM-administered lands in western Oregon include habitats and species of biodiversity importance. 

Important habitats include old-growth forests, wetland and riparian areas, and habitats contained in Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Important species include rare plants and fungi, various 

species of wildlife, fish, and insects (e.g., northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and coho salmon). 

Twelve ESA-listed plant species exist in the planning area. The BLM documented six of these species on 

BLM-administered lands in the decision area (USDI BLM 2013, p. 2-66). The Atlas of Conservation 

Values includes maps of species of concern and critical habitats for ESA-listed species on BLM-
623 | P a g e

administered lands (The Nature Conservancy and Wild Salmon Center 2012). Wildlife, Rare Plants and 

Fungi, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern contain information on the supply or prevalence of 

specific species. Many of these species are found in ACECs, including Research Natural Areas that 

contain areas for ecological and environmental studies and preserves of gene pools of typical and 

endangered plants and animals. 

Demand 

Markets do not exist for the biodiversity aspects of habitats and species. However, evidence of demand 

exists elsewhere. Biologically diverse habitats provide biophysical functions that people depend on for 

survival. Individuals and households express their demand for habitats and species through survey 

responses. Society as a whole expresses demand through laws protecting ESA-listed species and the 

habitats they depend on. 

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment describes the importance of biodiversity to the biophysical 

functions that people depend on: 

“Biodiversity—the diversity of genes, populations, species, communities, and ecosystems—

underlies all ecosystem processes. Ecological processes interacting with the atmosphere, 

geosphere, and hydrosphere determine the environment on which organisms, including people, 

depend. Direct benefits such as food crops, clean water, clean air, and aesthetic pleasures all 

depend on biodiversity, as does the persistence, stability, and productivity of natural systems” 

(MEA 2005, p. 79). 

The biodiversity within forest- and water-related ecosystems supports a range of fundamental ecosystem 

services (Pimentel et al. 1997, Krieger 2001) that people depend on including: 

 Waste disposal 

 Soil formation 

 Nitrogen fixation 

 Bioremediation of chemicals 

 Crop and livestock breeding 

 Biological control of pests 

 Pollination 

People and households express their demand for habitats and species through their response to survey 

questions. The economics literature contains numerous reports and articles in academic journals that 

describe studies of individual and household willingness to pay to protect habitats and species. Examples 

include Rubin et al. (1991), Hagen et al. (1992), Loomis and White (1996), Loomis and González-Cabán 

(1998), Moskowitz and Talberth (1998), Bulte and Van Kooten (1999), Spies and Duncan (2008), Pascual 

and Muradian (2010), and Loomis et al. (2014). The Value subsection below includes values from a 

number of these studies. 

Society expresses demand for biodiversity and related habitats and species when voters or their elected 

representatives pass laws protecting threatened or endangered species and the habitats they depend one. 

For example, when the U.S. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, it recognized, 

“... that our rich natural heritage is of esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value 

to our Nation and its people” (USDI FWS 2013). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

purpose of the act is to, “protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they 

depend” (USDI FWS 2013). The State of Oregon has laws similar to the ESA and maintains its own list 

of threatened and endangered species separate from ESA-listed species (Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife no date). 
624 | P a g e

Value 

The BLM identifies important values that areas provide including historic, cultural, or scenic, fish and 

wildlife resources, and natural processes or systems (USDI BLM 2013c, p. 2-14). Because people rely on 

these ecosystem services from forestlands, they also have economic value (Pimentel et al. 1997, Balmford 

et al. 2002, Farber et al. 2002, and, Pascual and Muradian 2010). The economic literature on this topic 

includes a number of studies that estimate the value of biodiversity and sensitive species in different 

contexts. Loomis et al. (2014) summarized the average values that sample households in the United States 

place on protecting ESA-listed species, by species group, see Table 3-153. In general, the average value 

takes into account the range of household values from zero to the highest values. Researchers typically 

apply the average value to all households in a study area. 

Table 3-153. Willingness to pay (WTP) values per household, by species 

Species Group

Average Annual

Willingness To Pay

(2012 dollars)*

Birds $47

Fish $117

Mammals $19

Marine Mammals $44

* Values updated from 2006 dollars using the GDP deflator 

Source: Loomis et al. 2014 

The literature also includes studies of sample households’ average willingness to pay for some, but not 

all, of the threatened and endangered species present in the planning area (Table 3-154), and to protect 

old-growth habitat (Table 3-155).
625 | P a g e

Table 3-154. Annual willingness to pay (WTP) values per household, by species. 

Species

Average Annual

Willingness To Pay

(2012 dollars #)

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalis) $131*

Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) Unknownǀǀ

Fisher (Pekania pennanti) $19

†

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos canadensis) $47†

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) $47†

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) $68*

Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) Unknownǀǀ

Red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) $18

‡

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) $47

†

Steller’s sea lion (Eumetopics jubatus) $84*

Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) $47

†

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydras editha taylori) Unknownǀǀ

Gray wolf (Canis lupus nubilus) $22*

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) $201§

* See Martín-López et al. 2008, and references therein 

† No species-specific studies exist; representative values from Loomis et al. 2014 used 

‡ White et al. 1997; Note that the value reported above was not calculated for the red tree vole, specifically, but for a different 

vole species. 

§ Ericsson et al. 2007

ǀǀ No studies exist to estimate the WTP for invertebrate species, such as butterflies. However, Diffendorfer et al. (2013) calculated 

that U.S. households value monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) at approximately $4.78–$6.64 billion—a level similar to 

many endangered vertebrate species. 

# Values updated from 2006 dollars using the GDP deflator 

Table 3-155. Annual willingness to pay (WTP) values per household to protect old-growth habitat. 

Source

Average Annual

Willingness To Pay

(2012 dollars)

Rubin et al. (1991) $65

Moskowitz and Talberth (1998) $64  $192

Loomis et al. (1994) $128

The studies that produced the dollar amounts in Table 3-154 and in Table 3-155 differ in their location 

and year conducted, demographic characteristics of study populations, approach, methods, questions 

asked, and in some cases include values for multiple and overlapping goods or services. Extrapolating 

these results to an accurate total value for the planning area is not possible given these variables. 

Nevertheless, the findings confirm, that, on average, households in the United States value ESA-listed 

species. For illustrative purposes, the BLM estimated the value of bird species in the planning area using 

the latest estimates of willingness to pay from Loomis et al. (2014). A number of important bird species 

and their habitats exist in the planning area including eagles, the marbled murrelet, and northern spotted 

owl. Multiplying the average household willingness to pay estimate for bird species from Loomis et al.

(2014), $47 (2012 dollars) by the number of households in the planning area, approximately 1.3 million 
626 | P a g e

(U.S. Bureau of the Census 2014b), yields an estimated value of approximately $63 million (2012 

dollars).

Scenic Amenities 

Supply 

The BLM categorizes the BLM-administered lands into one of four classes based on the relative value of 

visual resources. Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) Class I is assigned to those areas where a management 

decision has been made previously to maintain a natural landscape; these are located on congressionally 

designated lands, and BLM management actions must not adversely affect them. The other three VRI 

Classes are assigned based on a combination of scenic quality (i.e., visual appeal, as measured by a 

variety of factors), public sensitivity (i.e., degree of concern for the resource), and distance to publicly 

accessible travel routes and observation points. Over half of the BLM-administered lands in the decision 

area is VRI Class IV, which is the category of lowest visual resource value inventory class. About a 

quarter of the land (about 553,000 acres) is Class II and another quarter is Class III (about 578,000 acres). 

It is important to note that land with high scores for scenic quality may be distributed throughout these 

three classes, depending on the other attributes (sensitivity levels and distance zones) factored into the 

VRI rating. Approximately 1 percent of land in the decision area is Class I. The Visual Resource 

Management section of this chapter contains a detailed description of how land is categorized by VRI, 

and provides a more detailed breakdown of VRI classes throughout the management area. 

Demand 

People care about scenic amenities for a variety of reasons. Much of the demand for scenic amenities 

comes when people engage in recreation, on both public and private land. It is difficult to separate the 

demand for visual experience from the rest of the recreation experience, and the demand for recreation 

activities, such as motorized and non-motorized travel largely captures the demand for scenic amenities in 

the decision area. Scenic amenities are also important to people who live or work nearby BLMadministered lands and have views of public property. 

Value 

This section focuses on the value to private property owners with views of BLM-administered lands. 

Economic modeling demonstrates what common observation suggests: private property with a good view 

sells at a premium, compared to property without (Powe et al. 1997, Malpezzi 2002). The value of the 

premium is highly variable, and depends on the larger geographical and social context of the property. 

Studies have found premiums for views associated with residential properties ranging from statistically 

insignificant but positive to 1–89 percent of the price of a home (Behrer 2010). Most studies find the 

premium of a view is comparable to the premium added by a fireplace or a pool. The economic literature 

suggests that the price premium is more relevant for higher-valued residential properties and property 

with a primary purpose of recreation. The relationship between the VRI rating of a particular piece of 

BLM-administered lands and the value of nearby properties is complicated. VRI rating attempts to 

account for the proximity of private properties with views of BLM-administered lands under the VRI 

Sensitivity factor for “adjacent land uses.” It is likely that the more distant these properties are away from 

the BLM, the less refined the data. However, data is not available that document how the scenic views of 

BLM-administered lands in directly contributes to the monetary value of private property. Moreover, a 

low VRI rating does not necessarily mean that the land is not likely contributing value to private property 

through views. For example, a private residence may have a highly desirable view that enhances its 

property value, and that view may be comprised in part of BLM-administered lands, but those lands could 
627 | P a g e

be categorized as VRI Class III or IV due to having combination of average or less scenic quality, 

moderate to low public sensitivity and its position within the distance zone. 

Cultural Meaning 

Supply 

The BLM-administered lands in the planning area contain over 2,400 cultural resource sites, including 

sites that are pre-historic, historic, or multi-component (i.e., possessing both historic and pre-historic 

components). The Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources section in this chapter provides 

additional detail on cultural and paleontological resources. The BLM-administered lands also provide 

intangible cultural services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defines cultural services as including 

“nonmaterial benefits people obtain through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, 

recreation, and aesthetic experiences” (Sarukhán and White 2005). 

Demand 

Visitation to specific sites, organized activities on and related to BLM-administered lands, and individual 

interaction with specific resources demonstrate demand for the cultural resources. Demand also exists 

among populations who may not visit BLM-administered lands or interact with resources directly, but 

hold their existence to be important, for example, to maintain their cultural identity. 

BLM districts report document many examples of demand for cultural resources. Three of many 

examples are: 

 The Coos Bay District promotes and facilitates access to the Cape Blanco Lighthouse, which is 

the oldest lighthouse in Oregon. In 2012, 20,000 visitors toured the lighthouse. 

 The Roseburg District collaborated with the Umpqua National Forest to conduct a Passport in 

Time public archaeology project. Other examples of demand include school-age children 

attending the School Forestry Tour and Creek Week. 

 The Salem District, between 1996 and 2012, conducted 392 public education and interpretative 

programs focusing on cultural resources, which involved 17,833 people. 

Nine federally recognized Tribes have lands or interests within the planning area. Tribal members express 

their demand and value for cultural resources in the ways they use and protect resources that have cultural 

importance to them. In some cases, uses are consumptive, as when Tribal members collect and consume 

wild plants as food or medicine. In other cases, uses are non-consumptive, as when accessing a location 

for ceremonial or sacred purposes. Tribes are also engaged in active management and protection of 

resources on BLM-administered lands (USDI BLM 2013). 

Society also expresses demand for the protection of prehistoric and historic sites and artifacts through the 

laws and regulations passed to protect them, including the National Historic Preservation Act (which also 

created a Historic Preservation Fund to survey, document, and protect cultural resources), the 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and 

others (USDI National Park Service 2014). 

Value 

The economics literature includes studies that describe the economic importance of cultural meaning or 

sense of place. Some studies estimate values based on spending by visitors to cultural sites, other studies 

estimate the value people place on protecting cultural sites or heritage, even if they never plan to visit 

these locations. These studies also describe a site’s resources or attributes that contribute to cultural 
628 | P a g e

meaning, such as uniqueness, historical significance, or spiritual meaning (Snyder et al. 2003, de la Torre 

(ed.) 2002, and Dümcke and Gnedovsky 2013). Given the challenges of estimating the economic value of 

an intangible such as cultural heritage or sense of place, these studies provide insights into the importance 

people and societies place on these resources, rather than into a precise measure of economic value. 

Cultural meaning contributes to the overall economic value of the goods and services from BLMadministered lands, though it is not possible to characterize all aspects of cultural meaning in the 

monetary language of economics. 

The net economic benefit of recreation captures the value of some aspects of cultural meaning, as the 

cultural importance of an activity may be mixed with its recreational value. For example, family members 

may visit the Cape Blanco Lighthouse because it is the oldest lighthouse in Oregon, and hike or picnic 

while there. It is difficult to parse out the value they attribute to their day of recreation versus their interest 

in the lighthouse; there may be a premium they would place on their experience compared to another 

destination, but there is no applicable research to determine what this premium is. 

Similarly, the value people place on the existence of sensitive species, such as salmon and the northern 

spotted owl, may be supported or enhanced by the cultural meaning people ascribe to these species. The 

economic studies underlying the values reported in Table 3-154 do not parse the cultural aspects of value 

from other reasons why people ascribe value to the existence of these species. 

The non-market values reported elsewhere in this section also do not capture the value of the cultural 

meaning indigenous people derive from the natural environment. Across the Pacific Northwest, for 

example, the tribal way of life is intertwined with the ecosystem that supports the many resources Tribes 

have used for thousands of years. In many cases, the rhythm of life and social organization revolves 

around the annual life cycle of plants, animals, and fish found on BLM-administered lands. These 

relationships are impossible—and inappropriate—to capture with a monetary measure, but they are 

important to these groups’ economic well-being. Cultural meaning is perhaps more valuable from an 

economic perspective than other resources because the resources that have cultural importance are 

irreplaceable. 

Summary 

Table 3-156 summarizes the economic value of goods and services reported in the sections above. The 

first group of goods and services represent those that are valued using market prices, and from which 

BLM receives revenue. The amount of revenue received in 2012 is shown in the table, along with 

estimates of market value if BLM revenue is based on a price other than the market price. The second 

group of goods and services BLM does not earn revenue from directly. Two of these are quantified using 

non-market methods of valuation: willingness to pay for recreation and the social cost of carbon. The 

others are not monetized, but likely have economic value as described in the sections above. The 

quantified estimates in the table represent different metrics for estimating value, including market 

revenue, consumer surplus and willingness to pay, and avoided costs. The two groups are not strictly 

comparable and their sum should not be interpreted as a total value. The monetary estimates capture only 

a part of the total economic value of the goods and services provided by BLM-administered lands because 

they do not include the value of goods and services that cannot be monetized given available data, such as 

source water protection, biodiversity, scenic amenities, and cultural meaning. 
629 | P a g e

Table 3-156. Summary of economic value of goods and services derived from BLM-administered lands 

in western Oregon, 2012 

Good or Service Type of Valuation Economic Value in 2012

Market-based Goods and Services

Timber Market Price,

Harvest Value $20.8 million

Special Forest Products BLM Permit Fees,

Market Price

BLM Revenue: $0.24 million;

Market Value (Low) $4 million,

Market Value (High) $45 million

Energy Production Market Price $0.032 million

Livestock Grazing Congressionally Set Price,

Market Price

$0.022 million

Market Value (State) $0.14 million

Market Value (Private) $0.27 million

Minerals Market Price $0.015 million

Non-market-based Goods and Services

Recreation Consumer Surplus, 

Willingness to Pay $223 million

Carbon Storage Social Cost of Carbon $85 million

Source Water Protection Qualitative Not Monetized

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species Qualitative Not Monetized

Scenic Amenities Qualitative Not Monetized

Cultural Meaning Qualitative Not Monetized

Environmental Consequences 

Timber 

Table 3-157 shows the total harvest volumes under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The volumes 

include both the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) and non-ASQ harvest. The total harvest volumes change 

over time because of changes in the amount of non-ASQ harvest (see the Forest Management section in 

this chapter for explanation of non-ASQ volume). 

Table 3-157. Annual total* BLM harvest volumes (short log scale) over time 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

2023

Harvest 

Volume

(MMbf)

2033

Harvest 

Volume

(MMbf)

2043

Harvest 

Volume

(MMbf)

2053

Harvest 

Volume

(MMbf)

2063

Harvest 

Volume

(MMbf)

2113

Harvest 

Volume

(MMbf)

No Action 399.6 391.6 380.2 364.5 341.2 286.9

Alt. A 248.6 243.7 245.2 244.3 252.2 294.9

Alt. B 331.7 322.9 315.5 302.7 300.9 288.6

Alt. C 555.0 548.7 541.1 532.7 524.4 588.0

Alt. D 180.0 179.8 179.4 178.9 184.5 244.4

PRMP 277.5 270.7 265.1 253.7 252.0 236.1

* Annual totals shown are calculated from decadal averages of modeled harvest volumes 
630 | P a g e

The harvest volumes in Table 3-157 are derived from the vegetation modeling (Appendix C) that also 

provides several other measures useful in describing value differences among the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP and effects on BLM districts. These include gross revenues, costs, and net revenues. 

Based on these data, the BLM calculated the net worth of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. As a 

caution, the gross revenue figures include logging costs and BLM adjustments to sale costs so that they 

are only a proxy for the actual revenues (harvest value) that the government would receive. 

The ten-year average of timber gross revenues would be highest for all periods under Alternative C, and 

lowest for all time periods under Alternative D (Figure 3-130 and Figure 3-131). Gross revenues would 

be generally stable across the 10-year periods, although Alternatives A, B, and D would fluctuate 

similarly while the Proposed RMP and Alternative C would differ rising in the third and fourth decade 

respectively. For the first decade (2014–2023), total revenues would range from a low of approximately 

$843 million under Alternative D to a high of $2.8 billion under Alternative C (Table 3-158). Total gross 

revenues for the Proposed RMP would be slightly higher than under Alternative A. These variations 

result from the timing of harvests of high value timber versus low value thinning harvests, and differences 

in the costs of harvest techniques. 
631 | P a g e

Figure 3-130. Timber gross revenue over time 

Note: Year represents last year of 10-year period, and values are the 10-year sum 

Source: Based on calculations using the Woodstock Model, 2012 dollars

Figure 3-131. Gross revenue, total costs, and net revenue, 2014–2023 

Source: Based on calculations using the Woodstock Model, 2012 dollars

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

2014–2023 2024–2033 2034–2043 2044–2053 2054–2063

Total BLM Timber Gross Revenue

(2012 Dollars)

10-year Period

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP 1.3 billion 0.8 billion 1.1 billion 1.9 billion 0.6 billion 0.7 billion

-$1,000,000,000

-$500,000,000

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Timber Revenue and Costs 2014

–2023

(2012 Dollars)

Gross Timber Revenue Total Timber Costs Net Timber Revenue

Alt. C

Alt. B

Alt. D

Alt. A

PRMP

No Action
632 | P a g e

Table 3-158. Gross revenue, total costs, and net revenue, 2014–2023 ($ Millions) 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

District/

Field Office

Gross 

Revenue 

Totals

2014–2023

(Millions)

Total Costs 

2014–2023

(Millions)

Net Revenue 

Totals

2014–2023

(Millions)

Net Present 

Value

Over 50 Years

2014–2063

(Millions)

No Action

Coos Bay $370 $125 $245 $478

Eugene $426 $143 $283 $591

Klamath Falls $35 $18 $17 $41

Medford $470 $171 $299 $612

Roseburg $396 $142 $254 $522

Salem $345 $119 $226 $458

Totals $2,042 $718 $1,324 $2,701

Alt. A

Coos Bay $226 $84 $143 $327

Eugene $285 $97 $188 $437

Klamath Falls $12 $1 $11 $24

Medford $203 $51 $152 $286

Roseburg $144 $51 $93 $182

Salem $330 $101 $229 $498

Totals $1,200 $385 $815 $1,755

Alt. B

Coos Bay $236 $91 $145 $307

Eugene $381 $133 $248 $574

Klamath Falls $30 $4 $26 $54

Medford $322 $36 $286 $557

Roseburg $221 $78 $142 $300

Salem $432 $137 $295 $637

Totals $1,622 $479 $1,142 $2,428

Alt. C

Coos Bay $533 $178 $355 $724

Eugene $742 $237 $505 $1,150

Klamath Falls $39 $14 $25 $55

Medford $364 $85 $279 $558

Roseburg $480 $155 $324 $647

Salem $662 $200 $462 $1,016

Totals $2,821 $871 $1,950 $4,151

Alt. D

Coos Bay $103 $30 $73 $171

Eugene $210 $45 $164 $391

Klamath Falls $20 $7 $13 $29

Medford $155 $31 $124 $227

Roseburg $110 $31 $79 $166

Salem $244 $68 $177 $422

Totals $843 $212 $630 $1,406

PRMP

Coos Bay $141 $57 $84 $182

Eugene $327 $121 $206 $505

Klamath Falls $24 $12 $12 $26

Medford $211 $107 $104 $228

Roseburg $179 $85 $95 $206

Salem $341 $118 $222 $539

Totals $1,224 $501 $723 $1,686
633 | P a g e

Costs and net revenue correspond proportionally to the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. For example, 

Alternative C would have the highest gross and net revenues, while Alternative D would have the least 

(Figure 3-131). Net revenues for the 2014 to 2023 period would be approximately $630 million under 

Alternative D, and approximately $2 billion under Alternative C. Gross revenue under the Proposed RMP 

would be approximately $1.2 billion (i.e., falling between Alternatives A and B). 

The discounted net present value of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP for the 50-year period (2014 

to 2063) (i.e., the value if all the revenue were realized in 2012) would range from approximately $1.4 

billion under Alternative D to approximately $4.1 billion under Alternative C (Table 3-158 and Figure 3-

132). Under the Proposed RMP, the net present value would be approximately $1.7 billion. The net 

present value would be largest for the Salem District under Alternatives A, B, and D, and largest for the 

Eugene District under Alternative C. The net present value under the Proposed RMP would be largest for 

the Salem District, followed by the Eugene District. 
634 | P a g e

Figure 3-132. Net present value over 50 years (2014–2063) by district 

Note: The values are in base 2012 dollars using a discount rate of 4 percent

$2.70 billion

$1.75 billion

$2.43 billion

$4.15 billion

$1.41 billion

$1.69 billion

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$3,500,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$4,500,000,000

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Net Present Value Over 50 Years (2012 Dollars)

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Total
635 | P a g e

The Forest Management section in this chapter details the differences in value of logs harvested in terms 

of grade over time, by alternative and the Proposed RMP. These differences help explain the differences 

in net present value among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Alternative C would have its highest 

value harvests early in the timeframe, while Alternative D would have its highest value harvests at the end 

of the timeframe. The Proposed RMP, like Alternatives B and D, would maintain a higher proportion of 

higher-grade harvest over time compared to Alternatives A and C. Discounting results in more heavily 

weighing benefits in the present than in the future. 

Logging costs per thousand board feet (Mbf) would vary by district and by alternative and the Proposed 

RMP (Figure 3-133). These costs would change as harvest prescriptions differ and the biggest difference 

being the extent of thinning versus regeneration harvests. Costs in the Klamath Falls Field Office would 

be particularly low during the first time period relative to other districts under Alternatives A and B, and 

more in line with other districts under Alternatives C and D. In contrast, the Coos Bay District would 

have the highest costs per unit, but would be approximately $40 lower per Mbf under Alternative D. 

Across all districts, in the first five decades; Alternatives B and D would have the highest per unit costs; 

Alternative A would have the lowest. Among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, Alternative D 

would have the lowest gross revenues, costs, and net revenues (Figure 3-133). Costs per unit would be 

greater under the Proposed RMP than under the alternatives during the first decade, particularly in the 

southern districts. 
636 | P a g e

Figure 3-133. Cost per volume by district, 2014–2023 (2012 dollars) 

Note: Costs are in short log units

$180

$155

$145

$157

$118

$180

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Cost Per Volume 2014

–2023 (2012 Dollars/Mbf)

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Total
637 | P a g e

Stumpage prices (the value of standing timber) for the first decade would be lowest for the Klamath Falls 

Field Office and highest on average for the Medford District (Figure 3-134). The Roseburg District 

would have the highest prices under Alternative C. Alternative C would have the highest overall 

stumpage prices ($324/Mbf) averaged across all districts, and the Proposed RMP would have the lowest 

($246/Mbf). The BLM projects that stumpage prices would rise back to their long-term trend levels by 

2018 and afterwards rise at their long-term real rate of increase of 0.23 percent (see Value discussion in 

Affected Environment). Stumpage prices would differ among alternatives and the Proposed RMP and 

across time as a function of changes in the mix of log grades and average logging costs. Log mixes 

change over time, both as a function of timber inventory changes and the differences in prescriptions for 

harvest, such as oldest first and extent of thinning. 
638 | P a g e

Figure 3-134. Stumpage price by district, 2014–2023 (2012 dollars) 

Note: Prices are in short log units

$310

$302 $293

$324

$277

$246

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Stumpage Price 2014

–2023 (2012 Dollars/Mbf)

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Total
639 | P a g e

The differences in log grade composition help explain the variation in market value of timber harvests by 

alternative and the Proposed RMP. Grade 1 contains logs that are generally saw logs or peelers. As such, 

they represent the highest value log mix and proportional changes in that mix are reflected in differences 

in stumpage prices both over time and among alternatives and the Proposed RMP (Table 3-159). Table 

3-160 shows the differences in proportion of Grade 1 logs by alternative over time. Among the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, Alternative C would have the largest share of Grade 1 logs early in 

the harvest timeframe, declining to nearly the lowest share by the end of the timeframe. This is reflected 

in the stumpage price for Alternative C, which would be the highest in the first decade across the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, and would decrease to one of the lowest in 2113. Conversely, 

Alternative D would have one of the lowest proportions of Grade 1 logs early in the timeframe, and some 

of the lowest average stumpage prices in the first few decades of the analysis, but would have the highest 

proportion of Grade 1 timber and stumpage prices at the end of the analysis period. 

Table 3-159. Timber stumpage prices over time 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

2023

(Dollars)

2033

(Dollars)

2043

(Dollars)

2053

(Dollars)

2063

(Dollars)

2113

(Dollars)

No Action $310.4 $287.8 $309.7 $311.8 $302.3 $317.4

Alt. A $301.6 $300.6 $312.1 $300.2 $306.8 $264.8

Alt. B $292.9 $283.6 $314.4 $308.1 $337.9 $350.2

Alt. C $324.0 $323.4 $320.7 $339.8 $309.3 $264.8

Alt. D $277.0 $271.7 $295.7 $284.8 $332.3 $351.1

PRMP $245.9 $273.7 $320.4 $304.8 $297.2 $303.4

Table 3-160. Timber Grade 1 proportion over time 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

2023

(Percent)

2033

(Percent)

2043

(Percent)

2053

(Percent)

2063

(Percent)

2113

(Percent)

No Action 24% 16% 16% 12% 10% 14%

Alt. A 15% 14% 6% 8% 8% 1%

Alt. B 18% 10% 6% 6% 12% 18%

Alt. C 21% 19% 12% 9% 9% 2%

Alt. D 13% 12% 7% 8% 18% 21%

PRMP 13% 8% 6% 8% 9% 15%

Log grade explains some of the variation in market value over time and by alternative and the Proposed 

RMP, but it is not the whole story. Under the Proposed RMP, stumpage prices would be lower during the 

early decades and would rise relative to the alternatives through 2043. This reflects lower Grade 1 timber 

and higher logging costs initially, and an increasing value of timber harvests over time. Logging costs do 

not fluctuate with log grade as dramatically as stumpage prices, but, rather, primarily reflect the different 

harvest practices by alternative and the Proposed RMP, such as extent of thinning versus regeneration 

harvest for a site. These trends are important to recognize, but are not adequately captured in the firstdecade (2014-2023) analysis reported in Table 3-158; this analysis is essentially a snapshot in time. 

Furthermore, although the net present values shown in the final column of Table 3-158 reflect the entire 

period of analysis, they obscure these trends because they diminish the relative importance of later harvest 

values to earlier harvest values (because value generated in the final decades of analysis is more heavily 

discounted back to 2012 dollars, compared to value generated in the early decades of analysis). 
640 | P a g e

Table 3-161 shows total harvest values computed as the product of the harvest quantities from Table 3-

157 and the stumpage prices from Table 3-159. These represent estimates of returns to the government 

derived from timber harvested from BLM-administered lands in western Oregon and may be compared to 

the harvest values in Table 3-143 particularly the $20.8 million in 2012. The estimates for the alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP would be considerably higher than the value in 2012, because both timber harvest 

volumes and values would be higher under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP than occurred in 2012. 

Table 3-161. Total annual average harvest values (millions) for selected decades by the alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP, 2023–2113 (2012 dollars) 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

2023

($ Millions)

2033

($ Millions)

2043

($ Millions)

2053

($ Millions)

2063

($ Millions)

2113

($ Millions)

No Action 93.0 84.5 88.3 85.2 77.4 68.3

Alt. A 56.2 54.9 57.4 55.0 58.0 58.6

Alt. B 72.9 68.7 74.4 69.9 76.3 75.8

Alt. C 134.9 133.1 130.1 135.8 121.7 116.8

Alt. D 37.4 36.6 39.8 38.2 46.0 64.3

PRMP 51.2 55.6 63.7 58.0 56.2 53.7

Market Impacts of Changes in BLM Harvests 

The above discussion of the effects of changes in BLM harvests does not take into account the potential 

responses of other non-BLM timberland owners.94 In the case of increases in BLM harvests, there would 

be reductions in private harvests as timberland owners adjust their harvest downwards as prices fall. Both 

of these results could reduce the potential job and revenue expectations from increases in the BLM 

harvest (as presented under Issue 2 Environmental Effects). For example, the BLM might expect the full 

employment effects associated with an increase in harvest, but the net change in employment would be 

reduced by reductions in private harvests. At the same time, expected revenues would be less than 

expected, as stumpage prices are reduced by the net increase in harvest volumes. 

The BLM estimated the expected economic responses to increases in timber supply associated with 

increases in BLM timber harvests using a model of western Oregon timber markets (Table 3-162). Please 

note that this table is in long log scale, the common log scale in western Oregon. Appendix P includes a 

detailed description of the model. The calculations in the analysis assumed full implementation of timber 

harvests during the first decade of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP prior to the mid-point of that 

decade. 

 

94 There are four broad types of timberland ownerships: U.S. Forest Service; other public, which in western Oregon 

includes the BLM, the State of Oregon, and various counties; timber industry; and non-industrial private forests. 
641 | P a g e

Table 3-162. Market effects on other timberland owners by BLM harvest in 2018 (2012 dollars), long log 

scale 

Alternative/

Proposed 

RMP

BLM 

Harvest 

Volume

(MMbf)

BLM 

Harvest 

Change 

Relative 

to 2012

(MMbf)

Stumpage 

Price

(Per Mbf)

(Resulting 

from 

Alternatives/

Proposed 

RMP)

Total 

Western 

Oregon 

Harvest 

(All 

Producers)

(MMbf)

Stumpage 

Price 

Difference

(Per Mbf), 

Alternatives/

Proposed 

RMP vs. 

2012 

Reference 

Data

Change in 

Total 

Western 

Oregon 

Harvest

(MMbf) 

Alternatives/

Proposed 

RMP vs. 

2012

Change in 

Stumpage 

Price, 

Alternatives/

Proposed 

RMP vs. 

2012 

(Percent)

Change 

in 

Harvest 

Volume, 

Total 

Western 

Oregon 

Harvest

(Percent)

Estimated 

Change 

in Private 

Harvest

(MMbf)*

Reference 

Data 

(2012)

144.3 - $177.3 3,354.2 - - - - -

No Action 281.0 136.7 $168.2 3,453.0 $-9.1 98.8 -5% 3% -37.9

Alt. A 172.4 28.1 $175.4 3,374.5 $-1.9 20.3 -1% 1% -7.8

Alt. B 230.2 85.9 $171.6 3,416.2 $-5.7 62.1 -3% 2% -23.8

Alt. C 390.9 246.7 $160.9 3,532.5 $-16.4 178.3 -9% 5% -68.4

Alt. D 123.9 -20.4 $178.6 3,339.5 $1.4 -14.7 1% < -1% 5.6

PRMP 184.6 40.3 $174.6 3,383.4 $-2.7 29.1 -2% 1% -11.2

* BLM harvest change relative to 2012 minus change in total western Oregon harvest 

Notes: The price per Mbf is based on actual market prices, see Table 3-143. These prices are lower than the stumpage values 

used in the vegetation modeling, see Table 3-159 and discussion. 

The model expresses volumes and prices in long log scale. In short log scale, the changes in BLM 

harvests and prices are as shown in Table 3-163. 

Table 3-163. Harvests and prices in short log scale 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Harvest

(MMbf)

Price

(Dollars Per Mbf)*

No Action 399.6 $118.3

Alt. A 248.6 $121.7

Alt. B 331.7 $119.1

Alt. C 555.0 $113.3

Alt. D 180.0 $123.0

PRMP 277.5 $114.8

* Prices are in 2012 dollars and converted from long to short log scale using a conversion factor of 1.435 

Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP (other than Alternative D), the BLM harvest would increase 

relative to 2012 levels, between 28 and 247 MMbf. This upward shift in the supply curve would lead to 

lower stumpage prices (between 1–9 percent) and reductions in private harvests (between approximately 

8 and 68 MMbf), as timberland owners adjust their harvest downwards as prices fall. For example, under 

the Proposed RMP, stumpage prices would fall by $2.70 (2012 dollars) per thousand board feet (2 

percent), while the total western Oregon harvest would expand by approximately 29 MMbf (1 percent), as 

private timberland owners would reduce their harvest by approximately 11.2 MMbf. Both of these effects 

would reduce the potential expectations for an increase in BLM harvest. The BLM considered this likely 

market reduction effect in the economic activity analysis (jobs and earnings) below in Issue 2. 
642 | Page

These results illustrate the extent that private timberland owners respond to changes in stumpage prices 

associated with the increased changes in BLM harvest flows. The drop in stumpage prices may also lead 

to lower expectations about timber as a capital asset among private timberland owners and reduced 

market incentives for practices that contribute to sustained yield management. 

Markets are constantly changing, and once a change is introduced in one region, timberland owners, 

producers, and consumers in other regions all react to those changes, reducing the impacts in the first 

region as production changes in other regions. Analysis of the time dimension of these market impacts 

suggest that they diminish over the following decade, so that market adjustments are only prevalent in the 

first two decades of any projections.95

Recreation and Visitation 

The alternatives and the Proposed RMP define differences in areas designated and developed for 

recreation purposes, in some cases targeted at one or more specific activities such as mountain biking or 

OHV use. Variation in total acreage in Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) would be substantial, as 

Alternative A in total would have approximately 12 percent of the area under Alternative B96 (Table 3-

164). Alternative C would be approximately 2.5 times the area of Alternative B, and Alternative D would 

be 4 times Alternative B. The Proposed RMP RMA acreages would fall between Alternatives C and D 

and would be approximately 3 times the area of Alternative B. Acreages in the individual districts would 

follow these area-wide orderings by alternative and Proposed RMP, although, while the Klamath Falls 

Field Office would have the most acreage under Alternative B, Medford would have the most acreage 

among all other alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The Recreation and Visitor Services section contains 

more detail on the differences in the RMAs. 

Table 3-164. BLM Recreation Management Area acres 

District/

Field Office

No Action*

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Coos Bay 6,614 468 6,614 15,258 21,358 23,542

Eugene 20,511 104 20,511 24,212 34,968 24,139

Klamath Falls 69,470 612 69,470 97,293 216,135 92,643

Medford 32,065 17,199 32,065 181,992 267,404 244,815

Roseburg 6,984 167 6,984 41,496 42,915 20,895

Salem 28,648 1,515 28,648 56,566 84,371 85,008

Totals 164,292 20,065 164,292 416,817 667,151 491,042

* Per Table 3-3, under the No Action alternative, all BLM-administered lands in the decision area are allocated to RMAs, and the 

management of RMAs described in the 1995 RMPs differs from current definitions and policy. Alternative B represents an 

approximate continuation of the current recreation management, but consistent with current definitions and policy for RMAs. 

Note: Acreages include all RMAs, both Special and Extensive. 

 

* Under the No Action alternative, all BLM-administered lands in the decision area are allocated to RMAs, and the management of 

RMAs described in the 1995 RMPs differs from current definitions and policy. Alternative B represents an approximate continuation 

of the current recreation management, but consistent with current definitions and policy for RMAs.

Note: Acreages include all RMAs, both Special and Extensive.

95 For examples of this diminishing price effect of changes in harvest, see Table 41 in Haynes et al. 2007. The 

USDA FS 2005 RPA timber assessment update. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-699. Portland. OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 212 p. 

96 Under the No Action alternative, all BLM-administered lands in the decision area are allocated to RMAs, and the 

management of RMAs described in the 1995 RMPs differs from current definitions and policy. Alternative B 

represents an approximate continuation of the current recreation management, but consistent with current definitions 

and policy for RMAs. Therefore, the economic benefits of RMA management under Alternative B best 

approximates the economic benefits under the No Action alternative. 
643 | Page

An important differentiator among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP is designation of some RMAs 

for exclusion of particular recreation activities, for example, excluding activities such as public motorized 

vehicle use that might disrupt other activities such as hiking. Alternative A would result in the least acres 

and Alternative D would result in the most acres closed for various recreation activities (Table 3-165). 

The Proposed RMP would result in the second-most acres closed for various recreation activities. The 

closures identify areas that would be designated for more rustic and natural recreation opportunities. The 

primary activities targeted for closures would be recreational target shooting, followed by OHV use. 

Closure acreages generally correspond proportionally to RMA total acreages by alternative and the 

Proposed RMP. By increasing the quality of specific activities of high demand in specific areas, the BLM 

can create conditions that lead to increased quantity and quality and consequent value of outdoor 

recreation activity at specific RMAs. The response would be context specific, based on demand and 

substitute opportunities. 

Table 3-165. Recreation opportunities, acres restricted (activity excluded) within the RMAs 

Exclusion Type No Action 

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Total RMA acres 164,292 20,065 164,292 416,817 667,151 491,042

Equestrian Use 8,828 1,048 8,828 49,414 63,620 31,102

Hiking 1,511* - 1,511* 25,144 

(2,924*)

41,907 

(2,924*) 1,157* 

Mountain Bicycling 13,814 1,248 13,814 57,490 75,402 84,907

Off-Highway Vehicle Use 49,969 17,517 49,969 87,261 105,474 38,313

Overnight Camping 18,006 829 18,006 60,205 66,611 32,389

Recreational Target Shooting 41,681 18,236 41,681 66,407 135,464 164,752

* These acres of the total shown for restricted hiking acres would have seasonal restrictions applied to the trail systems. All other 

acre restrictions would prohibit or otherwise condition hiking year-round. 

Note: Per Table 3-143, this table uses the acres in Alternative B as the best approximation for the No Action alternative. 

* These acres of the total shown for restricted hiking acres would have seasonal restrictions applied to the trail systems. All 

other acre restrictions would prohibit or otherwise condition hiking year-round.

Note: This table uses the acres in Alternative B as the best approximation for the No Action alternative.

Both acreage and trail mileage are important characteristic for recreation areas. The RMAs do not 

specifically define trail miles, but extrapolating from available trail miles per acre of RMA under current 

conditions allows an approximation of the number of trail miles that would be available under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Currently, there are approximately 395 miles of identified trail miles 

on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon. This mileage could increase to approximately 1,400 

miles under Alternative C, or to 2,000 miles under Alternative D. Under the Proposed RMP, there would 

be approximately 1,700 miles, which is more than 4 times the current trail mileage. (Table 3-166). Some 

RMAs would be more conducive to higher or lesser trail densities. 
644 | Page

Table 3-166. Potential trail miles in RMAs 

District/

Field Office

No Action

(Miles)

Alt. A

(Miles)

Alt. B

(Miles)

Alt. C

(Miles)

Alt. D

(Miles)

PRMP

(Miles)

Coos Bay 35 2 35 81 114 125

Eugene 46 - 46 54 78 54

Klamath Falls 29 - 29 42 92 40

Medford 146 79 146 831 1,221 1,103

Roseburg 39 1 39 230 238 116

Salem 100 5 100 197 294 296

Totals 395 88 395 1,435 2,037 1,734

Note: Per Table 3-143, this table uses the acres in Alternative B as the best approximation for the No Action alternative. 

Source: USDI BLM, estimated from trail densities by district. 

Note: This table uses the acres in Alternative B as the best approximation for the No Action alternative.

Source: USDI BLM, estimated from trail densities by district.

Demand for recreation determines the value for the recreation designations by alternative and the 

Proposed RMP. That is, if there is no demand, there is no participation and use, and therefore there is no 

recreation value. Demand for outdoor recreation, as discussed earlier, relates particularly to individual 

preferences, proximity, and accessibility. Recreation opportunities that are close to population centers 

experience the most participants and visitor-days, and consequently the most value, all else equal. While 

many factors can lead to variation in value of a visitor-day, the number of visitor-days is the primary 

factor the BLM utilizes to estimate the economic value of recreation areas. Accessibility and congestion 

are two fundamental factors that, when they improve, will improve the quality and therefore value of a 

visitor-day. Focusing on elements of RMA designation that are close to communities, thereby increasing 

the availability and accessibility of recreation opportunities while reducing congestion provides the most 

fundamental basis for estimating increases in value. The increase in value can manifest as both higher 

value for visits that would have occurred anyway, as well as increased visitor-days. Focusing on 

opportunities close to communities provides the strongest basis for estimating increases in value, and 

therefore, potentially, an underestimate by not including visitation outside of those community 

proximities. 

When considering the RMA acreages under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP in terms of proximity 

to the 12 study communities in western Oregon, the overall acreage accessible within 30-minute and 60-

minute driving distances under each alternative and the Proposed RMP track with their overall RMA 

acreage (Table 3-167). Moving out from 30-minute to 60-minute driving distances increases the 

accessible recreation area by more than double, and increases to 5- or 6-fold under Alternatives B, C, and 

D, and the Proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP would increase the RMA acreage within 30-minute 

driving distances more than any alternative, and would increase the RMA acreage within 60-minute 

driving distances more than any alternative except Alternative D. While all districts would see increased 

RMA acreage with increased total RMA acreage progressively from Alternative A through D, the 

communities of Grants Pass and Medford would experience the highest increase in accessible RMA 

acreage under Alternatives C and D and the Proposed RMP (Figure 3-135).

Table 3-167. RMA acreage by driving distance from population centers in western Oregon* 

Drive-Time No Action 

(Acres)

Alt. A 

(Acres)

Alt. B 

(Acres)

Alt. C 

(Acres)

Alt. D 

(Acres)

PRMP 

(Acres)

30-Minute 12,473 5,849 12,473 52,232 56,814 61,125

60-Minute 60,893 13,070 60,893 252,005 311,855 267,776

* Major population centers include Coos Bay, Corvallis, Eugene, Grants Pass, McMinnville, Medford, Newberg, Portland, 

Roseburg, Salem, Sandy, and Tillamook. 

Note: The table uses Alternative B as the best approximation for the No Action alternative.
645 | P a g e

Figure 3-135. RMA acreage by driving distance of western population centers, 30 and 60 minutes 365 472 572 35,000 14 17,575

00

2,958

0

6,640

2,089

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

RMA 30-Minute Driving Distance (Acres)

Alt. A Alt. B/No Action Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

4,259 

18,172 

17,169 

158,518 

6,732 

139,850 

9,406 

9,478 

20,286 

5,387 

11,667 

14,104 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

RMA 60-Minute Driving Distance (Acres) 

Alt. A Alt. B/No Action Alt. C Alt. D PRMP
646 | P a g e

The increases in RMA acreage would elicit increased visitation according to the demand responsive 

measures applying the elasticity estimate described in Analytical Methods and in Appendix P. 

Furthermore, the increased visitation would be phased in for the alternatives and the Proposed RMP with 

substantial increases in RMA acreage with the phased-in increase in recreation opportunities described in 

Analytical Methods. This increase in demand over time would be in addition to increased demand based 

on forecast trends and population growth described under Affected Environment. 

Table 3-140 in the Recreation and Visitor Services section in this chapter and Table P-4 in Appendix P

provide estimates for outdoor recreation visits under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Applying the RMA acreage, historical visitation rates, the demand response model results, and the longterm trends in visitation, the BLM estimated alternative-specific and district-specific visitation for locals 

and non-locals under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Figure 3-136 shows the estimated changes 

in visitation under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP over the 20-year and 50-year planning 

timeframes. Recreational use would increase most quickly under the 20-year implementation scenarios 

(dotted lines versus solid lines), and would be highest under Alternative D and lowest under Alternative 

A. Figure 3-137 shows the final breakdown of visits in 2062 upon full implementation of increases in 

recreation opportunities associated with increased RMA acreage by district and separated between local 

and non-local participants, as well as non-primary visits. As noted under Analytical Methods, nonprimary visits are visits associated with some other primary activity and consequently not included in 

market impact estimates under Issue 2. Under the Proposed RMP, the Medford District would experience 

the most visits, followed by the Salem District. Visits in the Medford District would be particularly 

dominated by local residents in comparison to other districts. 
647 | P a g e

Figure 3-136. Outdoor recreation visits over phasing timeframes 

Note: Figure assumes implementation of increased recreation opportunities and associated demand response over 20–50 year timeframes

4

6

8

10

12

14

20122014201620182020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044204620482050205220542056205820602062

Visits (Millions)

Year

Alt. A 20 year Alt. A 50 year Alt. B/No Action Alt. C 20 year

Alt. D 20 year Alt. D 50 year

Alt. C 50 year

PRMP 20 year PRMP 50 year

Alt. D

Alt. B/No Action

Alt. A

Alt. C

PRMP
648 | P a g e

Figure 3-137. Outdoor recreation visits at end of phasing timeframes 

Note: The figure assumes completed implementation of new RMA acreage and associated demand response over the 20- or 50-year timeframes.

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000

2,250,000

2,500,000

2,750,000

3,000,000

3,250,000

3,500,000

3,750,000

4,000,000

4,250,000

No Action

Alt. A

Alt. BAlt. C

Alt. D

PRMP

No Action

Alt. A

Alt. BAlt. C

Alt. D

PRMP

No Action

Alt. A

Alt. BAlt. C

Alt. D

PRMP

No Action

Alt. A

Alt. BAlt. C

Alt. D

PRMP

No Action

Alt. A

Alt. BAlt. C

Alt. D

PRMP

No Action

Alt. A

Alt. BAlt. C

Alt. D

PRMP

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem

Visits

Non-local Local Non-primary
649 | P a g e

The BLM applied the forecasted future increases in activity-specific participation based on trends and 

demand response to changes in RMA acreage through the year 2062. The increases in the number of visits 

would proportionally increase the total value of visits. Applying the mean activity-specific consumer 

surplus values from Table 3-146, the BLM estimated the value to recreation participants under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP in Table 3-168. Summing the annual values discounted at 4 percent 

starting in 2014 for 50 years results in over $5 billion in consumer surplus value under Alternative B, and 

up to over $8 billion under Alternative D (Table 3-168). Under the Proposed RMP and the phasing 

assumptions, total consumer surplus in 2023 would range from $271 to $311 million. The faster the BLM 

would increase recreation opportunities associated with increased RMA acreage, the greater the would be 

the economic value provided by BLM-administered lands in terms of outdoor recreation in 2023 under 

Alternatives C and D and the Proposed RMP. 
650 | P a g e

Table 3-168. Consumer surplus value projections, 2023 and net present value 2013–2062 (millions of 2012 dollars) 

Activity

No 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Baseline

(Millions)

20-year

(Millions)

50-year

(Millions)

Baseline

(Millions)

20-year

(Millions)

50-year

(Millions)

20-year

(Millions)

50-year

(Millions)

20-year

(Millions)

50-year

(Millions)

Camping and Picnicking $125.1 $115.1 $121.6 $125.1 $152.9 $134.8 $166.0 $139.4 $156.1 $135.9

Wildlife Viewing, 

Interpretation, and Nature Study $35.3 $32.5 $34.3 $35.3 $43.1 $38.0 $46.8 $39.3 $44.0 $38.3

Hunting (Big Game, Upland 

Game, and Migratory Game 

Birds)

$29.2 $26.9 $28.4 $29.2 $35.7 $31.5 $38.8 $32.6 $36.5 $31.8

Motorized Off-Highway 

Vehicle Travel $14.6 $13.4 $14.2 $14.6 $17.8 $15.7 $19.3 $16.2 $18.2 $15.8

Non-motorized Travel (Hiking, 

Biking, and Horseback Riding) $10.7 $9.8 $10.4 $10.7 $13.1 $11.5 $14.2 $11.9 $13.4 $11.6

Fishing $10.7 $9.8 $10.4 $10.7 $13.0 $11.5 $14.2 $11.9 $13.3 $11.6

Driving for Pleasure (Along 

Designated BLM Roadways) $10.1 $9.3 $9.8 $10.1 $12.3 $10.9 $13.4 $11.3 $12.6 $11.0

Specialized Non-motorized 

Activities and Events $4.8 $4.4 $4.6 $4.8 $5.8 $5.1 $6.3 $5.3 $5.9 $5.2

Swimming and Other WaterBased Activities $3.8 $3.5 $3.7 $3.8 $4.7 $4.1 $5.1 $4.3 $4.8 $4.2

Non-motorized Boating $2.7 $2.5 $2.7 $2.7 $3.4 $3.0 $3.6 $3.1 $3.4 $3.0

Motorized Boating $1.5 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.8 $1.6 $2.0 $1.7 $1.9 $1.6

Non-motorized Winter 

Activities $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.2 $1.0 $1.3 $1.1 $1.2 $1.0

Snowmobile and other 

Motorized Winter Activities $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1

Total Value in 2023

(undiscounted) $249.5 $229.7 $242.6 $249.5 $305.0 $268.9 $331.2 $278.1 $311.4 $271.2

2013–2062 (cumulative,

50-year net present value)*

$5,707.0 $5,115.3 $5,401.7 $5,707.0 $7,361.4 $6,560.7 $8,141.5 $6,963.2 $7,552.6 $6,659.3

* Four percent discount rate; the No Action alternative and Alternative B involve no change in RMA acreage, so do not involve phasing of RMA acreage over time 

Sources: Table 3-147; Table 3-126 in Recreation 
651 | P a g e

Special Forest Products 

Land area suitable for the production of Category I (disturbance-associated) and Category II (disturbanceaverse) special forest products would vary by alternative and the Proposed RMP and over time. In both 

the coastal/north and interior/south regions, across the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the acres 

suitable for the production of Category I goods would not exceed one-quarter of the total acreage in the 

decision area, whereas at least three-quarters of the acres in the decision area would support production of 

Category II goods. Over time and across the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the acreage suitable for 

Category I products would peak from 2033 to 2053 and diminish after 2063. Alternative A would provide 

the fewest acres suitable for the production of Category I products and would have the least variation over 

time in both the coastal/north and the interior/south regions. In the coastal/north region, Alternative C 

would provide the most land suitable for Category I harvests. In the interior/south areas, Alternative B 

would provide the most harvestable land for Category I products. The Proposed RMP would provide 

between 12 percent (coastal/north) and 17 percent (interior/south) of acres available for Category I 

products in the first decade, peaking at between 14 percent (coastal/north) and 23 percent (interior/south) 

of acres in 2043, which would be more than Alternative A but less than Alternative D. See the Forest 

Management section in this chapter for a detailed presentation of the effects of the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP on special forest products. 

As the acres of land suitable for the production of Category I and Category II products shift by alternative 

and the Proposed RMP, the supply of each type of special forest product would change. Decreases in 

Category I acres would translate to increases in Category II acres, resulting in an increase in the supply of 

special forest products that thrive in undisturbed landscapes and a decrease in those that grow in disturbed 

landscapes. This has the potential to affect the marginal value of products in both categories, especially 

where there would be large changes in supply. 

Both Category I and Category II lands include some higher value and some lower value products. 

Mushrooms, floral and greenery, and Christmas trees are the groupings of products that people harvest in 

the largest quantity and, thus, produce the most revenue for the BLM. Category I and Category II 

landscapes both supply floral, greenery, and mushrooms, whereas only Category I lands supply Christmas 

trees. Based on the BLM’s available data, it is not possible to quantify how changes in the acres suitable 

for the production of Category I and Category 2 goods would affect the overall value of special forest 

products produced by BLM-administered lands in western Oregon. However, even Alternatives B and 

Sub-alternative C, which would have the highest conversion of land from disturbed to undisturbed 

characteristics, would result in relatively small changes and would likely have a small effect on the 

overall supply, and thus the value, of each category of special forest product in the decision area. 

Sustainable Energy Production 

Energy production from solar and geothermal resources would not vary across the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP, for two reasons: (1) the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would only modestly impact 

the availability of any of these resources for development, and (2) the development of these resources is 

constrained not by supply but by lack of demand related to market conditions, and limited infrastructure 

and conveyance capacity to population centers. The Sustainable Energy section in this chapter discusses 

these limitations in more detail. The supply of BLM-administered lands available for granting a right-ofway for wind development and transmission corridors would decrease across the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP (although alternatives and the Proposed RMP would decrease the acres excluded for 

development, they would increase the acres in avoidance areas). Alternative D would have the largest 

decrease and Alternative A the least. If demand for these resources aligns with the characteristics of the 

supply on BLM-administered lands in the future, these restrictions would limit the potential economic 

value of this resource. 
652 | P a g e

The supply of biomass would vary across the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, so the potential for 

energy production from biomass would also vary. Biomass production is a direct function of timber 

harvest, so the alternatives with greater timber harvest would produce greater amounts of biomass. 

Alternative C would produce the most biomass. Alternative D would produce the least amount of 

biomass. The Proposed RMP would yield more biomass than Alternatives A and D, but less than the No 

Action alternative or Alternatives B and C. 

The value of biomass depends on demand. Under today’s market conditions, woody biomass is not cost 

competitive with fossil fuels (White 2010). This may change as technology evolves, fossil fuel prices 

increase, and infrastructure develops to utilize woody biomass close to where it is produced. If these 

developments occur, the value of woody biomass from BLM-administered lands would increase. 

Livestock Grazing

The value of livestock grazing would not change under the alternatives or the Proposed RMP, except 

under Alternative D, which would eliminate livestock grazing. The No Action alternative, Alternatives A, 

B, and C, and the Proposed RMP would have no impacts on billed AUMs relative to current conditions, 

and would have no impact on BLM revenues from livestock grazing, so that the BLM would continue to 

receive about $22,000 per year from livestock grazing fees. Alternative D, which would have no livestock 

grazing, would reduce active and billed AUMs to zero, and, consequently, would reduce BLM revenues 

from livestock grazing to zero. 

Minerals 

As of 2012, mineral revenues to the BLM were minor (approximately $15,000) and would not change 

under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the acres 

closed to salable mineral material disposal would decrease slightly relative to current conditions, leading 

to more land open to entry. Approximately 13 percent of BLM-administered lands are currently closed to 

salable mineral material disposal. The Proposed RMP would decrease closed land by about 12 percent, 

compared to 9–10 percent under the action alternatives. The acres that would be closed under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would be small relative to the acres open to production, and the areas 

that would be closed are not suitable for quarry development. The closure of these areas under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not appreciably affect the quantity or value of salable mineral 

materials derived from BLM-administered lands. 

All the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would recommend a decrease in the acreage open to locatable 

mineral entry.97 Currently, 4 percent of BLM-administered lands in the planning area are withdrawn from 

this type of mineral exploration and development. The Proposed RMP and Alternative D would lead to 

the most land withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, at 12 percent of BLM-administered lands. The 

other action alternatives would result in approximately 10 percent of land withdrawn from locatable 

mineral entry. The withdrawal of these areas under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not 

appreciably affect the quantity or value of locatable minerals derived from BLM-administered lands. 

 

97 As explained in the Minerals section of this chapter, the BLM identified by alternative and the Proposed RMP the 

acres of land recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. The BLM assumed that areas 

recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry under each alternative and the Proposed RMP to be 

withdrawn for the purposes of this analysis. The BLM would make recommendations for withdrawals, which vary 

by the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, but adoption of the RMP would not actually withdraw lands from 

locatable mineral entry, because the BLM does not have the authority to withdraw lands from locatable mineral 

entry. Congress can designate withdrawals from locatable mineral entry, or the BLM can begin a withdrawal process 

for a decision signed by the Secretary of Interior. 
653 | P a g e

None of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP would affect the acres of BLM-administered lands open to 

leasable mineral entry. 

Carbon Storage 

Table 3-169 shows the marginal change in net carbon storage and value for the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP for the first decade of the analysis (2013–2022) and for the entire period of analysis 

(2013–2063). The amount of stored carbon, and value of stored carbon, would increase across the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP in the first decade and over 50 years. Relative to the No Action 

alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP would all increase the amount of carbon 

stored in the first decade. Alternative C would store less carbon relative to the No Action Alternative. By 

2063, the differences would become more pronounced, with most carbon stored and the highest value 

under Alternative D. Alternative C would store the least amount and have the lowest value. The Proposed 

RMP would store an amount higher than the No Action alternative, but less than Alternatives A and D. 

Table 3-169. Value of carbon storage, 2012 dollars 

Alternative/

Proposed 

RMP

Marginal 

Change in 

Stored 

Carbon

2013–2022

(MMT)*

Value of Stored Carbon

2013–2022

Marginal 

Change in 

Stored 

Carbon

2013-2063

(MMT)*

Value of Stored Carbon

2013–2063

SCC†

Average

3%

(Millions)

SCC†95th

Percentile 

3%

(Millions)

SCC†

Average

3%

(Millions)

SCC†95th

Percentile

3%

(Millions)

No Action 7.69 $1,172 $3,423 99.81 $27,319 $83,942

Alt. A 10.91 $1,662 $4,856 117.10 $32,051 $98,483 

Alt. B 9.98 $1,520 $4,442 111.13 $30,417 $93,462 

Alt. C 2.84 $433 $1,264 73.58 $20,139 $61,882

Alt. D 14.2 $2,163 $6,320 134.11 $36,707 $112,789

PRMP 10.46 $1,593 $4,656 115.62 $31,646 $97,238

* MMT - Million metric tons 

† SCC - Social cost of carbon 

Sources: Carbon storage amounts come from the Climate Change section. Values are from Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Carbon (2015), using estimates from 2017 for the first period and 2050 for the 50-year period, a 3 percent discount 

rate, and adjusted to 2012 dollars. For more detail on these calculations, see the Methods section. 

Emissions from activities included in the alternatives but not incorporated into the net carbon storage 

number (e.g., biomass combustion, mineral production, and livestock grazing) would further offset net 

carbon storage, though the amount of these emissions is small compared to the emissions that are already 

reflected in the net carbon storage values reported above. Emissions from all sources would be highest 

under Alternative C and lowest under Alternative D. Emissions under the Proposed RMP would be higher 

than Alternative D and lower than the No Action alternative and Alternatives B and C in all decades and 

lower than Alternative A in some decades (see the Climate Change section in this chapter).Therefore, the 

net carbon storage and associated value would be highest under Alternative D and lowest under 

Alternative C. 

Source Water Protection 

The BLM would continue protecting the value of source water in the planning area across all alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP. The alternatives and the Proposed RMP would maintain current water-quality 

conditions primarily by relying on the natural filtration and temperature-control services provided by the 
654 | Page

Riparian Reserve that would surround streams and other water bodies, and by employing best 

management practices (BMPs, Appendix J Appendix I). The Riparian Reserve would shade streams, prevent 

temperature increases, and minimize or prevent sediment runoff from harvest activities. In addition, BLM 

would employ preventative BMPs along forest roads and in harvest areas. These preventative measures 

would minimize forest-management risks affecting drinking water and treatment costs, and would 

maintain ODEQ’s water quality criteria and standards. In addition, the BLM would continue working 

with local watershed associations and community water supply agencies to minimize the potential 

impacts of activities on BLM-administered lands, such as timber sales, on water supplies. 

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species 

To the extent that an alternative or the Proposed RMP would degrade the quality of, or reduce the supply 

of, habitats or populations of sensitive species, it would negatively affect resources that households in the 

region and the United States value. Conversely, the alternatives or the Proposed RMP that would protect 

the quality of, or increase the supply of habitats or populations, would protect or positively affect 

resources that households’ value.

Alternatives A and C would result in less increase in the acreage of structurally-complex forests than 

other forests, and thus would support less of an increase from current levels of biodiversity resources and 

values. Alternatives B and D would yield an increase in structurally-complex forests compared to 

Alternatives A and C. The Proposed RMP would yield a level similar to Alternative B. See the Forest 

Management section in this chapter for more information on these differences. Data are unavailable to 

estimate the magnitude of the change in economic value these changes in forest complexity would have. 

 The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would increase the potential for habitat loss for the 

Oregon silverspot butterfly, compared to the No Action alternative. The action alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP would degrade or negatively affect a resource that households’ likely value 

given available research. However, effects to Oregon silverspot butterflies themselves would not 

be reasonably foreseeable, because this habitat is likely unoccupied. Furthermore, habitat for this 

species on BLM-administered lands constitutes less than 1 percent of the habitat in the planning 

area, limiting any potential economic effect. 

 The alternatives and the Proposed RMP, including the No Action alternative, would sustain 

populations of bald and golden eagles and increase habitat in 50 years. This would protect the 

economic values associated with these populations. 

 The No Action alternative would lead to the continued loss of habitat for the fisher, while the 

actions alternatives and the Proposed RMP would increase fisher habitat in 50 years. Thus, the 

No Action alternative would diminish the well-being of people who care about the fisher. Data 

are not available to quantify the extent to which households would be willing to pay to protect the 

fisher or its habitat. The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in an increase in 

fisher habitat over time and their associated values. 

 The No Action alternative and Alternative D would identify and protect all marbled murrelet 

sites. Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP would slightly reduce nesting habitat for 

the marbled murrelet (by less than 1–8 percent) in the first decade, but, by the second decade, the 

amount of high quality nesting habitat would surpass current amounts and would continue 

increasing in the later decades. Thus, the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would protect values 

associated with marbled murrelet over the long-term. 

 Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would increase the amount of northern 

spotted owl habitat over time. Such actions would help protect the values that households place 

on this resource. 
654 | Page

Riparian Reserve that would surround streams and other water bodies, and by employing best 

management practices (BMPs, Appendix I). The Riparian Reserve would shade streams, prevent 

temperature increases, and minimize or prevent sediment runoff from harvest activities. In addition, BLM 

would employ preventative BMPs along forest roads and in harvest areas. These preventative measures 

would minimize forest-management risks affecting drinking water and treatment costs, and would 

maintain ODEQ’s water quality criteria and standards. In addition, the BLM would continue working 

with local watershed associations and community water supply agencies to minimize the potential 

impacts of activities on BLM-administered lands, such as timber sales, on water supplies. 

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species 

To the extent that an alternative or the Proposed RMP would degrade the quality of, or reduce the supply 

of, habitats or populations of sensitive species, it would negatively affect resources that households in the 

region and the United States value. Conversely, the alternatives or the Proposed RMP that would protect 

the quality of, or increase the supply of habitats or populations, would protect or positively affect 

resources that households’ value.

Alternatives A and C would result in less increase in the acreage of structurally-complex forests than 

other forests, and thus would support less of an increase from current levels of biodiversity resources and 

values. Alternatives B and D would yield an increase in structurally-complex forests compared to 

Alternatives A and C. The Proposed RMP would yield a level similar to Alternative B. See the Forest 

Management section in this chapter for more information on these differences. Data are unavailable to 

estimate the magnitude of the change in economic value these changes in forest complexity would have. 

 The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would increase the potential for habitat loss for the 

Oregon silverspot butterfly, compared to the No Action alternative. The action alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP would degrade or negatively affect a resource that households’ likely value 

given available research. However, effects to Oregon silverspot butterflies themselves would not 

be reasonably foreseeable, because this habitat is likely unoccupied. Furthermore, habitat for this 

species on BLM-administered lands constitutes less than 1 percent of the habitat in the planning 

area, limiting any potential economic effect. 

 The alternatives and the Proposed RMP, including the No Action alternative, would sustain 

populations of bald and golden eagles and increase habitat in 50 years. This would protect the 

economic values associated with these populations. 

 The No Action alternative would lead to the continued loss of habitat for the fisher, while the 

actions alternatives and the Proposed RMP would increase fisher habitat in 50 years. Thus, the 

No Action alternative would diminish the well-being of people who care about the fisher. Data 

are not available to quantify the extent to which households would be willing to pay to protect the 

fisher or its habitat. The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in an increase in 

fisher habitat over time and their associated values. 

 The No Action alternative and Alternative D would identify and protect all marbled murrelet 

sites. Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP would slightly reduce nesting habitat for 

the marbled murrelet (by less than 1–8 percent) in the first decade, but, by the second decade, the 

amount of high quality nesting habitat would surpass current amounts and would continue 

increasing in the later decades. Thus, the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would protect values 

associated with marbled murrelet over the long-term. 

 Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would increase the amount of northern 

spotted owl habitat over time. Such actions would help protect the values that households place 

on this resource. 

Appendix J
655 | P a g e

 Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would increase habitat for red tree voles 

within the North Oregon Coast population. However, under Alternatives A and C, management 

actions could lead to loss of existing occupied habitat. It is unclear how this would affect 

population levels and potential for further listing under the ESA, and thus the values that 

households place on protecting the red tree vole. The No Action Alternative and Alternatives B 

and D, would protect existing occupied habitat and protect values associated with the red tree 

vole. The Proposed RMP would protect existing occupied habitat and protect values associated 

with the red tree vole north of Highway 20, but could lead to loss of existing occupied habitat 

south of Highway 20. As with Alternatives A and C, it is unclear how this loss under the 

Proposed RMP would affect population levels and potential for further listing under the ESA, and 

thus the values that households place on protecting the red tree vole. 

 None of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP would have any measurable effects on populations 

or habitats of sage-grouse, gray wolf, streaked horned lark, wolverine, Taylor’s checkerspot 

butterfly, Fender’s blue butterfly, or Steller’s sea lion or their value.

Scenic Amenities 

The total acres in each Visual Resource Management class would vary across alternatives the Proposed 

RMP. As acres shift from lower Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) classes to higher Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) classes (i.e., become more disturbed), there would likely be a general decrease in 

visual value on those acres and the potential for reductions in the value associated with scenic amenities, 

such as decreases in property values, would increase. The potential change in economic value would be 

largest in areas adjacent or within view of residences, businesses, and communities where the visual 

quality would decrease from an undisturbed to a disturbed quality. Visual resource quality would likely 

decline over time under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, as the BLM would manage a substantial 

acreage of BLM-administered lands at a higher VRM class than the VRI class at which the acreage was 

inventoried. Alternative D would manage the most acres (80 percent) under VRM classes with 

commensurate or lower levels of change permitted than their VRI classes, and would result in declines 

that would be substantially less than the other alternatives the Proposed RMP. The No Action alternative 

would manage the second-most acres (77 percent) and Alternatives B and C would manage the fewest 

acres (60 percent under each) consistent with their VRI classes, with Alternative A and the Proposed 

RMP managing only slightly fewer (61 percent). Changes in economic value of property would only 

occur where actual changes in the scenic quality of the landscape occur, and would be most pronounced 

immediately following the change. Reductions in value likely would diminish over time.

Cultural Meaning 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources section analyzes the potential of each alternative the Proposed 

RMP to affect adversely cultural and paleontological resources. However, the great majority of potential 

adverse impacts would be prevented through pre-disturbance surveys. Alternatives A and D would have 

the lowest potential to result in potential adverse impacts to cultural and paleontological resources 

because they would allow the fewest acres of the type of ground-disturbing activity most likely to disturb 

cultural and paleontological resources. The Proposed RMP would have the next-lowest potential to result 

in adverse impacts. Alternatives B and C would have the greatest potential adverse impacts. Such impacts 

could potentially reduce the supply or quality of cultural resources, and possibly harm resources that 

people and societies hold important and would prefer to protect their continued existence. Pre-disturbance 

surveys and subsequent protection of sites would protect the economic values that people and societies 

place on these resources. 

In addition to disturbing cultural resources, the alternatives the Proposed RMP would also affect levels of 

culturally important biological resources, as discussed above in Special Forest Products and Biodiversity 
656 | P a g e

and Sensitive Species. As the alternatives the Proposed RMP reduce the supply of these resources, the 

loss would affect the well-being of people who hold them important, whether or not they interact directly 

with them. As described above, the alternatives the Proposed RMP would affect each type of biological 

resource differently. A particular alternative or the Proposed RMP has the potential to reduce the supply 

of some cultural resources while at the same time increasing the supply of others. These effects would 

have varying impacts on individuals’ experience of sense of place, spiritual enrichment, and cognitive 

development. At the broad landscape scale of this analysis, it is not possible to determine or estimate with 

meaningful accuracy the overall effects on the value of cultural meaning under the different alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP. 

Summary 

Table 3-170 summarizes the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on the value of goods and 

services that BLM-administered lands in western Oregon supply. The first group of goods and services 

represent those that are valued using market prices, and from which BLM receives revenue. The table 

includes changes in market value and BLM revenue (as available) for each alternative and the Proposed 

RMP. The goods and services in the second group do not provide direct revenue to the BLM. Of these, 

two are quantified using non-market methods of valuation; willingness to pay in the case of recreation 

and, for carbon, its social cost. The other goods and services are not monetized, but likely have economic 

value as described in the sections above. Changes in the non-market value are shown for each of the 

alternatives. For goods and services where data limited the analysis of the monetary value of the effect, 

the table shows the expected direction of change in value under each alternative and the Proposed RMP. 
657 | P a g e

Table 3-170. Summary of effects on economic value of goods and services derived from BLMadministered lands in Western Oregon 

Good/

Service

Type of 

Valuation

Economic 

Value in 2012

(Millions)

No 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Market-based Goods and Services

Timber Market Price,

Harvest Value $20.8

$93.0 $56.2 $72.9 $134.9 $37.4 $51.2

Average per year 2013 – 2022 (Millions)

Special Forest

Products

BLM Permit 

Fees,

Market Price

BLM Revenue: 

$0.24;

Market Value 

Low $4, 

High $45

Changes in supply of lands suitable for the production of Category I and 

Category II species produce relatively small changes and would likely 

have a small effect on the overall supply, and thus the value, of each 

category of special forest products in the planning area.

Energy 

Production Market Price $0.032

Value of energy production across all alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP limited by lack of demand;

Supply of biomass would increase;

Supply of land available for wind/ROW development would decrease

Livestock 

Grazing

Congressionally 

Set Price,

Market Price

BLM Revenue: 

$0.022;

Market Value 

(State) $0.14,

(Private)

$0.27

No change in value of livestock grazing

No 

livestock 

grazing

would 

reduce 

value to 

$0.

No 

change in 

value of 

livestock 

grazing

Minerals Market Price $0.015 million

Small change in acres available for quarry development would not likely 

be large enough to change quantity or value of minerals produced;

No change in value of locatable or leasable minerals

Non-market-based Goods and Services

Recreation

Consumer 

Surplus, 

Willingness to 

Pay

$223

$249.5 $242.6 $249.5

(Baseline) $268.9 $278.1 $271.2

Annual value in 2023

Based on 50-year recreation implementation timeline

Carbon 

Storage

Social Cost of 

Carbon $85

$117.5 $166.2 $152.0 $43.27 $216.3 $159.35

Average per year 2013–2022 (Millions)

Source Water 

Protection Qualitative Not Monetized No change under any alternative or the Proposed RMP

Biodiversity 

and Sensitive 

Species

Qualitative Not Monetized -

Economic values associated with species

generally protected or enhanced in the long run

Cultural 

Meaning Qualitative Not Monetized

Value of cultural sites and artifacts protected across all alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP; overall effect on cultural meaning impossible to 

assess at the present scale of analysis

Scenic 

Amenities Qualitative Not Monetized

513,215 

(23%)

960,984 

(39%)

986,431 

(40%)

986,783 

(40%)

493,825 

(20%)

976,601 

(39%)

Number of acres potentially managed for

lower visual quality than currently inventoried
658 | P a g e

Issue 2 

How would the alternatives affect economic activity in the planning area derived from BLM-administered 

lands? 

Key Points 

 The BLM contributes economically to all parts of the planning area, triggered by the production 

and use of commodities such as timber and other forest products, personal and commercial use of 

BLM-administered lands, expenditures for personnel, materials, and services, and Federal 

payments to State and local governments. These contributions trigger effects that find their way 

into virtually every industry of the local economy. 

 In 2012, BLM management contributed 7,900 jobs and $355 million in earnings to the planning 

area, which is about 0.4 percent of the total jobs and earnings. Under the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP, these contributions would range from a low of 7,100 jobs and $310 million in 

earnings (Alternative D) to a high of 12,200 jobs and $573 million in earnings (Alternative C). 

Under the Proposed RMP, contributions would be 8,500 jobs and $330 million in earnings. 

 BLM management contributes the largest share of local area employment and earnings in the 

Roseburg and Coos Bay Districts (from 2.9 percent to 3.1 percent in 2012). Under Alternatives A, 

B, and D, and the Proposed RMP, these districts would experience losses in the BLM-based share 

of jobs by 2018. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM updated information on net changes to harvest on private timberlands as a market response to 

changes in BLM harvest. Generally, this update resulted in modest changes to the number of jobs and 

earnings attributable to the timber program. The BLM also revised the calculation of employment and 

earning effects of recreation management based on estimates of recreation visits by alternative and the 

Proposed RMP. The BLM added discussion of the uncertainty surrounding the implementation rate of 

BLM recreation management and its effect on employment and earnings. 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM developed two sets of economic models to portray economic conditions in the planning area 

and to estimate the contributions or effects of BLM management. The first set included seven multicounty models organized around BLM districts to estimate the effects of BLM resource programs and 

expenditures. The BLM delineated all district model areas, which often cover multiple counties, based on 

the economic connections to resource processing, visitor spending, and agency expenditures rather than 

on the acreage of BLM-administered lands. Except for the Salem District, a single model represents each 

district. The Salem District covers a very large and economically diverse portion of northwestern Oregon, 

and therefore required two distinct models to separate economic effects occurring in the urban Portland 

area from those occurring in more rural areas (i.e., the counties either inside or outside the Portland 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), OMB 2013). District model areas include the following counties: 

 Coos Bay Coos, Curry 

 Eugene Lane 

 Klamath Falls Klamath 

 Medford Jackson, Josephine 

 Roseburg Douglas 

 Salem-Other Benton, Clatsop, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, Tillamook 

 Salem-Portland MSA Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, Yamhill 
659 | P a g e

The second set of model areas aligns with individual counties to capture best the local effects triggered by 

local government spending of Federal payments. Both sets of models covered the entire planning area. 

Planning area effects are the sum of BLM district models or individual county models that cover the same 

geographic area. All models built and run for the analysis utilized the IMPLAN® modeling system (MIG, 

Inc. 2013), which include proprietary data sets. Employment and earnings results from both sets of 

models includes the sum of all direct effects triggered by spending or production, plus supply chain 

(indirect) effects in supporting industries and other (induced) effects from industry employees spending 

payrolls. 

Public and private data for 2012, the most recent year for which all economic data were available, 

provided the foundation for all economic models. In addition to proprietary IMPLAN® data sets, the 

district models use public and private forest and wood products industries data provided by the Oregon 

Forest Resources Institute (OFRI 2012). The BLM customized both the district and county models with 

State and local government employment data publically available from the Oregon Employment 

Department (OED 2014). All models included information on employment, earnings, production levels, 

organizational spending, and prices. 

Following conventions established by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

the BLM defined employment for purposes of this analysis as the average number of full-time and parttime jobs reported monthly over an entire year. Earnings includes total payroll cost of employees, 

including such payments as wages, salaries, bonuses, health insurance and other benefits, retirement 

contributions, and payroll taxes. Given lags in data availability, jobs and earnings in 2012 (expressed in 

2012 dollars) represent current conditions in the planning area. 

The BLM’s management of public lands triggers economic effects in three ways: output production from 

resource management programs, agency expenditures, and Federal payments to local governments. 

Program outputs include timber harvest, special forest products, recreation (including wildlife- and fishbased), minerals, and livestock grazing. Program expenditures include all operational expenses 

(personnel, facilities, and overhead) plus resource-specific expenses to accomplish such activities as 

watershed restoration, fuels reduction, and transportation management. Federal payments include all 

funds received by counties, such as payments in lieu of taxes (PILT), mineral royalties, and O&C 

payments or their replacement (i.e., payments authorized by the Secure Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act, as amended). 

The BLM estimated economic contributions from resource outputs based on the availability of both BLM 

records and either production or spending data. BLM records and research data abound for timber, forage, 

minerals, and recreation use of public lands. BLM data are insufficient at this time to make economic 

contribution estimates for most non-timber special forest products, but are available for timber special 

forest products. Although the BLM collects information on permits for non-timber special forest products, 

sufficient data on quantities and values are not available. Research and agency reporting continue to 

improve in efforts to close these data gaps. Records of BLM agency expenditures and of Federal 

payments to local governments provided a sound basis for estimating the local contributions triggered by 

Federal and local government spending. 

The BLM provided resource program outputs and agency expenditures for the models. The Oregon 

Department of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service (Gale et al. 2012, ODF 2014, Zhou 2013) provided 

geographic data on 2012 harvest and processing locations that yielded log flows for the analysis. The 

Department of the Interior (USDI 2014) and the Association of O&C Counties (AOCC 2014) provided 

data on Federal payments. Each O&C County, through the cooperation of the Association of O&C 

Counties (AOCC 2014), provided representative spending patterns of Federal payments. The U.S. Forest 
660 | P a g e

Service (White 2014, USDA FS 2014a) provided spending patterns by recreationists on BLMadministered lands.

The economic effects described in this section reflect the effects of Federal payments to counties, as they 

would be under the formula established in the O&C Act. This is because of the uncertainty over the future 

of payments under the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) and Self-Determination Act (see the discussion in 

Issue 3, County Payments). 

In addition to comparing the projected impacts of alternatives and the Proposed RMP in 2018, the effects 

tables also display current conditions as of 2012. To facilitate a comparison between current conditions 

and 2018 on an equal basis, for the effects analysis the BLM modified the effects of the actual payments 

to counties in 2012 (as shown in the Affected Environment section) to reflect the effects of the payments 

as they would have been under the O&C Act. The relevant columns in the environmental effects tables 

are labeled ‘Current Modified.’ For example, in 2012, the actual effect of all BLM-based Federal 

payments was 699 jobs (Table 3-180). The modified current effect would have been 198 jobs (Table 3-

181).

The BLM assumed, for purposes of this part of the analysis, that the State forecasts of employment and 

population capture the effects of BLM management under the No Action alternative (i.e., the 1995 RMPs 

as written). 

The timber program shows anticipated effects of BLM timber harvested and processed in western 

Oregon. The total effects of each alternative and the Proposed RMP include all direct employment and 

earnings in the forest products industry plus supply chain (indirect) effects in supporting industries and 

other (induced) effects from industry payrolls. 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 135–137). 

Affected Environment 

Area Employment and Earnings 

The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon summarizes historic and 

trend data for employment, unemployment, and earnings in the planning area, (USDI BLM 2013, 

pp. 104–108). When the BLM published the Analysis of the Management Situation, the most recent year 

available for these data was 2011. Data for 2012 are now available and used throughout this section to 

represent current conditions. 

Table 3-171 shows current total employment and earnings for each of the model areas. Appendix P

includes tables with employment and earnings by industry. 
661 | P a g e

Table 3-171. Total employment and earnings by district model area, 2012 (jobs, millions of 2012 dollars) 

Industry

District Model Area Name and Counties

Planning 

Area 

Totals

Oregon 

Totals

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath 

Falls Medford Roseburg Salem-Other

SalemPortland 

MSA

Coos, 

Curry Lane Klamath Jackson, Josephine Douglas

Benton, 

Clatsop, 

Lincoln, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, 

Tillamook

Clackamas, 

Columbia, 

Multnomah, 

Washington, 

Yamhill

Employment (Jobs) 40,276 186,049 31,881 145,525 46,527 359,408 1,147,490 1,957,157 2,221,563

Earnings (Millions 

of 2012 dollars)

$1,507.7 $7,733.7 $1,198.0 $5,604.1 $1,789.7 $15,111.7 $65,067.0 $98,012.0 $108,412.3

Sources: MIG, Inc. 2013; Oregon Forest Resources Institute 2012 (Forest Products industries within greater Agriculture and Manufacturing throughout planning area) 
662 | P a g e

Since 2001, total employment in the planning area has grown by 7.2 percent. However, since 2007, which 

was the peak of economic activity before the 2007–2009 recession, employment is down by 3.3 percent. 

Generally, throughout the planning area, district model areas show positive employment growth since 

2001, ranging from 2.7 percent in the Coos Bay area to 9.8 percent in the Salem-Portland MSA area. 

Klamath Falls (-2.7 percent) and Roseburg (-3.9 percent) are still down from their 2001 levels. All model 

areas are down from their peak in 2007, ranging from the deepest low in Roseburg (-10.7 percent) to a 

very modest low in Salem-Portland MSA (-0.1 percent). 

The two Salem District model areas account for 1.5 million jobs, or two-thirds of all employment in the 

planning area. At 1.1 million jobs in the Salem-Portland MSA model area and 0.4 million in the SalemOther (non-MSA counties) area, these two are the largest economies in the planning area. The largest 2 

industries in the two Salem District model areas, Health and Social Services and Governments, supply 

238,000 jobs, or 21 percent of total employment in the Salem-Portland MSA area, and 112,000 jobs, or 

31 percent in non-MSA counties. The next largest industries, Retail Trade and Manufacturing, each 

provide over 100,000 jobs or 9 percent in the Salem-Portland MSA area. In non-MSA counties, these 

same two industries account for nearly 38,000 jobs (11 percent) and 26,000 jobs (7 percent), respectively. 

Manufacturing, Governments, Health and Social Services, and Professional Services account for 48 

percent ($31 billion) of all earnings within the Portland-MSA. Among the non-MSA counties, 

Governments, Health and Social Services, Manufacturing, and Retail Trade tally over $8.5 billion, or 55 

percent, of all earnings. Total payrolls in these two model areas provide over 80 percent of all earnings in 

the planning area. 

The five BLM District model areas from Eugene south have a pattern that is similar to the non-MSA 

counties within the Salem District. The top four sectors for employment are Governments, Health & 

Social Services, and Retail Trade followed by Manufacturing. Only in the Klamath Falls model area does 

a different industry—Agriculture rather than Manufacturing—make it into the top four. Earnings follow 

the employment pattern in all five model areas. Earnings by public sector employees lead in all areas 

except Eugene, where Health and Social Services payrolls are the largest in the area and exceed 

government payrolls by 2 percent. Retail Trade exhibits the lowest earnings of the top four industries, 

except in the Medford area where Manufacturing trails Retail Trade. 

The recreation industry is well represented throughout western Oregon. While recreation participants 

spend money in many retail and service sectors, the BLM uses only two sectors in this analysis as an 

indicator of the visitor services or recreation industry: Arts, Entertainment & Recreation Services, and 

Accommodation & Food Services. These two sectors are especially aligned with both visitors from out of 

the area (e.g., accommodations) as well as local residents who engage in recreation (e.g., recreation 

services, and food services). These two sectors account for over 187,000 jobs (10 percent) and $4.1 

billion of earnings (4 percent) throughout the planning area. The two Salem District model areas supply 

three-quarters of all jobs and 80 percent of all payrolls in these sectors within the planning area. In the 

central and southern model areas, Medford and Eugene stand out with over 16,000 jobs each (9 percent 

and 11 percent, respectively) and from $300 to $342 million in payrolls (4 percent and 5 percent, 

respectively). 

Since 2001, visitor service or recreation industry employment in the planning area has grown by 19.8 

percent. Since 2007, planning area employment in this industry is up by 2.4 percent. Generally, 

throughout the planning area, district model areas show positive growth since 2001, ranging from 9.0 

percent in the Coos Bay area to 26.5 percent in the Salem-Portland MSA area. Two areas are still down 

from their 2001 levels—Klamath Falls (-3.3 percent) and Roseburg (-2.8 percent). All model areas but 

one are down from their peak in 2007, ranging from the deepest low in Klamath Falls (-14.8 percent) to a 

very modest low in Eugene (-0.2 percent). The sole model area with growth in this industry is SalemPortland MSA with 6.8 percent. 
663 | P a g e

The forest products industry is important throughout the planning area and of particular interest for public 

land resource management in western Oregon. Table 3-172 and Table 3-173 provide employment and 

earnings information for detailed sectors within the broader forest products industry. In both of the Salem 

model areas, Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry is the largest employer within the forest 

products industry. This detailed sector includes private firms that provide services such as estimating 

timber volume, fighting forest fires, controlling forest pests, and planting seedlings for reforestation. It 

also includes firms that support agricultural production through planting crops, cultivating services, and 

vineyard cultivation. Firms that provide only forestry support could not be statistically separated from 

those that provide agricultural support. As a whole, this sector provides nearly 11,000 jobs (0.7 percent) 

and $295 million in earnings (0.4 percent) across both model areas. 
664 | P a g e

Table 3-172. Forest products industry employment by detailed sector by district model area, 2012 (jobs) 

Detailed Sector North American 

Industry Classification System 

(NAICS)

District Model Area Name and Counties

Planning 

Area 

Totals

Coos 

Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem-Other

SalemPortland 

MSA

Description Code Coos, 

Curry Lane Klamath Jackson, Josephine Douglas

Benton, 

Clatsop, 

Lincoln, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, 

Tillamook

Clackamas, 

Columbia, 

Multnomah, 

Washington, 

Yamhill

Forestry & Logging 113 965 1,000 361 632 1,021 2,283 1,917 8,292

Support Activities for 

Agriculture & Forestry 115 625 683 255 1,548 334 6,180 4,481 14,106

Wood Products Manufacturing 321 1,112 3,251 1,363 1,863 2,578 2,502 2,869 15,538

Sawmills & Wood 

Preservation 3211 432 1,120 D 100 863 1,105 1,007 D

Veneer, Plywood, 

Reconstituted & Engineered 

Wood Products

3212 583 1,510 D 903 1,127 290 54 D

Other Wood Products 3219 97 621 D 860 588 1,107 1,808 D

Paper Manufacturing 322 - 403 - 25 - 2,385 1,720 4,533

Pulp, Paper & Paperboard 

Mills 3221 - 383 - - - 1,843 845 3,071

Converted Paper Products 

Manufacturing 3222 - 20 - 25 - 542 875 1,462

Totals 2,702 5,337 1,979 4,068 3,933 13,350 10,987 42,469

D = Disclosure restricted because of confidentiality 

Note: Table does not include trucking of logs and lumber because it is (1) not identifiable by NAICS and (2) less than 14 percent of the entire trucking industry (OFRI 2012; MIG, 

Inc. 2013) 

Sources: Oregon Forest Resources Institute 2012; MIG, Inc. 2013 (NAICS 115 only) 
665 | P a g e

Table 3-173. Forest products industry earnings by detailed sector by district model area, 2012 (millions of 2012 dollars) 

Detailed Sector North American 

Industry Classification System 

(NAICS)

District Model Area Name and Counties

Planning 

Area 

Totals

Coos 

Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem-Other

SalemPortland 

MSA

Description Code Coos, 

Curry Lane Klamath Jackson, Josephine Douglas

Benton, 

Clatsop, 

Lincoln, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, 

Tillamook

Clackamas, 

Columbia, 

Multnomah, 

Washington, 

Yamhill

Forestry & Logging 113 $64.9 $79.8 $33.0 $52.5 $54.2 $212.4 $157.6 $654.4

Support Activities for 

Agriculture & Forestry 115 $11.0 $18.5 $9.7 $48.0 $10.1 $162.1 $132.6 $392.0

Wood Products Manufacturing 321 $76.1 $221.5 $108.2 $108.2 $169.9 $153.2 $154.1 $991.1

Sawmills & Wood 

Preservation 3211 $27.3 $82.4 D $6.2 $61.9 $71.8 $52.9 D

Veneer, Plywood, 

Reconstituted & Engineered 

Wood Products

3212 $44.6 $118.4 D $77.2 $97.1 $44.2 $18.7 D

Other Wood Products 3219 $4.2 $20.7 D $24.8 $10.9 $37.3 $82.5 D

Paper Manufacturing 322 - $48.5 - $2.2 - $239.4 $136.5 $426.7

Pulp, Paper & Paperboard 

Mills 3221 - $47.4 - - - $197.9 $74.3 $319.6

Converted Paper Products 

Manufacturing 3222 - $1.2 - $2.2 - $41.5 $62.2 $107.1

Totals $152 $368 $151 $211 $234 $767 $581 $2,464

D = Disclosure restricted because of confidentiality 

Note: Table does not include trucking of logs and lumber because it is (1) not identifiable by NAICS and (2) less than 14 percent of the entire trucking industry (OFRI 2012; MIG, 

Inc. 2013) 

Sources: Oregon Forest Resources Institute 2012; MIG, Inc. 2013 (NAICS 115 only) 
666 | P a g e

The entire forest products industry in the Salem District includes all types of wood fiber harvesting and 

processing. In terms of employment, the forest products industry supplies over 24,000 jobs, with payrolls 

exceeding $1.3 billion (about 2 percent of total jobs and earnings). In the areas south of the Salem 

District, Forestry & Logging, Sawmills & Wood Preservation, and Veneer, Plywood, Reconstituted & 

Engineered Wood Products are the three major elements of the forest products industry. In addition, the 

Eugene area has several firms that manufacture pulp and paper products. South of the Salem District, total 

forest products industry employment ranges from a low of about 2,000 in the Klamath Falls area (6 

percent of area total) to a high of 5,300 in the Eugene area (3 percent of area total). Similarly, earnings 

range from $151 million in the Klamath Falls area (13 percent of area total) to a high of $368 million in 

the Eugene area (5 percent of area total). 

Table 3-174, below, displays the share of employment and earnings by both timber-related and 

recreation-related industries to total employment and earnings in each BLM district model area. One or 

both of these industries are particularly important to four model areas: Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and 

Klamath Falls. The recreation-related industry is strongest in Coos Bay and Medford, where employment 

sums to 11 percent of area jobs and payrolls sum to over 5 percent of area earnings. The timber-related 

industry is most robust in Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Klamath Falls, where employment ranges from 6.2 to 

8.5 percent of all area jobs and payrolls range from 10.1 to 13.1 percent of all earnings. 
667 | P a g e

Table 3-174. Employment and earnings in timber- and recreation-related industries as a share of total employment and earnings by district model 

area, 2012 

Resource-Related Industry

District Model Area Name and Counties

Planning 

Area 

Totals

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath 

Falls Medford Roseburg Salem-Other SalemPortland MSA

Coos, 

Curry Lane Klamath Jackson, Josephine Douglas

Benton, 

Clatsop, 

Lincoln, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, 

Tillamook

Clackamas, 

Columbia, 

Multnomah, 

Washington, 

Yamhill

Employment

Timber-Related*

(Forest Products) 6.7% 2.9% 6.2% 2.8% 8.5% 3.7% 1.0% 2.2%

Recreation-Related‡

(Arts, Entertainment & 

Recreation; 

Accommodations & Food 

Services)

11.0% 9.4% 10.0% 11.1% 7.9% 9.9% 9.3% 9.6%

Earnings

Timber-Related†

(Forest Products) 10.1% 4.8% 12.6% 3.8% 13.1% 5.1% 0.9% 2.5%

Recreation-Related‡

(Arts, Entertainment & 

Recreation; 

Accommodations & Food 

Services)

5.5% 4.4% 4.5% 5.3% 4.0% 4.5% 4.0% 4.2%

* Percentages calculated by dividing total employment in Table 3-172 for each geographic area by total employment in Table 3-171 for the same geographic area. 

† Percentages calculated by dividing total earnings in Table 3-173 for each geographic area by total earnings in Table 3-171 for the same geographic area. 

‡ Percentages calculated by dividing recreation-related industry total for each geographic area (selected geographic areas in text, others in project record) by comparable total in 

(Table 3-173) for the same geographic area. 
668 | P a g e

A shrinking of the wood products manufacturing industry has been evident in the planning area since 

2001. The industry contracted by -39.3 percent between 2001 and 2012. Since 2007, when many Oregon 

industries were at peak employment, planning area employment in this industry is down by -31.8 percent. 

All district model areas show negative growth since 2001, ranging from -43.9 percent in the Salem-Other 

area to -16.5 percent in the Coos Bay area. All areas except Coos Bay show negative growth at greater 

than -30 percent. No model area experienced a peak of industry employment in 2007. Statewide, 

employment in this industry is down by -33.6 percent since 2007 and -40.8 percent since 2001. 

There are large differences between compensation for timber-related jobs compared to recreation-related 

jobs in western Oregon. The average forest products industry jobholder earns approximately $58,000 

while the average recreation-based employee earns approximately $22,000, roughly a third of timberrelated industries (Table 3-173 and tables in Appendix P). Note that recreation includes two industries: 

Arts, Entertainment & Recreation Services, and Accommodation & Food Services). 

Contributions by BLM Management to Local Economies 

Through its management of Oregon & California (O&C), Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR), and other 

public lands, the BLM contributes economically to all parts of the planning area, triggered by—

 The production and use of basic commodities, such as timber, forage, minerals, and other forest 

products derived from BLM-administered lands, 

 Personal and commercial use of BLM-administered lands, such as for recreation, solitude, 

education, and reflection, 

 Local agency expenditures for personnel, materials, and services, and 

 Federal payments to state and local governments, such as payments made under the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, that are also 

spent on personnel, materials, and services. 

The presentation of BLM contributions differs from the preceding presentation of area industry totals in 

Table 3-170 through Table 3-174. Table 3-175 through Table 3-180 illustrate the various dimensions of 

BLM contributions in 2012, including the sum of direct, indirect, and induced effects that BLM 

contributions trigger as they ripple throughout each model area. Direct effects are those in industries 

either processing BLM resource outputs (e.g., sawmills) or selling goods and services to public land users 

(e.g., outfitter and guide services) and to government agencies using Federal funds (e.g., office supplies). 

Indirect effects are those in local supply chains that support local firms producing direct goods and 

services. Finally, induced effects are those triggered by workers in either direct or indirect firms who 

spend a portion of their paycheck locally. Thus, the BLM contributions trigger effects that find their way 

into virtually every industry of the local economy. 
669 | P a g e

Table 3-175. Total employment and earnings contribution of BLM programs to district model areas, 2012 

Program

District Model Area Name and Counties

Planning 

Area 

Totals

Coos 

Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem-Other SalemPortland MSA

Coos, 

Curry Lane Klamath Jackson, Josephine Douglas

Benton, 

Clatsop, 

Lincoln, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, 

Tillamook

Clackamas, 

Columbia, 

Multnomah, 

Washington, 

Yamhill

Employment (Jobs)

Recreation 276 527 60 425 507 133 854 2782

Livestock Grazing - - 55 40 - - - 95

Timber 710 480 40 340 488 432 407 2,897

Minerals - 3 - 1 2 - - 6

Agency Expenditures 192 259 71 454 176 271 - 1423

Payments to States/Counties 70 93 19 236 189 55 36 699

Totals 1,249 1,363 245 1,496 1,362 891 1,297 7,904

Share of Total Employment in Area*3.1% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 2.9% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%

Earnings (Millions of 

2012 Dollars)

Recreation $7.0 $16.2 $1.6 $12.2 $13.6 $3.8 $32.8 $87.2

Livestock Grazing - - $0.8 $0.6 - - - $1.4

Timber $33.3 $23.2 $1.9 $15.8 $23.5 $21.3 $22.8 $141.7

Minerals - $0.2 - < $0.1 $0.1 - - $0.3

Agency Expenditures $13.1 $15.2 $4.2 $27.2 $12.0 $17.4 - $89.1

Payments to States/Counties $3.4 $5.9 $0.9 $10.2 $9.6 $3.3 $2.2 $35.5

Totals $56.8 $60.7 $9.4 $66.0 $58.9 $45.9 $57.8 $355.3

Share of Total Earnings in Area†3.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.2% 3.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%

* Percentages calculated by dividing total employment in this table for each geographic area by total employment in Table 3-171 for the same geographic area. 

† Percentages calculated by dividing total earnings in this table for each geographic area by total earnings in Table 3-171 for the same geographic area. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding 
670 | P a g e

Table 3-176. Total employment contribution of BLM timber programs to forest products industry by district model area, 2012 (jobs) 

Detailed Sector North American 

Industry Classification System 

(NAICS)

District Model Area Name and Counties

Planning 

Area 

Totals

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath 

Falls Medford Roseburg Salem-Other SalemPortland MSA

Description Code Coos Lane Klamath Jackson, 

Josephine Douglas

Benton, 

Clatsop, 

Lincoln, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, 

Tillamook

Clackamas, 

Columbia, 

Multnomah, 

Washington, 

Yamhill

Forestry & Logging 113 140 71 9 48 88 78 43 477

Support Activities for 

Agriculture & Forestry 115 93 47 6 32 59 47 34 317

Wood Products 

Manufacturing 321 131 81 6 59 133 56 51 518

Sawmills & Wood 

Preservation 3211 111 56 4 40 72 50 46 379

Veneer, Plywood, 

Reconstituted & 

Engineered Wood 

Products

3212 20 20 1 6 10 5 4 66

Other Wood Products 3219 < 1 5 1 13 51 1 2 73

Paper Manufacturing 322 < 1 13 < 1 < 1 < 1 15 13 41

Pulp, Paper & Paperboard 

Mills 3221 < 1 13 < 1 < 1 < 1 15 13 41

Converted Paper Products 

Manufacturing 3222 - < 1 - < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1

Totals 363 212 21 139 280 196 142 1,354

Share of Forest Products Industry in 

Area* 13.4% 4.0% 1.0% 3.4% 7.1% 1.5% 1.3% 3.2%

Share of Total Employment in 

Area† 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% < 0.1% 0.1%

* Percentages calculated by dividing total employment in this table for each geographic area by total employment in Table 3-172 for the same geographic area. 

† Percentages calculated by dividing total employment in this table for each geographic area by total employment in Table 3-171 for the same geographic area. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding 
671 | P a g e

Table 3-177. Total earnings contribution of BLM timber programs to forest products industry by district model area, 2012 (millions of 2012 

dollars) 

Detailed Sector North American 

Industry Classification System 

(NAICS)

District Model Area Name and Counties

Planning 

Area 

Totals

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath 

Falls Medford Roseburg Salem-Other SalemPortland MSA

Description Code Coos, 

Curry

Lane Klamath Jackson, 

Josephine Douglas

Benton, 

Clatsop, 

Lincoln, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, 

Tillamook

Clackamas, 

Columbia, 

Multnomah, 

Washington, 

Yamhill

Forestry & Logging 113 $9.8 $4.9 $0.6 $3.4 $6.2 $5.5 $3.1 $33.5

Support Activities for 

Agriculture & Forestry 115 $3.7 $1.9 $0.2 $1.3 $2.4 $1.9 $1.4 $12.7

Wood Products 

Manufacturing 321 $7.3 $4.5 $0.3 $3.3 $7.4 $3.1 $2.8 $28.7

Sawmills & Wood 

Preservation 3211 $6.1 $3.1 $0.2 $2.2 $4.0 $2.8 $2.5 $20.8

Veneer, Plywood, 

Reconstituted & 

Engineered Wood 

Products

3212 $1.1 $1.1 - $0.4 $0.6 $0.3 $0.2 $3.8

Other Wood Products 3219 <$0.1 $0.3 $0.1 $0.7 $2.9 $0.1 $0.1 $4.1

Paper Manufacturing 322 <$0.1 $1.2 <$0.1 <$0.1 <$0.1 $1.3 $1.2 $3.8

Pulp, Paper & Paperboard 

Mills 3221 <$0.1 $1.2 <$0.1 <$0.1 <$0.1 $1.3 $1.2 $3.8

Converted Paper Products 

Manufacturing 3222 - <$0.1 - <$0.1 - <$0.1 <$0.1 <$0.1

Totals $20.8 $12.5 $1.2 $7.9 $16.0 $11.8 $8.5 $78.7

Share of Forest Products Industry in 

Area*

13.7% 3.4% 0.8% 3.8% 6.8% 1.5% 1.5% 3.2%

Share of Total Employment in 

Area† 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.9% 0.1% <0.1% 0.1%

* Percentages calculated by dividing total earnings in this table for each geographic area by total earnings in Table 3-173 for the same geographic area. 

† Percentages calculated by dividing total earnings in this table for each geographic area by total earnings in Table 3-171 for the same geographic area. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding
672 | P a g e

Table 3-178. Total employment and earnings contribution of BLM recreation programs to recreation-related industries by district model area, 

2012 

Industry

District Model Area Name and Counties

Planning 

Area 

Totals

Coos 

Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem-Other SalemPortland MSA

Coos Lane Klamath Jackson, 

Josephine Douglas

Benton, 

Clatsop, 

Lincoln, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, 

Tillamook

Clackamas, 

Columbia, 

Multnomah, 

Washington, 

Yamhill

Employment

(Jobs, Percent)

Arts, Entertainment & Recreation

Services 72 87 12 81 92 38 115 498

Accommodation & Food Services 135 225 29 165 201 72 340 1,167

Totals 206 312 41 245 293 111 455 1,664

Share of Recreation-related 

Industry in Area* 4.6% 1.8% 1.3% 1.5% 8.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.9%

Share of Total Employment in 

Area† 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% <0.1% <0.1% 0.1%

Earnings (Millions of 

2012 dollars, Percent)

Arts, Entertainment & Recreation

Services $1.6 $2.6 $0.3 $2.0 $2.5 $1.3 $3.6 $13.9

Accommodation & Food Services $2.8 $4.8 $0.6 $3.4 $4.1 $1.5 $9.1 $26.3

Totals $4.4 $7.5 $0.8 $5.4 $6.6 $2.8 $12.7 $40.2

Share of Recreation-related 

Industry in Area* 5.3% 2.2% 1.6% 1.8% 9.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.0%

Share of Total Employment in 

Area† 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%

* Percentages calculated by dividing table total for each geographic area by comparable total employment or total earnings in Table 3-172 for the same geographic area. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

† Percentages calculated by dividing table total for each geographic area by recreation-related industry total for the same geographic area (selected geographic areas in text, others 

in project record). 
673 | P a g e

Table 3-179. Total employment and earnings in O&C counties generated by BLM-based Federal 

payments, 2012 (jobs, millions of 2012 dollars) 

County

Secure Rural Schools Program*

Title I and III Title II Total

County Government Private Sector Private Sector County-wide

Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings

Benton 6 $0.5 3 $0.1 1 $0.1 10 $0.6

Clackamas 8 $0.7 5 $0.2 3 $0.1 15 $0.9

Columbia 6 $0.5 2 $0.1 2 <$0.1 10 $0.6

Coos 31 $1.6 9 $0.3 4 $0.1 44 $2.1

Curry 15 $0.9 5 $0.1 3 $0.1 23 $1.1

Douglas 133 $7.4 41 $1.4 12 $0.7 185 $9.4

Jackson 86 $3.1 30 $1.1 26 $0.8 141 $4.9

Josephine 56 $4.0 24 $0.8 11 $0.4 91 $5.2

Klamath 11 $0.6 5 $0.2 2 $0.1 17 $0.8

Lane 50 $4.4 29 $1.0 14 $0.4 92 $5.8

Lincoln 1 $0.1 1 <$0.1 - <$0.1 2 $0.1

Linn 11 $0.9 4 $0.1 2 $0.1 17 $1.1

Marion 4 $0.3 2 $0.1 1 <$0.1 8 $0.5

Multnomah 2 $0.1 1 $0.1 1 <$0.1 4 $0.2

Polk 7 $0.5 2 $0.1 2 $0.1 12 $0.7

Tillamook 2 $0.2 1 <$0.1 1 <$0.1 4 $0.2

Washington 1 $0.1 1 <$0.1 1 <$0.1 2 $0.1

Yamhill 3 $0.2 1 <$0.1 - <$0.1 4 $0.2

Totals 434 $26.1 163 $5.6 85 $3.0 682 $34.8

*Based upon Secure Rural Schools program payments received and spent by local governments in calendar year 2012 

Note: Clatsop County is not included on the table. Included within the larger economic analysis area, Clatsop County has a small 

amount of BLM-administered lands, but does not have O&C or CBWR lands. Consequently, BLM-based Federal payments to 

Clatsop County are very small and generate a positive, but very minor effect on the county economy. 
674 | P a g e

Table 3-180. Total employment and earnings in O&C counties generated by BLM-based Federal 

payments, 2012 (jobs, millions of 2012 dollars) 

County

PILT Program* (BLM Acreage Only) All BLM-based Federal Payments

County 

Government

Private 

Sector County-wide County-wide Jobs

County-wide 

Earnings

Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Total

Share of 

County 

Total†

Total

Share of 

County 

Total†

Benton - - - - - - 10 <0.1% $0.6 <0.1%

Clackamas - - - - - - 16 <0.1% $0.9 <0.1%

Columbia - - - - - - 10 0.1% $0.6 0.1%

Coos 2 $0.1 1 - 3 $0.1 47 0.2% $2.2 0.2%

Curry - - - - - - 24 0.2% $1.2 0.3%

Douglas 3 $0.2 1 - 4 $0.2 189 0.4% $9.6 0.5%

Jackson 3 $0.1 1 - 4 $0.1 145 0.1% $5.0 0.1%

Josephine - - - - - - 91 0.3% $5.2 0.4%

Klamath 1 $0.1 - - 2 $0.1 19 0.1% $0.9 0.1%

Lane 1 $0.1 1 - 2 $0.1 93 0.1% $5.9 0.1%

Lincoln - - - - - - 2 <0.1% $0.1 <0.1%

Linn - - - - - - 18 <0.1% $1.1 0.1%

Marion - - - - - - 8 <0.1% $0.5 <0.1%

Multnomah - - - - - - 4 <0.1% $0.2 <0.1%

Polk 1 $0.1 - - 1 $0.1 13 0.1% $0.7 0.1%

Tillamook - - - - - - 4 <0.1% $0.2 0.1%

Washington - - - - - - 3 <0.1% $0.2 <0.1%

Yamhill - - - - - - 4 <0.1% $0.2 <0.1%

Totals 13 $0.7 5 $0.2 17 $0.9 699 <0.1% $35.7 <0.1%

* Based upon payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) received and spent by local governments in calendar year 2012 

† Percentages calculated by dividing table total for each county by comparable total employment or total earnings for the same 

county (provided in project record). 

Notes: Clatsop County is not included on the table. Included within the larger economic analysis area, Clatsop County has a small 

amount of BLM-administered lands, but does not have O&C or CBWR lands. Consequently, BLM-based Federal payments to 

Clatsop County are very small and generate a positive, but very minor effect on the county economy. 

Economic contributions of BLM programs and payments total 7,900 jobs and over $350 million of 

earnings across the entire planning area. Total employment contributions range from a low of 240 jobs 

and $9.4 million of earnings in the Klamath Falls area (0.8 percent of area totals for each) to a high of 

1,500 jobs and over $66 million of earnings in the Medford area (1.0 percent and 1.2 percent of area 

totals, respectively). Employment contributions from the timber program exceed all other programs in the 

planning area as a whole and in two of the model areas, Salem-Other and Coos Bay. Like employment, 

earnings contributions from the timber program exceed all other programs in the planning area and in the 

same model areas noted above, but also in the Eugene and Roseburg areas. 

Expenditures by recreation participants on BLM-administered lands provide the largest employment 

contributions in the Salem-Portland MSA, Eugene, and Roseburg areas. In the Salem-Portland MSA, 

recreation-based jobs are approximately double those triggered by timber harvest and processing. In the 

Eugene area, recreation-based jobs exceed timber-based jobs by about 10 percent. In the Roseburg area, 
675 | P a g e

these jobs exceed timber-based jobs by about 4 percent. Expenditures by the BLM provide the largest 

employment and earnings contributions in the Medford and Klamath Falls areas. Jobs triggered through 

spending by recreation participants exceed those triggered through either BLM or local government 

spending in all model areas, except Medford and Klamath Falls where they are slightly smaller than 

contributions triggered by agency spending. 

As a share of total area employment and earnings, BLM contributions as a whole range from lows of less 

than 1 percent in the Salem, Eugene, and Klamath Falls areas to highs of about 3 percent in the Roseburg 

and Coos Bay areas. Contributions in the Medford area are about 1 percent. While all contributions to 

local economies are important, economists often consider those that approach 5 percent of the total 

economy—as is the case for Roseburg and Coos Bay—as central to the economic well-being of an area. 

The use and management of BLM-administered lands trigger direct, indirect, and induced effects 

touching every industry as they work their way throughout the local economies. Across the entire 

planning area, BLM management of public lands mostly affects Agriculture, Governments, 

Accommodation & Food Services, and Manufacturing. BLM management affects Agriculture more than 

other industries because of logging and forestry support sectors, but also because personal spending by 

worker households, regardless of the industry they work in, affects the agriculture industry. BLM payrolls 

and local government payrolls funded by Federal payments primarily affect the Governments sector. 

Recreation spending and personal spending by workers and their households affect Accommodations & 

Food Services. Finally, the forest products industry has a primary effect on Manufacturing. The leading 

industries for earnings are consistent with those for employment, with one exception; low wages and 

salaries in Accommodations & Food Services make this industry generally rank last among the top four 

industries across the planning area and in each of the model areas, whereas it ranks third in the top four 

for jobs. Appendix P contains detailed tables showing employment and earnings across all industries. 

Table 3-176 and Table 3-177 provide a more detailed look at BLM contributions to the forest products 

industry. Because the BLM harvest in 2012 yielded neither very large nor very small logs, the sawmill 

and logging sectors see most of the direct contributions, rather than the Veneer & Plywood sectors. 

Sawmill & Logging account for 63 percent of all industry employment and 69 percent of all earnings. 

Other than Klamath Falls, every area shows total employment in these two sectors ranging from 85–250 

jobs and $5.4–$16.0 million in payroll. The largest employment and earnings contributions for the forest 

products industry occur in the Coos Bay and Roseburg model areas. BLM harvest contributes 3.2 percent 

of employment and earnings to the entire industry across the planning area, but it is especially vital to 

Coos Bay and Roseburg. In Coos Bay, 13 percent of industry jobs and payrolls depend on BLM harvest 

and in the Roseburg area, the share is 7 percent. These large shares demonstrate the important role that 

BLM timber harvest plays in these two areas of southern Oregon. 

Table 3-178 provides detail into BLM contributions to two recreation-related industries in western 

Oregon (Arts, Entertainment & Recreation Services, and Accommodation & Food Services). While the 

BLM-related contribution to these sectors is primarily affected by recreation participant spending, other 

BLM activities contribute as well. Across the planning area, spending by recreation visitors, as well as 

spending by local households receiving earnings from BLM-based economic activities, results in over 

1,600 jobs and $40 million of earnings in these two recreation-related sectors. The Salem-Portland MSA 

area led all areas with over 450 jobs and $12.7 million in payrolls in these sectors, followed by the 

Eugene, Roseburg, Medford, Coos Bay, Salem-Other, and Klamath Falls areas. BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area account for about 1 percent of all jobs and earnings in these two recreation-related 

industries. The contribution is particularly important in the Roseburg area where BLM-administered lands 

contribute 8.0 percent of industry jobs and 9.3 percent of industry earnings. In Coos Bay, the contribution 

is 4.6 percent of industry jobs and 5.3 percent of industry earnings. Contributions to the Roseburg and 
676 | P a g e

Coos Bay areas range from 0.3 to 0.6 percent. As a share of the total planning area, BLM-administered 

lands contribute about 0.1 percent of all jobs and less than 0.1 percent of all earnings. 

Federal Payments 

Federal payments are an important contributor to local governments, providing funds for a variety of 

public services. Local government spending of Federal payments to employ personnel and purchase 

materials and services generates jobs and income. Eighteen counties in Oregon contain either O&C or 

CBWR lands, and therefore receive Federal payments under the Secure Rural Schools and SelfDetermination Act (as amended). Each of these counties also receives Federal payments under the 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act. Socioeconomics Issue 3 discusses Federal payments to local governments 

and their contribution to public services funding. Table 3-179 and Table 3-180 identify the contribution 

of Secure Rural Schools (SRS) and Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments to each of the 18

counties’ economies.

Table 3-179 and Table 3-180 estimate the contribution of BLM-based payments spent in 2012 that 

support both public and private sector payrolls. County governments spend SRS Title I and III payments 

directly; they have full discretion in the use of these funds, often using them for public safety and related 

services. Title II payments are directed by local resource advisory committees for resource-improvement 

projects on public lands in the area. In 2012, SRS payments contributed over 680 jobs and nearly $35 

million in earnings to local economies throughout the planning area. Douglas and Jackson Counties have 

the largest employment effect with well over 100 jobs, followed by Lane and Josephine with over 90 

each. Because each local government sets its own employment compensation rates, county rankings by 

earnings differ somewhat from those by employment. In terms of total county government payroll, 

Douglas County leads all counties, followed by Lane, Josephine, and Jackson Counties. PILT payments 

are typically much smaller than SRS payments, and thus generate smaller contributions to local 

economies. Across all of western Oregon, PILT payments provide 17 jobs and $0.9 million of earnings. 

All BLM-based Federal payments combined contribute nearly 700 jobs and $35.7 in earnings across the 

entire planning area. As a share of total employment and earnings, these estimates accounted for under 

0.1 percent for the entire planning area and for each district model area. 

Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the employment and earnings effects of the No Action alternative, action 

alternatives, and the Proposed RMP. Changes in timber harvest, recreation visits, and BLM expenditures 

are the primary influences on projected future BLM-based employment and earnings in local economies 

in the planning area. There would be modest to no changes in mineral revenues across alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP, and the contribution of the livestock grazing program to BLM-based employment and 

earnings is much smaller than other programs, as shown in Table 3-175. Data in the tables in this section 

show effects for the year 2018—the mid-point of the first decade in the Woodstock vegetation modeling 

(Appendix C)—as an appropriate point for comparison of economic effects among alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. 

Table 3-181 shows economic effects by alternative and the Proposed RMP for the entire planning area by 

BLM program, timber-related industry, and recreation-related industry. With respect to total effects (i.e., 

direct, indirect, and induced), the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, except for Alternative D would 

result in an increase in jobs and earnings compared to 2012 figures based on Current-Modified.98 The 

difference across alternatives and the Proposed RMP is substantial, ranging from 7,100 jobs and $310 

million in earnings under Alternative D up to 12,200 jobs and $573 million in earnings in Alternative C. 

The Proposed RMP would generate about 8,500 jobs and $330 million in earnings. The timber program 

 

98 Current-Modified, i.e., payments to counties as they would have been under the O&C Act; see explanation in 

Summary of Analytical Methods. 
677 | P a g e

would account for the highest shares of jobs and earnings under the No Action alternative and 

Alternatives A, B, and C (from 30 to 50 percent). Recreation would account for the highest shares of jobs 

under Alternative D (44 percent), but a smaller share of earnings (31 percent) compared with the timber 

program. Under the Proposed RMP, timber would account for the highest share of jobs at 39 percent and 

the highest share of earnings at 50 percent.99 Timber shares would be highest under Alternative C, with 50 

percent of all jobs and 52 percent of earnings, a 110 percent increase over Current-Modified. Recreation 

shares would be the lowest under Alternative C, with 25 percent of jobs and 17 percent of earnings, and 

the highest under Alternative D with 44 percent of jobs and 31 percent of earnings. 

 

99 Percentages may be calculated from the tables. For example 3,111 divided by 7,083 = 44 percent; $97.0 divided 

by $309.5 million = 31 percent. 
678 | P a g e

Table 3-181. Total employment and earnings in the planning area 

Program/

Industry

Employment (Jobs) Earnings (Millions of 2012 Constant* $)

2012 2018 2012 2018

CurrentModifiedNo 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP CurrentModified

No 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

BLM Program

Recreation 2,782 2,962 2,915 2,962 3,062 3,111 3,071 $87.2 $92.8 $91.3 $92.8 $95.5 $97.0 $96.0

Livestock 

Grazing 95 95 95 95 95 - 95 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $0.0 $1.4

Timber 2,897 4,720 3,127 3,989 6,093 2,477 3,366 $141.8 $227.7 $153.2 $194.5 $296.4 $122.1 $165.1

Minerals 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.2

Agency 

Expenditures 1,423 1,860 1,458 1,677 2,253 1,285 1,732 $89.1 $115.5 $90.5 $104.2 $140.8 $79.3 $52.9

Federal 

Payments to 

Counties†

198 508 307 398 736 204 279 $10.5 $26.9 $16.3 $21.1 $39.0 $10.8 $14.8

Totals 7,403 10,152 7,909 9,127 12,245 7,083 8,549 $330.1 $464.5 $352.9 $414.1 $573.4 $309.5 $330.4

Timber-related Industries

Forestry, 

Logging, &

Support 

Activities

795 1,130 775 972 1,496 615 851 $46.3 $65.8 $45.1 $56.5 $87.0 $35.8 $49.5

Wood Products 

Manufacturing 518 959 555 738 1,179 421 561 $28.7 $53.2 $30.7 $40.9 $65.3 $23.3 $31.1

Paper 

Manufacturing 41 66 65 75 113 57 79 $3.7 $6.1 $5.9 $6.9 $10.4 $5.2 $7.2

Totals 1,354 2,155 1,395 1,784 2,788 1,093 1,491 $78.7 $125.0 $81.8 $104.2 $162.7 $64.3 $87.8

Recreation-related Industries

Arts, 

Entertainment & 

Recreation

Services

495 604 529 574 679 527 559 $13.9 $18.6 $14.0 $17.3 $24.8 $18.8 $19.5

Accommodation 

& Food Services 1,150 1,260 1,207 1,244 1,328 1,260 1,262 $26.0 $28.3 $23.5 $28.0 $37.5 $40.4 $37.6

Totals 1,645 1,864 1,736 1,818 2,006 1,788 1,821 $39.9 $46.8 $37.5 $45.2 $62.4 $59.2 $57.0

* Earnings in 2018 are expressed in 2012 dollars with unchanging or constant purchasing power. 

† Federal payments include only those that would be paid under the O&C formula. Current has been modified as if O&C payments had been made in lieu of SRS payments. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding
679 | P a g e

Change in total timber volume (including both ASQ and non-ASQ volume) is the most influential factor 

affecting economic consequences of the timber program under the different alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP, but composition of log sizes is also important. Logs of 24” or more (peeler logs) generate about 

three times more direct employment than smaller sawlogs. Logs less than 8” (roundwood) generate the 

least direct employment. Across the decision area, harvests in 2012 (243 MMbf) were 96 percent sawlogs 

with only 3 percent peeler logs and 1 percent roundwood. Under the No Action alternative (400 MMbf) 

and Alternatives A (249 MMbf), B (332 MMbf), and C (555 MMbf), harvests would have more volume 

than current, but peeler logs would account for 15–24 percent of total harvest. Roundwood would be 

steady across these alternatives at 13–14 percent of total volume. Given harvest volumes that would be 

greater than current and a mix of log sizes that would generate more employment than current, these 

alternatives show greater positive job and income effects. Under Alternative D (180 MMbf) harvest 

volumes would be less than current, but they would include a mix similar to the other alternatives. Under 

the Proposed RMP (278 MMbf), harvest volumes would be greater than current, with peeler logs 

accounting for 13 percent of total harvest. 

As the BLM timber harvest would change, market forces would prompt private timberland owners to 

adjust their harvest volumes. The BLM anticipates that in 2018, private timberland owners would either 

increase their harvests modestly (8.2 MMbf short log under Alternative D) or decrease their harvests in 

varying amounts (-54 MMbf short log under the No Action alternative, -11 MMbf short log under 

Alternative A, -34 MMbf short log under Alternative B, -97 MMbf short log under Alternative C, and -17 

MMbf short log under the Proposed RMP). See the discussion of market consequences in 

Socioeconomics Issue 1. The employment and earnings effects shown in Table 3-181 incorporate these 

market implications. 

The BLM’s projections of recreation visits in 2018 vary from 5.6 million visits under Alternative A to 6.0 

million visits under Alternative D. Visitation under the Proposed RMP is anticipated to reach 5.9 million 

visits in 2018. Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, except Alternative D, the BLM recreation 

program would remain the second largest generator of jobs among all BLM-based effects. Under 

Alternative D, recreation would rank first among programs, with over 3,100 jobs. 

Employment and earnings estimates for the recreation program shown in Table 3-181 are based on a 50-

year implementation period for carrying out changes in the recreation management described for the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Unlike a changing timber program, for which the BLM has many 

years of experience of shifting implementation to match objectives or targets, the agency would not be 

able to implement quickly the management necessary to increase recreation opportunities, even assuming 

full funding and staffing. In addition, substantially increasing recreation opportunities would require the 

development of new recreation facilities and new infrastructure to support specific targeted activities. 

Based on empirical evidence of past BLM recreation management, it would take substantially more than a 

decade from adoption of a new RMP to increase the recreation opportunities to new levels considered in 

several of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Given the uncertainties around the potential rate of 

increase in recreation management, the BLM assumed a 50-year implementation period to estimate the 

values in Table 3-181. However, it may be possible to implement new recreation management direction 

in a shorter time period. If the implementation rate were 20 years, for example, recreation visitation 

would increase much more quickly (except under Alternative A). 

Under a 20-year recreation management implementation scenario, employment in the planning area by 

2018 generated by visitor spending would increase over those shown in Table 3-181 by 200–250 jobs 

under Alternative C and under the Proposed RMP, and by over 300 jobs under Alternative D. The 

Medford District would capture a large share of the additional jobs under these alternatives, ranging from 

60–100 workers. The Roseburg District would see an additional 80 jobs under Alternatives C and D 

compared with those shown in Table 3-181. Increases in other districts would be more modest. There 
680 | P a g e

would be no change to the estimates in Table 3-181 under the No Action alternative or Alternative B, and 

an 80-job decrease for the entire planning area under Alternative A, because visitation would not grow as 

quickly. 

Across all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, BLM expenditures would continue to be an important 

generator of jobs and income across the planning area (Table 3-181). Jobs resulting from this spending 

would range from about 1,300 under Alternative D to more than 2,200 under Alternative C. Employment 

effects under Alternative A would be similar to Current-Modified, while those under the No Action 

alternative, Alternative B, and the Proposed RMP would be 250–400 jobs greater than Current-Modified. 

The timber program would be the primary determinant of BLM budgets in this part of the analysis. The 

timber program budget would vary depending on the mix of timber activities by district. For the purpose 

of this analysis, the BLM assumed that non-timber portions of BLM district budgets would be unchanged 

from current across all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. See Socioeconomics Issue 7 for additional 

details. 

Payments to counties under the formula in the O&C Act would generate about 200 jobs under Alternative 

D. Under Alternative C, payments would generate over 700 jobs, and, under the other alternatives or the 

Proposed RMP, from 300 to 500 jobs. Alternative D would result in very similar numbers of jobs as those 

generated under Current-Modified. Payment-based employment would be about 280 jobs under the 

Proposed RMP. Earnings would follow the pattern of jobs, ranging from about $11 million under 

Alternative D to $39 million under Alternative C. Under the Proposed RMP, earnings based on O&C 

payments would be about $15 million in 2018. 

Employment in timber-related industries would range from about 1,100 jobs under Alternative D to 2,800 

jobs under Alternative C. Job counts under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, except Alternative D, 

would increase compared to Current-Modified. Timber-related jobs under the Proposed RMP would be 

about 140 more than Current-Modified. Forestry, Logging, & Support Activities would continue to see 

the largest number of workers among timber-related industries. 

Recreation-related industries include Arts, Entertainment & Recreation Services as well as 

Accommodation & Food Services. Typically, while these industries are aligned with spending by 

recreation participants, all BLM programs, not just recreation, affect economic effects in these industries. 

For example, local ranchers who earn a living by running livestock on BLM-administered lands may 

spend a portion of their income in the food service industry. Nonetheless, these industries offer a good 

indicator of recreation-based effects. Because wages in these industries are typically low, total earnings 

triggered by BLM management range from a low of 38 percent of those triggered by timber harvest under 

Alternative C and the No Action alternative to a high of 92 percent under Alternative D. Earnings in 

recreation-related industries under the Proposed RMP would be about $57 million, or 65 percent of those 

triggered by timber harvest. 

Table 3-182 shows total job and labor income effects by BLM district model area and by alternative and 

the Proposed RMP. Except for the Medford District, Alternative C would have the largest employment 

and earnings increases across all district model areas and for the planning area as a whole. In the Medford 

District, the No Action alternative would have the largest employment and earnings increases. For the 

entire planning area, Alternative C’s employment and earnings effects would be 20 percent greater than 

the No Action alternative, the next largest. Alternative C would be 65 percent larger than CurrentModified (12,245 versus 7,403 jobs). Alternative D would trigger smaller effects, a reduction from 

Current-Modified by 4 percent. Under the Proposed RMP, employment would rank third or fourth among 

all alternatives for all district model areas except Coos Bay, where the Proposed RMP would rank fifth. 

Earnings under the Proposed RMP would rank fifth or sixth for all district model areas except SalemPortland MSA and Salem-Other, where the Proposed RMP would rank third. 
681 | P a g e

Table 3-182. BLM-based total employment and earnings by district model area 

District 

Model 

Area

Employment (Jobs) Earnings (Millions of 2012 Constant* $)

2012 2018 2012 2018

CurrentModified†No 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP CurrentModified†

No 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Coos Bay 1,198 1,196 883 933 1,564 641 726 $54.4 $53.6 $37.9 $40.8 $72.4 $25.6 $25.5

Eugene 1,297 2,226 1,764 2,115 3,160 1,524 1,963 $56.6 $103.8 $79.5 $97.0 $150.4 $67.6 $76.7

Klamath 

Falls 231 283 224 277 305 197 268 $8.7 $11.1 $8.3 $10.9 $12.5 $8.9 $7.5

Medford 1,326 2,688 1,753 2,199 2,473 1,586 2,081 $58.6 $124.0 $79.5 $101.3 $113.4 $71.0 $71.9

Roseburg 1,225 1,672 1,100 1,314 2,008 1,062 1,257 $51.8 $74.0 $45.2 $56.4 $91.1 $41.4 $43.3

SalemOther 851 845 874 928 1,240 765 896 $43.5 $44.1 $44.5 $47.2 $65.4 $37.8 $45.4

SalemPortland 

MSA

1,275 1,241 1,312 1,360 1,494 1,309 1,358 $56.5 $53.9 $58.0 $60.5 $68.3 $57.3 $60.0

Planning 

Area 

Totals

7,403 10,152 7,909 9,127 12,245 7,083 8,549 $330.1 $464.5 $352.9 $414.1 $573.4 $309.5 $330.4

* Earnings in 2018 are expressed in 2012 dollars with unchanging or constant purchasing power 

† Current has been modified as if O&C payments had been made in lieu of SRS payments. PILT payments are excluded 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding 
682 | P a g e

The Eugene and Medford Districts would experience the largest effects across all alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. Distribution of timber harvest and recreation visits across the areas primarily accounts for 

these large effects. 

Table 3-183 provides a more detailed view of selected timber- and recreation-related industries by district 

model area. Coos Bay ranked first for economic effects of processing BLM timber in timber-related 

industries in 2012 (363 jobs and $20.8 million in earnings), but would rank anywhere from third to sixth 

behind other model areas in 2018 under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The Medford area would 

lead all areas in 2018 under the No Action alternative, but the Eugene area would lead all areas in 2018 

under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. In all cases, the Klamath Falls area would 

experience the smallest economic effects. The same relationship among areas holds for employment as 

well as earnings. 
683 | P a g e

Table 3-183. BLM-based total employment and earnings in timber-related* industries and recreation-related2industries by district model area 

Metric Employment (Jobs) Earnings (Millions of 2012 Constant‡

$)

Year 2012 2018 2012 2018

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

CurrentModified§No 

Action

Alt.

A

Alt.

B

Alt.

C

Alt.

D

PRMP CurrentModified§

No 

Action

Alt.

A

Alt.

B

Alt.

C

Alt.

D

PRMP

Timber-related* Industries

District Model Area

Coos Bay 363 351 228 231 489 118 143 $20.8 $20.1 $13.1 $13.2 $28.0 $6.8 $8.2

Eugene 212 503 383 505 881 288 433 $12.5 $29.9 $22.8 $30.0 $52.3 $17.2 $25.9

Klamath Falls 21 39 13 32 38 26 29 $1.2 $2.2 $0.7 $1.9 $2.2 $1.5 $1.7

Medford 139 560 243 377 406 191 303 $7.9 $31.9 $13.8 $21.5 $23.1 $10.9 $17.3

Roseburg 280 442 185 263 505 154 231 $16.0 $25.1 $10.5 $15.0 $28.7 $8.8 $13.1

Salem-Other 196 156 204 225 280 187 211 $11.8 $9.6 $12.5 $13.8 $17.2 $11.5 $13.1

SalemPortland MSA 142 104 139 150 188 129 141 $8.5 $6.2 $8.3 $9.0 $11.3 $7.8 $8.5

Planning 

Area Totals 1,354 2,155 1,395 1,784 2,788 1,093 1,491 $78.7 $125.0 $81.8 $104.2 $162.7 $64.3 $87.8

Recreation-related

† Industries

District Model Area

Coos Bay 204 214 198 203 231 194 200 $4.4 $4.5 $3.6 $4.2 $5.8 $5.1 $5.4

Eugene 309 373 344 367 415 331 347 $7.4 $9.7 $7.7 $9.6 $12.1 $9.0 $9.3

Klamath Falls 40 45 41 45 45 43 42 $0.8 $0.9 $0.7 $0.9 $1.0 $1.1 $0.9

Medford 239 320 272 295 328 297 311 $5.3 $8.2 $5.9 $7.1 $10.9 $11.3 $11.3

Roseburg 289 321 294 307 364 325 309 $6.5 $7.5 $5.6 $6.9 $12.9 $11.7 $8.7

Salem-Other 109 113 113 117 133 110 117 $2.8 $2.8 $2.7 $3.1 $3.8 $3.4 $3.6

SalemPortland MSA 454 478 474 484 490 488 494 $12.7 $13.2 $11.3 $13.5 $15.9 $17.7 $17.8

Planning 

Area Totals 1,645 1,864 1,736 1,818 2,006 1,788 1,821 $39.9 $46.8 $37.5 $45.2 $62.4 $59.2 $57.0

* Timber-related industries include Forestry, Logging & Support Activities; Wood Products Manufacturing; and Paper Manufacturing. 

† Recreation-related industries include Arts, Entertainment & Recreation Services and Accommodation & Food Services. Totals include local resident spending whose earnings 

may be associated with non-recreation BLM programs. 

‡ Earnings in 2018 are expressed in 2012 dollars with unchanging or constant purchasing power. 

§ Current has been modified as if O&C payments had been made in lieu of SRS payments. PILT payments are excluded. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding 
684 | Page

By virtue of large recreation participant numbers, the Salem-Portland MSA area would continue to have 

the largest economic effects of any of the model areas from recreation-related industries, regardless of the 

alternative and the Proposed RMP. The Klamath Falls area would continue to experience the smallest 

effect. As noted above, total earnings in recreation-related industries triggered by BLM management are 

substantially smaller than those triggered by the BLM’s timber harvest. Only in the Salem-Portland MSA 

would recreation-related earnings exceed timber-related earnings. Under the Proposed RMP and a 50-year 

implementation rate for recreation, all district areas would see increases in recreation-related jobs and 

earnings compared with Current-Modified, but increases would be more substantial for Medford, Eugene, 

and the Salem-Portland MSA areas. 

Appendix P includes tables showing detailed economic effects by district model area and by alternative 

and the Proposed RMP. 

Effects of Alternatives in Relation to the Broader Economic Context in 

Western Oregon 

In the future, social and economic change in the planning area will result from the combined actions of 

many individuals, businesses, governments, and other organizations. A vast number of decisions made by 

thousands of individuals, businesses, and governments over the next decade will affect growth and change 

in population and employment with consequences for housing and transportation. For economic effect 

purposes, it is impossible to account for and project the effect of all such decisions separately. However, 

standard projections of population and employment that carry forward the economic momentum observed 

in current conditions and trends are a measure of how the economy is likely to develop, given known or 

reasonably foreseeable development. This section of the effects analysis takes such an approach by using 

an interpolation of employment in 2018 based on county-level forecasts by the Oregon Employment 

Department (Krumenauer and Turner 2014). These projections account for reasonably foreseeable levels 

of economic growth and enable an analysis that considers the cumulative effects of the alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP in the context of the broader western Oregon economy. 

The BLM assumed, for purposes of this part of the analysis, that the State forecasts capture the effects of 

BLM management under the No Action alternative (i.e., the 1995 RMPs as written)100 but do not capture 

the effects of Alternatives A–D or the Proposed RMP. 

According to the State’s projections, the planning area as a whole will experience 8.5 percent growth in 

employment between 2012 and 2018 (Table 3-184). The State attributes this growth to continuing 

recovery from the 2007–2009 recession, particularly for the construction industry; a growing health care 

sector, due in part to an aging population; and the need for replacement workers due to baby boomer 

retirements. However, growth will vary substantially among the district areas. Jobs in the Portland-MSA 

and Eugene areas will increase by over 9 percent, Salem-Other, Roseburg, and Medford by about 8 

percent, and Klamath Falls by 6.6 percent. Forecasts for the Coos Bay area indicate job losses of over 

7,000 jobs, a decrease of 17.5 percent in the 6-year period. 

 

100 Harvest volumes, the major driver of job and income effects in this analysis, have been consistent with the 1995 

RMPs. However, the administrative vehicles for offering timber have become more diverse in recent years. These 

vehicles, such as permits and stewardship sale contracts, are used to offer an increasing share of total timber volume. 

 The administrative vehicles for offering timber have become more diverse in recent years. These vehicles, such 

as permits and stewardship sale contracts, are used to offer an increasing share of total timber volume.
685 | P a g e

Table 3-184. Current and projected total employment by district model area (average annual jobs, percent) 

District Model 

Area

Area Total 

Employment

(Average Annual Jobs)

BLM-based Total Employment

(Average Annual Jobs)

BLM-based Share of Area Total Employment 

(Percent)

2012 2018 2018 2018

Current Projected*

No 

Action

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP No 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Incremental Change from No Action

Coos Bay 40,276 33,235 1,196 -314 -263 367 -556 -470 3.6% 2.7% 2.8% 4.7% 1.9% 2.2%

Eugene 186,049 203,072 2,226 -461 -110 934 -701 -263 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.6% 0.8% 1.0%

Klamath Falls 31,881 33,997 283 -60 -6 22 -86 -15 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.6% 0.8%

Medford 145,525 156,964 2,688 -935 -489 -215 -1,102 -607 1.7% 1.1% 1.4% 1.6% 1.0% 1.3%

Roseburg 46,527 50,422 1,672 -572 -358 336 -610 -415 3.3% 2.2% 2.6% 4.0% 2.1% 2.5%

Salem-Other 359,408 388,098 845 29 83 395 -80 51 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

SalemPortland MSA 1,147,490 1,258,230 1,241 70 119 253 68 117 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Planning Area 

Totals 1,957,157 2,124,018 10,152 -2,242 -1,025 2,093 -3,068 -1,602 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4%

* BLM estimates based on total employment projections by Oregon Employment Department (Krumenauer and Turner 2014) 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding
686 | P a g e

Under the No Action alternative, BLM-based contributions to the planning area in 2018 would account 

for 0.5 percent of all employment (10,152 divided by 2,124,018). The share of employment by district 

area would range from 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in the Salem district areas to over 4 percent in the 

Roseburg and Coos Bay areas. 

Table 3-184 shows how the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would affect total employment 

compared to the No Action alternative. Under Alternative A, BLM-based employment would drop by 

2,200 jobs compared to the No Action alternative. Most of the reduction would occur in the Medford area, 

followed by drops in Roseburg, Eugene, and Coos Bay areas. In contrast, the two Salem areas combined 

would experience very modest increases in jobs (about 100). Under Alternative B, declines in BLM-based 

employment would still occur, but would be moderated somewhat compared with Alternative A (i.e., a 

loss of approximately 1,000 jobs). The Medford, Roseburg, and Coos Bay areas would see the largest 

reductions, while the two Salem district models would see greater increases compared with Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C, employment would increase compared to the No Action alternative in aggregate 

across the planning area and in each model area except Medford, which would see a loss of approximately 

220 jobs. Compared with the No Action alternative, Alternative C would offer the only gains (or least 

reductions for Medford) of any of the action alternatives or the Proposed RMP. In contrast, Alternative D 

would prompt the most reductions of BLM-based jobs. Compared with the No Action alternative, 

Alternative D would reduce employment across the planning area by approximately 3,100 jobs, a third of 

which would occur in the Medford area. Roseburg, Eugene, and Coos Bay would all experience 

reductions of 550–700 jobs. Under the Proposed RMP, the net number of job losses would be 1,600 

compared with the No Action alternative. The Medford, Roseburg, and Coos Bay areas would see the 

largest reductions, while the Salem District areas as a whole would experience an increase of 

approximately 170. 

The number of jobs affected is an important consideration, but the share of BLM-based employment to 

total employment puts such changes in context. Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the Salem 

and Klamath Falls areas retain a small share of total area BLM-based employment (less than 1 percent). 

In the Eugene and Medford areas, BLM-based employment would range from 0.8 percent to 1.7 percent 

of total area employment. Thus, while the Medford area is vulnerable to some of the largest changes in 

BLM-based jobs, the employment is not a large share of area employment. 

BLM-based jobs changes would have the largest effects in the Coos Bay and Roseburg areas. Under 

Alternatives A, B, and D, the Coos Bay area would not only experience a relatively large job loss across 

the economy (7,000 jobs from 2012–2018, or 17 percent of 2012 employment), but BLM-based jobs 

could accentuate job losses by another 600 jobs. Under the Proposed RMP losses would be 500 jobs. 

Under the No Action alternative, BLM-based jobs in Coos Bay would account for 3.6 percent of all jobs, 

but that share would drop in half to 1.9 percent under Alternative D, and to 2.2 percent under the 

Proposed RMP. Alternative C would increase the share to 4.7 percent. 

Effects in the Roseburg area would not be as severe as those in the Coos Bay area. Job reductions in the 

Roseburg area under Alternatives A, B, and D would reduce BLM-based shares from 3.3 percent under 

No Action to 2.2 percent, 2.6 percent, and 2.1 percent, respectively. Under the Proposed RMP, BLMbased shares would be about 2.5 percent. State projections show Roseburg area employment increasing by 

4,000 jobs over the next 6 years, and thus any reductions in BLM-based employment would moderate 

projected increases. Under Alternative C, BLM-based employment in Roseburg would increase to 3.8 

percent of total employment. 
687 | P a g e

Issue 3 

What would be the effect of alternatives on payments distributed to counties from activities on BLMadministered lands? 

Key Points 

 There is uncertainty regarding the source and amounts of future payments to counties from 

activities on BLM-administered lands. Congress has not authorized payments under the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS) beyond 2016. 

 SRS payments to counties totaled $38 million in 2012. Had payments in 2012 been based on the 

O&C Act formula, they would have been $12 million. Under the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP, assuming payments were based on the formula in the O&C Act, payments in 2018 would 

range from a low of $19 million under Alternative D, to a high of $67 million under Alternative 

C. The Proposed RMP would result in payments of $26 million. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM updated the information on Secure Rural Schools payments and added discussion of the 

payments to counties for services provided in response to activities on BLM-administered lands. 

Background 

To compensate counties for foregone property tax payments on the O&C lands owned by the Federal 

Government, Congress passed the Oregon and California Lands Act of 1937, which mandated that the 

counties receive a percentage of the receipts from the timber harvested and sold from the O&C acres. 

Congress amended the 1937 Act in 1956 and again in 1976. Currently, counties receive 50 percent of the 

stumpage value of commercial timber harvested and sold from the O&C acres. Of the remaining 50 

percent, the Federal Government spends 25 percent in the counties to help maintain and develop the O&C 

acres, and the remaining 25 percent goes to the U.S. Treasury. 

According to the O&C Act, counties can use their O&C payments at their discretion and do so by 

providing county services mandated by the State of Oregon (Johnson 2009; USDI BLM 2014b). These 

services include sheriff’s patrols, regulating and financing county and local roads, solid waste disposal, 

education, circuit courts, a county assessor, and a district attorney (Johnson 2009, includes a complete list 

of mandated county services). 

The O&C payment formula remained largely unchanged until the early 1990s. In response to declining 

timber harvests and payments to counties in the 1980s, Congressional budget appropriations for 1991, 

1992, and 1993 included a ‘floor’ payment equivalent to the average of payments from 1986 through 

1990 (USDI BLM 2014b). In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA), Congress 

included a safety-net payment also based on the average of payments for 1986 through 1990. In 1994, 

counties received 85 percent of this amount. In 1995 through 1999, payments to counties declined by 3 

percent each year. The OBRA effectively decoupled payments to counties from current timber harvests 

on BLM-administered lands. Congress repealed the OBRA and passed the SRS in 2000. Like the OBRA, 

the SRS based payments to counties on an average of harvests from previous years. The 2000 SRS used 

the three highest harvest years between 1986 and 1990. Initially set to expire in 2006, Congress continued 

reauthorizing the program on an annual basis (Adams and Gaid 2008). Congress passed a 1-year 

reauthorization of the SRS program on October 2, 2013, at 95 percent of the 2012 amount (USDA FS 

2014). In April 2015, Congress reauthorized the SRS program for 2 years, with funding at 95 percent of 

funding for the previous year, as described above under Analytical Methods (USDA FS 2015). Counties 
688 | P a g e

use the SRS payments in the same way they used O&C payments—to pay for state mandated services 

including public safety, county roads, and education (Tuchmann and Davis 2013). 

As described below under Affected Environment, payments to counties have declined substantially since 

2003. Counties have dealt with these declines in different ways. Some tried funding vital services such as 

public safety by passing property tax levies. Others considered sales taxes or outsourcing services such as 

libraries and public health. Some have also reduced staff, or limited or ended services. A sampling of 

reports describing the financial hardships and challenges that some of the O&C counties currently face 

include: Mortenson 2012a, Mortenson 2012b, Zheng 2013a, Zheng 2013b, and Mapes 2014a. As noted 

above (Socioeconomics Background), in 2012, the Oregon Secretary of State identified a total of eight 

counties, all in the planning area, whose financial condition may indicate a higher risk of distress than 

other counties. 

The Governor’s Task Force on Federal Forest Payment and County Services (Governor’s Task Force, 

2009) noted the concerns for counties of ending of the SRS program: 

“Many of these hard hit counties looked beyond deep reductions in services and the depletion of 

their reserves to the likelihood of an unprecedented and unmanageable fiscal crisis within two to 

four years after the cessation of Federal forest payments. Only a belated reauthorization of these 

payments by the Federal Government in October 2008 averted a crisis which, compounded by the 

effects of the current recession, could have forced the collapse of as many as nine ‘crisis counties’ 

over the next several years” (Governor’s Task Force 2009, p. 4).

The Task Force concluded that county governments and residents had limited ability to make up the lost 

Federal payments. For example, the Task Force estimated that increasing property taxes and adding taxes 

such as a lodging tax and real estate transfer tax—if enacted by voters—would only recover between 8 to 

24 percent of lost Federal payments (Governor’s Task Force 2009).

The inability of some O&C counties to provide public safety services in the face of declining Federal 

payments is a major concern for county and State officials. Josephine County released dozens of inmates 

in 2012 because of budget cuts. In early 2014, Polk County announced it would no longer provide 24-

hour sheriff patrols because of budget reductions. Residents in these and other O&C counties rejected 

public-safety tax measures over the previous years (Templeton 2013, Mapes 2013b, Zheng 2013a). In 

response to these developments, the Oregon Legislature passed a bill that would allow the governor to 

impose certain taxes, but only with the approval of county officials. These taxes would fund public safety 

services. Under the bill, the State would match the taxes paid by county residents (Mapes 2013a, 2013b). 

The BLM and the U.S. Forest Service provide additional background information on the history of 

payments to counties from activities on Federal lands (USDA FS 2015, USDI BLM 2015).

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The Federal Government makes, or has made, five types of payments to counties based on BLMadministered lands in the planning area: 

 Secure Rural Schools (SRS) payments 

 O&C Act formula derived payments 

 Payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) 

 Coos Bay Wagon Road-based payments (these only occur in Coos and Douglas counties) 

 Payments by districts to counties for services provided in response to activities on BLMadministered lands 
689 | P a g e

Secure Rural Schools 

The O&C counties face an uncertain future regarding payments through the Secure Rural Schools and 

Community Self-Determination Act (USDI BLM 2014b). On April 16, 2015, Congress reauthorized the 

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act as a part of the Medicare Access and CHIP 

Reauthorization Act of 2015, and extended SRS payments for two years (Pub. L. 114-10). Section 524 

would retain the annual decrease in the full funding amount currently provided in Section 3(11)(C) of the 

SRS Act, which provides that for FY 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter, the full funding amount shall 

be 95 percent of the full funding amount for the preceding fiscal year. Accordingly, the full funding 

amount for FY 2014 (FY 2015 payment year) would be 95 percent of the amount for FY 2013, and the 

full funding amount for FY 2015 (FY 2016 payment year) would be 95 percent of the amount for FY 

2014 (USDA FS 2015; USDI BLM 2015). Given the uncertainty of SRS payments beyond 2016, the 

BLM assumed, for the purpose of analyzing the potential effects of the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP, that the distribution formula in the 1937 O&C Act, as amended, will determine future payments 

(USDI BLM 2015). The potential for county payments to change due to future legislation is unrelated to 

the BLM’s alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Comparing alternatives and the Proposed RMP using 

payments derived under the formula in the O&C Act illustrates how the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP could affect payments if they were based on harvest amounts. 

O&C Act Formula Derived Payments 

The distribution formula in the O&C Act contains three key components: 

 Volume (in MMbf) of commercial timber harvested from O&C lands 

 Stumpage price (per MMbf) of this harvest 

 Each county’s proportion of the total assessed value of all O&C lands as they were in 1915 (See 

Table 3-187 for each county’s proportion)

Under the O&C Act, counties share 50 percent of the commercial stumpage value (commercial harvest 

volume times stumpage price), and the other 50 percent goes to the Federal Government. The Federal 

Government spends one-half of the amount, or 25 percent of the total receipts, in the counties to help 

maintain and develop O&C lands (Babcock 2014, USDI BLM 2015).

The BLM based its analysis of the effects of alternatives and the Proposed RMP on payments to counties 

on the results of the vegetation model, which estimates the future volume and stumpage value of 

commercial timber harvests on BLM-administered lands. To estimate the effect of the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP on payments to counties, the BLM distributed 50 percent of the estimated commercial 

stumpage value using each county’s proportion of the total assessed value for all O&C lands.

Payments In Lieu Of Taxes 

The Federal Government makes payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to counties to help offset the lost tax 

revenue from Federal ownership of land within the counties (DOI 2014). PILT payments to O&C 

counties totaled approximately $3.8 million in 2012 and $5.1 million in 2013 (DOI 2014). These figures 

represent approximately 10 percent of SRS payments to O&C counties in 2012, and approximately 13 

percent in 2013 (USDI BLM 2014c). PILT payments derive from a complex formula that makes 

projecting future payments challenging. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service describes 

this issue: 

“The authorized level of PILT payments is calculated under a complex formula. No precise dollar 

figure can be given in advance for each year’s PILT authorized level. Five factors affect the 
690 | P a g e

calculation of a payment to a given county: the number of acres eligible for PILT payments, the 

county’s population, payments in prior years from other specified Federal land payment programs, 

state laws directing payments to a particular government purpose, and the Consumer Price Index 

as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics” (Corn 2014, Summary). 

As an example of the complexity, one of the provisions in the PILT formula is subtracting certain Federal 

payments made the prior year from the current year’s PILT payment. This provision, however, does not 

currently apply to all Federal payments tied to O&C lands. For example, the PILT does not require 

offsetting prior years SRS payments when calculating PILT payments for lands administered by the BLM 

(Corn 2014). The percentage of total Federal acres eligible for PILT payments attributed to BLMadministered acres in the O&C counties varies from approximately 5 percent for Multnomah County, to 

approximately 97 percent for Polk County (USDI 2014). Even though SRS payments derived from BLMadministered O&C acres are exempt from PILT calculations, payments tied to other Federal acres in these 

counties are not. 

Given the complexity of the PILT formula and the challenges of estimating future offsetting Federal 

payments, the BLM did not include PILT payments in its analysis of the effects of the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP on payments to counties. 

Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands 

Similar to PILT, the complexity and uncertainty around Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR)-based payments 

make it impossible for the BLM to project credibly the specific payments from these lands over time at 

the scale of this western Oregon planning effort. Rather than direct payments of timber receipts according 

to the O&C Act formula, the 1939 Coos Bay Wagon Road Act created an in-lieu of tax payment program 

for the CBWR lands. The CBWR lands occur only in Coos and Douglas Counties. Under this payment 

program, the BLM collects receipts for timber sold from the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands and uses them 

to pay in-lieu of taxes an amount based on the established method of taxation used in the State of Oregon 

for other lands of similar character in the state. Currently, Oregon utilizes a Forest Land Class method for 

forestland taxation and assigns maximum assessment values based on state-established productivity 

classes. The Oregon Department of Revenue publishes the assessment values annually. The Coos and 

Douglas County tax assessors also establish tax rates on an annual basis. The tax rate established by the 

county assessors is the tax rate paid on the Oregon-established taxable value for the CBWR lands.

The CBWR-based payments depend not only on the receipts for timber sold from CBWR lands, but also 

on assessment values and tax rates which would change over time. In 2013, CBWR payments totaled 

approximately $337,635 (USDI BLM 2014g). It is likely that the relative amount of these CBWR-based 

payments will generally follow the revenues to the counties derived from the O&C lands.

District Payments to Counties by BLM Districts 

Activities on BLM-administered lands can create demand for county services. The BLM districts contract 

with local jurisdictions (counties and cities) to provide services such as noxious weed control, refuse 

removal, road maintenance and decommissioning, campground maintenance, habitat restoration, trail 

maintenance, law enforcement patrol, and emergency services. Comprehensive data of the cost to county 

governments of providing services on BLM-administered lands is lacking, and, further, payments for such 

services by BLM district is highly variable from year to year, depending on funding or special project 

needs. For these reasons, estimating the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on these 

agreements and payments would be highly speculative. Therefore, this effects analysis does not include 

BLM contracting payments to local governments for specific services. 
691 | P a g e

Effects Analysis 

The BLM’s analysis of the effects of alternatives and the Proposed RMP on payments to counties used 

the outputs from the vegetation model that describes how alternatives and the Proposed RMP would 

affect harvest volumes and stumpage prices. The vegetation model produces data on total harvest volume, 

but county payments use commercial sales volume, a subset of total harvest volume. The BLM estimated 

commercial sales volume at 75 percent of total harvest volume, based on data from the actual 2012 

harvest. 

Likewise, the vegetation model provides stumpage prices per thousand board feet measured in long logs, 

while payments to the U.S. Treasury and O&C counties use thousand board feet of short logs. The BLM 

converted those prices to short log basis and then subtracted costs per thousand board feet for road 

maintenance, slash management, and other actions that support timber harvests. The vegetation model 

produces all price outputs in 2012 dollars. This facilitates comparisons of prices and stumpage values 

across alternatives and the Proposed RMP, and time. For example, the model estimates stumpage prices 

in 2018 for the No Action alternative of $310.41 per thousand board feet. Even though the estimate 

represents a stumpage price in 2018, the dollar values are in 2012 dollars. That is, the price estimates do 

not include an inflation factor for estimates at different years in the future. 

The BLM calculated stumpage values by multiplying harvest volumes by stumpage prices, and calculated 

payments to counties in 2018 and in 2028 (mid-points of the first two decades) using the O&C payment 

formula described above. The BLM assumed that the distribution formula among the counties would 

remain as it was in 2012. 

The BLM selected these two periods because they provide estimated payments up to 14 years in the 

future that allow comparisons with what payments would have been in 2012. Estimating the amounts and 

sources of county payments beyond these years would be overly speculative. 

Affected Environment 

Table 3-185 shows the recent historical trend in SRS payments. From a high of approximately $117 

million in FY 2007, payments declined to approximately $38 million in FY 2012, an approximately 68 

percent decline. 
692 | P a g e

Table 3-185. SRS payments to counties, 2003–2012 

County

FY 2012 SRS 

Distributions

(Dollars)

FY 2010 SRS 

Distributions

(Dollars)

FY 2007 SRS 

Distributions

(Dollars)

FY 2003 SRS 

Distributions

(Dollars)

Benton $771,004 $2,381,408 $3,255,508 $3,116,768

Clackamas $1,057,665 $4,703,493 $6,429,918 $6,155,895

Columbia $712,608 $1,745,801 $2.386,600 $2,284,891

Coos $2,333,965 $5,626,088 $7,691,152 $7,363,379

Curry $1,442,516 $3,093,288 $4,228,685 $4,048,471

Douglas $10,719,614 $21,342,441 $29,176,221 $27,932,820

Jackson $5,455,997 $13,279,952 $18,154,381 $17,380,697

Josephine $5,512,586 $10,237,513 $13,995,209 $13,398,776

Klamath $1,073,616 $1,983,094 $2,710,992 $2,595,458

Lane $5,247,157 $12,940,962 $17,690,964 $16,937,029

Lincoln $127,952 $305,091 $417,076 $399,301

Linn $1,237,384 $2,237,337 $3,058,556 $2,928,209

Marion $518,109 $1,237,315 $1,691,474 $1,619,389

Multnomah $248,900 $923,749 $1,262,813 $1,208,996

Polk $898,016 $1,830,549 $2,502,455 $2,395,808

Tillamook $220,123 $474,587 $648,785 $621,135

Washington $142,145 $533,910 $729,883 $698,777

Yamhill $272,785 $610,183 $834,152 $798,603

Totals $37,992,142 $85,486,761 $116,864,821 $111,884,403

Source: USDI BLM 2014g 

Not all counties rely on SRS payments to the same extent. Table 3-186 shows FY 2012 SRS payments 

and payments as a percentage of total county revenues and of each county’s general or discretionary fund. 

Of the counties in the planning area, Coos, Curry, Douglas, and Josephine Counties rely most heavily on 

Federal payments as measured by percentage of their total county revenues. However, expressing 

payments as a percentage of total county revenue does not demonstrate the importance of Federal 

payments to some of the counties. This is because Federal payments are part of the counties’ discretionary 

or general fund, which is a subset of total county funds. Table 3-186 shows that for the four counties 

cited above, Federal payments account for between 25 and 82 percent of general fund revenues. 
693 | P a g e

Table 3-186. SRS payments and county revenues 

County FY 2012 SRS Distribution

(Dollars)

SRS Payment as a Percent 

of County Revenues

SRS Payment as a Percent 

of General Fund

Benton $771,004 0.8% 3.4%

Clackamas $1,057,665 0.3% 0.8%

Columbia $712,608 1.4% 2.4%

Coos $2,333,965 11.0% 82.3%

Curry $1,442,516 8.9% 25.5%

Douglas $10,719,614 11.4% 69.9%

Jackson $5,455,997 1.7% 9.0%

Josephine $5,512,586 8.1% 59.0%

Klamath $1,073,616 1.8% 8.4%

Lane $5,247,157 2.2% 6.8%

Lincoln $127,952 0.1% 0.4%

Linn $1,237,384 1.5% 4.9%

Marion $518,109 0.2% 0.7%

Multnomah $248,900 - 0.1%

Polk $898,016 1.8% 5.4%

Tillamook $220,123 0.6% 1.5%

Washington $142,145 - 0.1%

Yamhill $272,785 0.5% 1.0%

Totals $37,992,142 - -

Source: USDI BLM 2014g; County budget data available at each county’s website

As described above under Analytical Methods, the BLM estimated the impacts of the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP on county payments using the formula in the O&C Act, as amended. As the starting point 

for this analysis, the BLM calculated what the counties would have received in 2012 if payments had 

been based on the O&C Act. Table 3-187 shows the 2012 SRS payments that counties received ($38.0 

million) and the 2012 payments the counties would have received based on the O&C Act formula 

(approximately $11.7 million). The total 2012 O&C payment would have been approximately 31 percent 

of the SRS payment ($11.7 million divided by $38.0 million). Each county would have received an 

amount based on its percent of the total assessed value of all O&C lands, as shown in the table. For 

example, Benton County would have received $328,733 based on 2.81 percent of $11,698,670. 
694 | P a g e

Table 3-187. County payments in 2012, actual payments, and payments based on O&C Act formula 

County

2012 SRS Payment 

Actual

(Dollars)

2012 Payment, Under

O&C Act Formula

(Dollars)

Total O&C

Lands Payment

(Percent)

Benton $771,004 $328,733 2.81%

Clackamas $1,057,665 $649,276 5.55%

Columbia $712,608 $240,993 2.06%

Coos $2,333,965 $690,222 5.90%

Curry $1,442,516 $427,001 3.65%

Douglas $10,719,614 $2,930,517 25.05%

Jackson $5,455,997 $1,833,182 15.67%

Josephine $5,512,586 $1,413,199 12.08%

Klamath $1,073,616 $273,749 2.34%

Lane $5,247,157 $1,786,387 15.27%

Lincoln $127,952 $42,115 0.36%

Linn $1,237,384 $308,845 2.64%

Marion $518,109 $170,801 1.46%

Multnomah $248,900 $127,516 1.09%

Polk $898,016 $252,691 2.16%

Tillamook $220,123 $65,513 0.56%

Washington $142,145 $73,702 0.63%

Yamhill $272,785 $84,230 0.72%

Totals $37,992,142 $11,698,670 100.00%

Sources: USDI BLM 2014g; Babcock 2014; Output from vegetation model 

Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-188 shows commercial harvest volumes, stumpage price, stumpage value, and total payment to 

O&C counties based on 50 percent of stumpage value, by alternative and the Proposed RMP for 2018 and 

for 2028. Table 3-189 shows the breakdown by county for each alternative and the Proposed RMP. 
695 | P a g e

Table 3-188. Total payments to O&C counties in 2018 and 2028 

Year

Commercial 

Harvest Volume 

(Thousand Board 

Feet, Short Log)*

Stumpage Price per 

Thousand Board 

Feet Short Log,

(2012 Dollars)

Stumpage Value 

(Harvest Volume 

Stumpage Price),

(2012 Dollars)

Area-wide 

Payments to 

O&C Counties,

(2012 Dollars)

No Action

2018 299,667 $310.41 $93,018,783 $46,509,392

2028 293,698 $287.81 $84,529,383 $42,264,692

Alt. A

2018 186,461 $301.59 $56,234,740 $28,117,370

2028 182,762 $300.64 $54,946,390 $27,473,195

Alt. B

2018 248,744 $292.91 $72,859,670 $36,429,835

2028 242,196 $283.63 $68,694,703 $34,347,352

Alt. C

2018 416,244 $324.04 $134,880,041 $67,440,021

2028 411,550 $323.42 $133,101,547 $66,550,773

Alt. D

2018 135,034 $277.02 $37,407,288 $18,703,644

2028 134,881 $271.69 $36,646,367 $18,323,183

PRMP

2018 208,136 $245.94 $51,187,903 $25,593,951

2028 202,995 $273.68 $55,556,162 $27,778,081

* The vegetation model produces data on total harvest volume, but county payments use commercial sales volume, a subset of 

total harvest volume. The BLM estimated commercial sales volume at 75 percent of total harvest volume, based on data from the 

actual 2012 harvest. 

Source: USDI BLM, based on results of vegetation model and O&C payments formula 
696 | P a g e

Table 3-189. Payments to O&C Counties by alternative and the Proposed RMP for 2018 and 2028 (2012 

dollars) 

County

2012 

Payment, 

Under 

O&C Act

Formula

(Dollars)

Analysis 

Year

No Action

(Dollars)

Alt. A

(Dollars)

Alt. B

(Dollars)

Alt. C

(Dollars)

Alt. D

(Dollars)

PRMP

(Dollars)

Benton $328,733

2018 $1,306,914 $790,098 $1,023,678 $1,895,065 $525,572 $719,190

2028 $1,187,638 $771,997 $965,161 $1,870,077 $514,881 $780,564

Clackamas $649,276

2018 $2,581,271 $1,560,514 $2,021,856 $3,742,921 $1,038,052 $1,420,464

2028 $2,345,690 $1,524,762 $1,906,278 $3,693,568 $1,016,937 $1,541,684

Columbia $240,993

2018 $958,093 $579,218 $750,455 $1,389,264 $385,295 $527,235

2028 $870,653 $565,948 $707,555 $1,370,946 $377,458 $572,228

Coos $690,222

2018 $2,744,054 $1,658,925 $2,149,360 $3,978,961 $1,103,515 $1,510,043

2028 $2,493,617 $1,620,918 $2,026,494 $3,926,496 $1,081,068 $1,638,907

Curry $427,001

2018 $1,697,593 $1,026,284 $1,329,689 $2,461,561 $682,683 $934,179

2028 $1,542,661 $1,002,772 $1,253,678 $2,429,103 $668,796 $1,013,900

Douglas $2,930,517

2018 $11,650,603 $7,043,401 $9,125,674 $16,893,725 $4,685,263 $6,411,285

2028 $10,587,305 $6,882,035 $8,604,012 $16,670,969 $4,589,957 $6,958,409

Jackson $1,833,182

2018 $7,288,022 $4,405,992 $5,708,555 $10,567,851 $2,930,861 $4,010,572

2028 $6,622,877 $4,305,050 $5,382,230 $10,428,506 $2,871,243 $4,352,825

Josephine $1,413,199

2018 $5,618,335 $3,396,578 $4,400,724 $8,146,754 $2,259,400 $3,091,749

2028 $5,105,575 $3,318,762 $4,149,160 $8,039,333 $2,213,441 $3,355,592

Klamath $273,749

2018 $1,088,320 $657,946 $852,458 $1,578,096 $437,665 $598,898

2028 $988,994 $642,873 $803,728 $1,557,288 $428,762 $650,007

Lane $1,786,387

2018 $7,101,984 $4,293,522 $5,562,836 $10,298,091 $2,856,046 $3,908,196

2028 $6,453,818 $4,195,157 $5,244,841 $10,162,303 $2,797,950 $4,241,713

Lincoln $42,115

2018 $167,434 $101,223 $131,147 $242,784 $67,333 $92,138

2028 $152,153 $98,904 $123,650 $239,583 $65,963 $100,001

Linn $308,845

2018 $1,227,848 $742,299 $961,748 $1,780,417 $493,776 $675,680

2028 $1,115,788 $725,292 $906,770 $1,756,940 $483,732 $733,341

Marion $170,801

2018 $679,037 $410,514 $531,876 $984,624 $273,073 $373,672

2028 $617,064 $401,109 $501,471 $971,641 $267,518 $405,560

Multnomah $127,516

2018 $506,952 $306,479 $397,085 $735,096 $203,870 $278,974

2028 $460,685 $299,458 $374,386 $725,403 $199,723 $302,781

Polk $252,691

2018 $1,004,603 $607,335 $786,884 $1,456,704 $403,999 $552,829

2028 $912,917 $593,421 $741,903 $1,437,497 $395,781 $600,007

Tillamook $65,513

2018 $260,453 $157,457 $204,007 $377,664 $104,740 $143,326

2028 $236,682 $153,850 $192,345 $372,684 $102,610 $155,557

Washington $73,702

2018 $293,009 $177,139 $229,508 $424,872 $117,833 $161,242

2028 $266,268 $173,081 $216,388 $419,270 $115,436 $175,002

Yamhill $84,230

2018 $334,868 $202,445 $262,295 $485,568 $134,666 $184,276

2028 $304,306 $197,807 $247,301 $479,166 $131,927 $200,002

Totals $11,698,670

2018 $46,509,392 $28,117,370 $36,429,835 $67,440,021 $18,703,644 $25,593,951

2028 $42,264,692 $27,473,195 $34,347,352 $66,550,773 $18,323,183 $27,778,081

Source: USDI BLM, based on results of vegetation model and O&C payments formula 
697 | P a g e

The total payment in 2012 under the O&C Act formula would have been approximately $11.7 million. 

Under all the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, payments to counties in 2018 and in 2028 would 

exceed this amount. Payments under Alternative C would be the highest, approximately $67 million in 

2018. Payments under Alternative D would be the lowest among the alternatives, at approximately $18.7 

million, but would still be 60 percent above what the 2012 payment would have been. Payments under the 

Proposed RMP would be approximately $25.6 million in 2018, or over twice what the payment in 2012 

would have been if it were calculated using the formula in the O&C Act. 

Unlike the Proposed RMP, payments under all alternatives would be slightly lower (from 2–9 percent) in 

2028 compared to 2018, reflecting lower non-ASQ-based timber revenues in the second decade. 

Payments under the Proposed RMP would increase between these two decades in response to higher 

timber revenues driven by increasing harvests of larger diameter timber (see Issue 1 above). Table 3-189

shows the distribution of total O&C payments to each county, by alternative and the Proposed RMP, for 

2018 and 2028, along with estimated O&C payments in 2012, had county payments been based on the 

O&C formula that year. 

Payments to individual counties under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would exceed what the 

counties would have received in 2012; though the payments would be less than they received in some 

earlier years under the SRS payments (see Table 3-185). The difference in payments would be substantial 

for many counties. For example, Polk County would have received approximately $253,000 in 2012 

under the O&C formula but would receive approximately $404,000 in 2018 under Alternative D and 

approximately $1.5 million under Alternative C (in 2012 dollars); these figures would be the high and low 

payments to Polk County that year. Polk County would receive approximately $553,000 in 2018 under 

the Proposed RMP (Table 3-189). See the discussion of the earnings and employment effects of these 

payments in Issue 2. 
698 | P a g e

Issue 4 

How would the alternatives contribute to economic stability in the planning area? 

Key Points 

 Over the long-term (1969–2007), timber-based industries nationally exhibited low or negative 

growth rates with high volatility compared with the United States economy as a whole, indicating 

that these industries tend to be inherently volatile. 

 Increases in timber industry activity in the planning area would bring potential for additional 

exposure to greater economic instability. Recreation-related industries are relatively stable 

compared with timber-related industries. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM incorporated estimates of recreation visits by alternative and the Proposed RMP. Based on this 

updated information, the BLM updated the discussion of the long-term implications on stability of a 

changing BLM recreation program together with the timber program. 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Growth and stability are classic goals of economic development. Historic growth rates of employment 

and earnings offer an indication of economic growth in the planning area, while the volatility of these 

rates offer insights into the economic stability of both communities (geographic areas) and industries 

(business groups). Long-term growth rates express fundamental economic shifts or trends for geographic 

areas and industries. Issue 2 discusses short-term trends that may not represent fundamental economic 

shifts. This analysis does not address seasonal volatility within each year, but only long-term volatility 

over many years. 

This issue presents an analysis of the cumulative effects on economic stability of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions expressed in domestic and international markets, including land 

management on both BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands. 

For the purposes of this issue, geographic areas are the same BLM district model areas defined under 

Issue 2 for which historic economic data exist and which function as economic units. Industries are 

business groups defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis for which the same historic economic data 

exist (BEA 2014). 

Using historic data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2014), the BLM estimated the 

magnitude and volatility of growth rates for all employment and earnings—inclusive of all industries—in 

all seven economic model areas within the planning area. The BLM also estimated comparable rates for 

those industries that BLM management of timber and recreation most affects. Other resources the BLM 

manages have very small effects, as shown in the contribution analysis (See Issue 2). Employment 

comprises all wage and salary workers. Earnings include total payroll compensation for the same workers. 

Growth rates are an average of year-over-year changes covering six national business cycles (1969 to 

2007), the longest period for which complete data are available. The coefficient of variation of these 

annual growth rates indicates volatility; this is a generally accepted metric in the finance and economic 

disciplines. Stability is the inverse of volatility. Thus, highly volatile growth rates indicate long-term 

instability, while modest to low volatility growth rates indicate long-term stability. 

The BLM computed growth rates for resource-related industries nationally rather than for the planning 

area alone in order to understand the inherent and historic volatility of resource-based industries, 
699 | P a g e

independent of public land management policies and budgets. Observing characteristics of these 

industries nationally minimizes the influence that past public land policies in western Oregon may have 

had on local resource industry behavior. While industries in western Oregon may differ from their 

national counterparts with regard to historic volatility, the BLM assumes that national industry 

characteristics provide a reasonable metric for assessing local industries when analyzing the effects of the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Characterizing the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

on long-term economic stability requires reasoned assumptions about both reasonably foreseeable 

resource outcomes and probable industry responses (see USDI BLM 2008, p. 59). To the extent that these 

analytical assumptions are weak or incorrect (e.g., if local industries differ from national counterparts; if 

future effects of these industries on volatility differ from historic volatility), the effects described in this 

analysis would differ. 

To provide a common reference point, the BLM calculated growth rates and volatility for the United 

States economy as a whole over the same period. The BLM then indexed growth rates and volatility for 

both BLM district model areas and national industries to the United States economy. Thus, an index 

greater than 1.00 indicates higher growth rates or volatility compared with the United States economy, an 

index less than 1.00 indicates lower growth rates or volatility, and an index of 1.00 indicates a match with 

the United States economy. 

Affected Environment 

Table 3-190 presents long-term growth rates and their volatility for employment and earnings for the 

United States as a whole, for the seven model areas in western Oregon, and for selected resource-related 

industries nationally. Timber-related industries include Forest & Wood Products (logging and primary 

wood manufacturing) and Paper Manufacturing (pulp, paperboard, and related paper or container 

industries). Recreation-related industries include Arts, Entertainment & Recreation Services (excluding 

museums, zoos, historical sites, and nature parks); Accommodations; and Eating & Drinking Places. 
700 | P a g e

Table 3-190. Growth and volatility of employment and earnings by geographic area and selected 

resource-related industries over six United States business cycles, 1969–2007 

Geographic Area

or

Resource-related

Industry

Employment (Jobs) Earnings (2012 Dollars)

Growth Rate Growth 

Volatility Growth Rate Growth Volatility

Average 

Annual 

(Percent)

Indexed 

to U.S.

Indexed 

to U.S.

Average 

Annual 

(Percent)

Indexed 

to U.S.

Indexed 

to U.S.

Geographic Area

United States 1.82% 1.00 1.00 2.97% 1.00 1.00

BLM District Model Area

Coos Bay 1.33% 0.73 2.86 1.55% 0.52 3.72

Eugene 2.42% 1.33 1.61 3.01% 1.01 1.83

Klamath Falls 1.19% 0.66 2.80 1.82% 0.61 2.88

Medford 3.28% 1.80 1.07 3.95% 1.33 1.42

Roseburg 1.81% 1.00 2.16 2.16% 0.73 2.99

Salem-Other 2.43% 1.34 1.18 3.32% 1.12 1.37

Salem-Portland MSA 2.57% 1.41 1.15 3.71% 1.25 1.15

U.S. Industry

Timber-related

Forest & Wood 

Products Industries 0.42% 0.23 15.50 1.36% 0.46 6.15

Paper Manufacturing -0.91% -0.50 3.77 0.74% 0.25 5.14

Recreation-related

Arts, Entertainment & 

Recreation Services 3.85% 2.12 0.85 5.41% 1.82 1.12

Accommodations 2.24% 1.23 1.59 3.50% 1.18 1.56

Eating & Drinking 

Places 3.64% 2.00 0.83 3.63% 1.22 0.96

Note: Employment includes all wage and salary workers. Earnings include total payroll compensation for the same workers. Data 

were available and adjusted for inflation over six U.S. business cycles spanning 38 years. 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014) 

Table 3-190 shows that between 1969 and 2007 (six business cycles), United States employment grew at 

an average annual rate of 1.8 percent, while earnings grew at 2.97 percent (net of inflation). As a rule, 

earnings growth that exceeds employment growth suggests increases in employee productivity over the 

long term. 

Among BLM district model areas, the Salem-Portland MSA, Salem-Other (non-MSA counties), and 

Eugene areas had similar growth rates for employment and earnings. All of these areas exceeded the 

national growth rate by up to 40 percent for employment and up to 25 percent for earnings. For example, 

the Salem-Portland area’s average annual employment growth rate was 2.6 percent, 41 percent higher 

than the average annual rate for the United States of 1.8 percent. However, these areas also exceeded 

national volatility of employment and earnings growth by 15–80 percent, which indicates instability. 

Growth rates in the southern half of the planning area mostly lagged behind the United States. The 

Klamath Falls area had the lowest growth rates of any model area (1.2 percent). In addition, Klamath 
701 | P a g e

Falls’ volatility of employment (2.80 percent) and earnings growth (2.88 percent) greatly exceeded those 

of United States economy. The Coos Bay area’s volatility was also very high. 

High volatility, or instability, is typically characteristic of commodity-based economies (Carter et al. 

2011). The Medford area is an exception to the general pattern for southwestern Oregon. This area 

experienced the highest employment and earnings growth rates in western Oregon accompanied by 

modest to high stability. Growth and stability in the Medford area may result from its position as a strong 

regional service center coupled with a well-balanced economy. 

National industries related to timber and recreation demonstrate a wide range of growth and volatility 

characteristics. Over six United States business cycles, the Forest and Wood Products Industries have 

grown slowly, and have shown a very high level of volatility (or instability). These commodity-based 

industries are subject to the highs and lows of business cycles not only in the United States, but also 

internationally. Employment volatility has been 15 times higher and earnings volatility 6 times higher 

than the United States economy. Paper Manufacturing has shown a negative growth rate for employment 

coupled with a very modest positive rate for earnings. This disparity suggests strong improvements in 

productivity driven by technology advances. Volatility for both employment and earnings is high in Paper 

Manufacturing, but not as high as in the Forest and Wood Products Industries. 

Recreation-related industries exhibit a mix of growth rates and volatility. The Arts, Entertainment & 

Recreation Services industry has shown strong employment and earnings growth rates coupled with 

stability over the six business cycles. The same pattern holds true for employment in the Eating & 

Drinking Places industry, but earnings lag behind. Employment and earnings in the Accommodations 

industry has grown somewhat faster than the United States, but with volatility that is roughly 50 percent 

higher than the United States economy. 

Environmental Consequences 

Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, some resource-related industries may increase in 

employment and earnings while others decrease. If industries increase that exhibit historic instability, they 

may inject greater economic instability into their host communities. Conversely, if industries increase that 

exhibit historic stability, their greater presence may add economic stability to host communities. 

As discussed under Issue 2, both timber and recreation programs would vary by alternative and the 

Proposed RMP. Recreation visitation across the planning area could increase up to 25 percent 

(Alternative D) with a 20-year implementation rate or 13 percent (Alternative D) with a 50-year 

implementation rate by 2018. The slowest rate of increase would be about 2 percent under the No Action 

alternative with a 20-year implementation rate. Timber harvest could increase by 130 percent (Alternative 

C) or decrease by 25 percent (Alternative D) by 2018. Under the Proposed RMP, timber harvest would 

increase by 14 percent. Changes in either the timber program or recreation program could have stability 

effects in their host communities. 

Because this issue considers a long-term perspective of economic stability, the BLM considers timber 

harvest levels over 50 years. However, as described in the Forest Management section of this chapter, 

total harvests under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP do not vary more than 15 percent in any year 

compared to average harvest levels in the first decade, and all change in harvest levels over time are 

driven by non-ASQ harvest, such as restoration thinning in the reserves. Furthermore, the alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP would maintain its relative rank among all other alternatives in terms of total timber 

harvest through 50-years. Said differently, Alternative C would have the largest harvest at every point in 

the planning period, followed by the No Action Alternative, Alternative B, the Proposed RMP, 
702 | P a g e

Alternative A, and Alternative D. The alternatives and the Proposed RMP, except Alternative D, would 

result in timber harvest volumes exceeding current (2012) levels. 

The BLM projects that recreation visitation across the planning area would more than double under 

Alternatives C and D, and the Proposed RMP by 2063, the end of the 50-year planning period. Both BLM 

management and demographic characteristics combine to create a range of recreation increases, but, for a 

given implementation rate, Alternative D would always show the largest increases. Following Alternative 

D, the long-term ranking would be consistent, that is, the Proposed RMP would show the second largest 

increases, followed by Alternative C, Alternative B, the No Action alternative, and Alternative A. No 

alternative would show a decrease of recreation visits at any time during the analysis period. 

Because the timber industry has a long, national history of high volatility, alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP with harvest volumes that exceed current levels are likely to introduce greater instability into local 

economies, based on past business cycles. The expansion of existing timber-based corporations or the 

addition of new ones would bring additional jobs and earnings to the planning area, but could make the 

whole planning area more vulnerable to large fluctuations inherent in domestic and international timber 

markets. Alternative C, with the largest harvest volumes, would have the greatest effect on jobs and 

earnings, but also the greatest potential for increased economic instability. The No Action alternative, 

Alternative B, Alternative A, and the Proposed RMP, based on their lower harvest volumes compared to 

Alternative C, would have comparatively lesser effects on jobs and earnings and lower potential for 

increased economic instability. With harvest volumes below current levels on BLM-administered lands, 

Alternative D would show job and earnings reductions, but may moderate existing economic instabilities 

across the planning area. 

Because the historic volatility index of timber-related industries exceeds the index for every model area, 

each model area that would show increases in timber industry activity over current (Table 3-183) would 

bring additional exposure to greater economic instability. There would be greater potential for instability 

in the Eugene and Medford areas for the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, in both Salem areas under 

Alternatives B and C, in the Roseburg area under the No Action alternative and Alternative C, in the 

Klamath Falls area under the No Action alternative and Alternatives B and C, and in the Coos Bay area 

under Alternative C only. Under the Proposed RMP, exposure to greater economic instability would 

occur in the Medford and Eugene areas. 

Recreation-related industries are relatively stable compared with timber-related industries. Growth in the 

three recreation sectors101 would bring additional economic stability in the long run. Growth in visitation 

would result in expansion for all three industries across the planning area and in each model area. Growth 

would be projected for the planning area under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Arts, 

Entertainment & Recreation Services and Eating & Drinking Places both have volatility indexes that are 

smaller than any model area, and thus would bring increased stability under the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. Accommodations, with an industry index higher than the Medford and both Salem model 

areas, would bring a small amount of instability under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Under some alternatives or the Proposed RMP, more volatile timber-based and less volatile recreationbased influences may offset to some degree. For example, Alternative C would have the highest harvests 

and high visitation compared with the No Action alternative, which could result in some stability offsets. 

Under the Proposed RMP, lower harvests and high visitation compared with No Action could result in 

increased stability overall. Under Alternative D, with the lowest harvests and highest visitation compared 

with the No Action alternative, stability is likely to be the greatest. Because recreation visitation increases 

would be modest under the No Action alternative and Alternative B, timber would be a stronger influence 

 

101 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation Services; Accommodations; and Eating & Drinking Places 
703 | P a g e

on economic stability in the long run. Under Alternative A, neither timber nor recreation would greatly 

influence stability. 

Greater economic stability alone, whether achieved through the moderation of historically volatile 

industries or an increase in historically stable industries, does not guarantee an increase in the economic 

well-being of an area. Industrial specialization can be beneficial to an area, though it may subject the area 

to greater volatility at the same time. Growth and stability are both important—though sometimes 

competing concepts—in a portfolio of economic growth and development considerations. 

Issue 5 

How would the alternatives affect the capacity and resiliency of different types of communities in the 

planning area? 

Key Points 

 Currently, cities in the northern part of the planning area generally have higher capacity and 

resiliency (ability to face changes and meet needs) compared to cities in the southern part of the 

planning area. Larger cities tend to have higher capacity and resiliency. 

 Alternatives B and C would, overall, make the strongest contributions to community capacity and 

resiliency, with positive benefits to nearly all communities. Alternative D would have the 

smallest effect on community capacity and resiliency. The Proposed RMP would make strong 

contributions to community capacity and resiliency to communities in the Eugene and Medford 

areas. The Proposed RMP would negatively affect community capacity and resiliency in the Coos 

Bay area. 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

This analysis focuses on the potential effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on selected 

communities of place in the planning area, specifically on small and mid-size cities and tribal 

communities. The BLM conducted many of the socioeconomic analyses in this section at an appropriate 

county or district level, but recognized that this scale can mask differences among smaller communities 

within these broad areas, or fail to show how county-level impacts can affect communities. 

Communities in Land Use Planning 

The BLM uses a variety of social science information in land use planning. The BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook (USDI BLM 2005) states that social science information can include the economic, political, 

cultural, and social structure of communities, regions, and the Nation as a whole; social values, beliefs, 

and attitudes; how people interact with the landscape; and sense-of-place issues. 

While the other socioeconomic analyses focus more on the economic effects, this analysis focuses on the 

social effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on communities. 

Communities exist at a variety of scales but are commonly one of two types: communities of interest, 

unified by a common interest, or communities of place, unified by a common geography. To analyze the 

effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on communities in western Oregon, the BLM 

considered analyzing the effects on communities of interest. However, due the practical difficulties of 

comprehensively identifying such communities and analyzing how the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP would affect them, the BLM decided instead to focus on communities of place. Further, because 

much of the socioeconomic analysis is at the county level, the BLM opted to gain a different perspective 
704 | P a g e

on the potential effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP by analyzing communities at the subcounty level. 

A ‘community of place’ is a distinct geographic area within which residents or Tribal members would 

generally associate themselves with a single location. For purposes of this analysis, this location is an 

incorporated city or Tribal land.102

Incorporated cities comprise approximately 70 percent of the population of the planning area, justifying 

special consideration in the socioeconomic analysis. In addition, there are seven federally recognized 

Tribes with land in the planning area. This analysis includes them as separate communities of place, as 

the United States acknowledges them as sovereign nations with inherent powers of self-government. 

A unique feature of the analytical approach to this issue was 1- to 2-hour telephone interviews with 

representatives of the governments of approximately 15 communities. This gave community 

representatives the opportunity to tell their stories and provided insights into the social values, beliefs, and 

attitudes of their communities, thereby supplementing the statistical data the BLM collected regarding 

capacity and resiliency. 

Capacity and Resiliency 

Social scientists commonly use the terms ‘capacity’ and ‘resiliency’ when researching and analyzing 

communities. Resiliency in particular is a term used increasingly frequently with respect to communities’ 

responses to natural disasters such as hurricanes and to other changes such as climate or major economic 

change. 

Many communities in western Oregon have experienced large socioeconomic changes, particularly since 

the listing of the northern spotted owl, the subsequent injunction barring timber harvest in northern 

spotted owl habitat, and the adoption of Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. As part of the Northwest Forest 

Plan monitoring program, the U.S. Forest Service has been leading socioeconomic monitoring to answer 

the question: What is the status and trend of socioeconomic well-being? (Grinspoon et al. in press) 

(Appendix V). In light of this ongoing monitoring and the potential effects of the updated RMPs for 

Western Oregon on communities, the BLM analyzed the potential socioeconomic effects of the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP through the lenses of capacity and resiliency, which are measures of a 

community’s ability to face change.

There are different definitions of capacity and resiliency though they tend to have common elements. This 

analysis uses the following definitions: 

 Community Capacity: a community’s ability to face changes; respond to external and internal 

stresses, create and take advantage of opportunities, and meet its needs 

 Community Resiliency: a community’s ability to adapt to change over time

There is some overlap between the two concepts and the presentation of results does not attempt to draw a 

fine line between them. 

Community Selection 

There are 161 cities (incorporated places) in the planning area. The BLM decided to exclude 27 very 

small cities (populations below 500) and very large cities (populations over 40,000) from the group for 

analysis, bringing the number to 134. The exclusions were for the following reasons: 

 

102 Many people live in unincorporated communities. The Bureau of the Census recognizes these areas as Census 

Designated Places (CDPs). However, while census data are available for CDPs, they do not have local elected or 

appointed officials who can speak for them, and this analysis does not include them. 
705 | P a g e

 Very small cities represent a very small share of the planning area population (less than 1 

percent), and information and interviews could be difficult to obtain. 

 Large cities tend to mirror or contribute substantially to the socioeconomic characteristics of the 

counties in which they are located. Other analytical questions are focused on counties, so that 

including large cities would be duplicative and reduce the desired focus on communities below 

the county level. 

Analyzing all 134 cities, including personal interviews, would have been impractical. The BLM decided 

that a 10 percent sample of the 134 cities (i.e., approximately 13 cities) plus the Tribes would sufficiently 

represent the entire group, to enable an analysis sufficient to assess effects on community capacity and 

resiliency. The BLM stratified (weighted) the sample so that it would be representative of the diverse 

geography of the planning area.103 The stratification was such that: (1) there were at least one or two cities 

from each BLM district; (2) there would be at least three rural cities from the Salem District;104 and (3) 

Klamath Falls would be the representative city for the Klamath Falls Field Office.105 Within these 

stratification rules, the BLM selected 13 cities at random from the group of 134 cities106 (Table 3-191 and 

Map 3-7). Appendix P shows all 134 cities in the sample group. The Planning Criteria document (USDI 

BLM 2014) contains a description of the selection methodology in detail, and is incorporated here by 

reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 140–148). 

 

103 Stratification was necessary because approximately 89 of the 134 cities (66 percent) are in the Salem District, and 

a random sample would likely have resulted in 8 or 9 of the 13 cities coming from the Salem District, which would 

not be representative of the diverse geography of the planning area. 

104 There are many urban cities in the Portland metropolitan area that, if sampled, would reveal little regarding the 

potential impacts of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

105 The Klamath Falls Field Office has 4 cities, and 3 of them are small with populations under 850. 

106 To make the selections, the BLM used the random number function in Microsoft’s Excel program.
706 | P a g e

Table 3-191. Selected communities (cities and Tribes) for analysis of capacity and resiliency 

Selected Communities County District/Field Office

City

Coquille Coos Coos Bay

Drain Douglas Roseburg

Gold Beach Curry Coos Bay

Florence Lane Eugene

Grants Pass Josephine Medford

Junction City Lane Eugene

Klamath Falls Klamath Klamath Falls

Lincoln City Lincoln Salem

Molalla Clackamas Salem

Rogue River Jackson Medford

St. Helens Columbia Salem

Sublimity Marion Salem

Winston Douglas Roseburg

Tribe

Confederated Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians

Coos Coos Bay

Coquille Indian Tribe Coos Coos Bay

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua 

Tribe of Indians Douglas Roseburg

Confederated Tribes of the Grand 

Ronde Community of Oregon Yamhill Salem

Confederated Tribes of Warm 

Springs Reservation of Oregon Clackamas and Marion Salem

Klamath Tribes Klamath Klamath Falls

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Indians Lincoln and Polk Salem

Note: While data for Tribes used census data for land owned by the Tribes, the analysis also considered Tribal members not 

living on Tribal-owned land
707 | Page

Map 3-7. Selected communities (cities and Tribes) used for the analysis of capacity and resiliency 
708 | P a g e

Data and Information about Communities 

The BLM collected data and information about the selected communities from three sources: (1) publicly 

available data sources, primarily the U.S. Bureau of Census American Community Survey; (2) internet 

sites, primarily the official websites of the selected communities; and (3) interviews with community 

representatives. 

Data Baseline 

The publicly available data sources provided a data baseline for assessing potential impacts from the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The BLM created the baseline from data on 13 metrics (measures) of 

capacity and resiliency including population, housing, jobs, unemployment, wages, income, health 

insurance, education, recreation, and assessable base. They are largely consistent with the metrics 

identified in Table 37 of the Planning Criteria (Appendix P). The metrics chosen are among a large 

number of accepted potential metrics that exist (e.g., Jepson and Colburn 2013). The BLM selected the 

metrics in consultation with the Socioeconomic Working Group of the Cooperating Agency Advisory 

Group (see Chapter 4), based on their relevance to the capacity/resiliency question, availability of data 

across the communities, and analytic efficiency. The BLM summed each community’s scores for all 13 

metrics and expressed the totals as a percentage of the total theoretical maximum score; a higher 

percentage meant a higher level of capacity and resiliency. 

The BLM recognized 4 capacity and resiliency categories based on the data score spread: high (over 65 

percent), medium (60–64 percent), low (50–59 percent), and very low (less than 50 percent). The BLM 

assigned the communities to one of the categories based on its baseline score. Because of data limitations 

for the Tribes (see next section), the BLM did not assign the Tribes to a category. 

Data Limitations 

Most data have limitations, and the data in this analysis are no exception. First, most of the data for this 

analysis are from the American Community Survey, which the Bureau of Census derives from a sample 

of American households. They provide more detailed socioeconomic data than the decennial census, but 

the data have ‘margins of error’ (degrees of confidence, or reliability), and these tend to be greater for 

smaller communities because their sample sizes are smaller. Some communities commented on this 

during the interviews, and the BLM invited them to provide supplementary data. 

The data are particularly unreliable for the Tribes, some of whom have very small populations living on 

tribal lands. The Tribes commented on this during the interviews, and they preferred to discuss the entire 

Tribal membership, not just the population living on Tribal lands. 

Additionally, the way the metrics were selected and applied may incorrectly ‘favor’ one community over 

another, giving it a higher score. In other words, had the BLM selected different metrics, a different score 

might have been the result. Further, some metrics are arguably more important to capacity and resiliency 

than others are, whereas the calculations treat the metrics equally without weighting. 

The BLM acknowledges these data limitations but believes that use of a relatively large number of 

metrics (i.e., 13 for the cities and 12 for the Tribes) mitigates the limitations and produces results that are 

useful and informative, especially when reviewed in conjunction with the interviews (see next section). 

Interviews with City and Tribal Representatives 

The BLM conducted interviews with city and tribal representatives in order to supplement the baseline 

data with representatives’ personal experiences, perspectives, perceptions, and insights, and to help tell 

each community’s ’story’ in relation to the RMP revision. The BLM developed brief, introductory 

geographic and economic profiles of the selected communities to have some familiarity with the 

communities prior to the interviews. Appendix P contains these profiles. 
709 | P a g e

The BLM contacted each of the selected communities’ governments by phone and letter, inviting their 

participation. Appendix P contains copies of the letters. Of the 13 cities, 11 participated in an interview, 

1 provided written responses to questions, and 1 declined to participate. Of the seven Tribes, two 

participated in an interview. The interviews typically lasted 60–90 minutes. 

Each community government could decide who it wanted to participate. City representatives included city 

managers/administrators, mayors, county commissioners, and members of advisory boards. Tribal 

representatives included Tribal chairpersons, executive directors, and other staff. The interview 

conversations ranged widely but focused on the following questions: 

 How do you view your community’s ‘capacity,’ that is your community’s ability to face changes, 

respond to external and internal stresses, create and take advantage of opportunities, and meet its 

needs? 

 How do you view your community’s ‘resiliency,’ that is your community’s ability to adapt to 

change over time? 

 How do the ways the BLM manages its resources affect your community (its capacity and 

resiliency)? 

 Have changes in the BLM’s resource management over time affected your community? In what 

ways? 

 Are there changes in the ways that the BLM manages its resources that would increase your 

community’s capacity and resiliency?

Note that the while many of the interviewees were community leaders, they spoke as individuals from the 

communities and not as official representatives of the communities. Thus, while the BLM takes their 

views as representative of the communities, it recognizes that the communities did not formally endorse 

the opinions expressed and that diversity of opinion in each community is likely. 

Final Adjusted Capacity and Resiliency Categories 

The interviews provided valuable insights into the communities. Following each interview, the BLM 

summarized the interview and sent it to the interview participants for comment. Appendix P contains all 

14 interviews/written responses. 

Based on what the interviews revealed about the communities and including insights that supplemented or 

put into perspective the baseline data, the BLM adjusted some of the communities’ final assigned capacity 

and resiliency categories. This last step was qualitative and grounded in the interviews as documented. 

Tribal Statement 

The Tribes requested the following statement be included, given the data limitations described above, and 

the difficulty of using these data in an analysis of capacity and resiliency of the Tribes in the planning 

area. The Cooperating Agency Advisory Group’s Tribal Working Group developed the following 

statement: 

There are varying acreages of O& C lands located within the ancestral homelands of the seven 

western Oregon Tribes. Management of these lands has a direct impact on the cultural interests, 

traditional lifeways, and economic wellbeing of Tribal members. 

As defined above, capacity and resiliency from a social sciences perspective is a measure of a 

community’s or group of people’s ability to respond to certain events such as natural disasters, major 

economic change, external and internal stresses and to take advantage of opportunities to meet 
710 | P a g e

needs. However, it must be well communicated and understood that when applying a measure of 

capacity and resiliency to Tribes, that meaning may appropriately be interpreted differently. 

Census data and the developed metrics used in this analysis become problematic when assessing 

Tribal capacity and resiliency. Oregon Tribes which had their federal status terminated in the 1950s 

and then were restored to federal recognition in the 1980s do not have a single reservation where all 

Tribal members live. The Congressional Acts restoring these Tribes established multiple county 

service areas where the Tribes have historical and cultural interests and where many Tribal members 

reside. These county service areas also have legal meaning for Tribal members to receive 

governmental services. The census data and metrics when applied to counties and cities focuses on a 

specific geographic location and the population living in this area. Using this same approach for the 

identified Tribal reservations is inaccurate because the focus for Tribes is a distinct group of people 

with special legal status living in multiple county locations. Applying the developed metrics to only 

Tribal members living on the specified reservation and in the respective county location gives 

conclusions which most likely are not reflective of the total Tribal population. 

In respect to historic resiliency, Tribes have demonstrated perseverance and resiliency to the highest 

degree. Tribes have endured over two hundred years of devastation following the European 

occupation of native lands in North America. Tribes have also adapted to adverse actions, laws and 

policies of the United States government. Tribal people are still here, and in many cases, thriving –

preserving culture, raising families, executing government functions, and significantly contributing to 

native and non-native people and their communities. Given that, it becomes clear that resiliency takes 

on a unique meaning when applied to Tribes. 

For Tribes and their members there is also a culture dimension when determining capacity and 

resiliency. Those with strong ties to Tribal culture and active in traditional lifeways may have a very 

robust sense of capacity and resiliency which is not reflected by the non-Tribal analytical model used 

in this analysis. 

Effects Analysis 

The regional scale of the decision area and the geographical breadth of the potential effects are such that it 

is not possible to analyze with useful precision how the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would affect 

one specific local community versus another. Instead, the analysis assumed that effects to regions and 

counties would affect the local communities within those regions and counties, and either increase or 

decrease local community capacity depending on the different effects. 

The capacity and resiliency effects analysis applied the environmental effects outputs from Issues 2 and 3 

to the local communities as identified in the final adjusted capacity and resiliency categories. The key 

outputs from these issues were economic activity (jobs) and county payments. The analysis assumed that 

the communities in the categories were generally representative of the communities in the BLM district 

economic areas that the Issue 2 analysis modeled. 

Affected Environment 

Capacity and Resiliency Baseline 

Table 3-192 presents the baseline data. Column 2 of the table shows the comparison (reference) number 

used in applying the metric. For example, for the first metric, ‘Population size compared to city average in 

sample’, the comparison number is 7,264, which is the average population size of the 13 cities in the 

sample (or in the case of the Tribes, the 7 Tribes). Column 3 explains how the data should be interpreted, 
711 | P a g e

that is, what the purpose of the metric is, and what it expresses about capacity or resiliency. Column 4 

explains how the scoring works. For example, in the case of the first metric, a city with a population 150 

percent higher than 7,264 gets a score of 5 (e.g., St. Helens, which has a population of 12,807), whereas a 

city with a population between 125 percent and 75 percent of 7,264 has a score of 3 (e.g., Lincoln City, 

which has a population of 7,926). This differential reflects the fact that, other things being equal, places 

with greater population tend to have higher resilience (Harris et al. 2000). 
712 | P a g e

Table 3-192. Capacity and resiliency metrics 

1

Capacity/Resiliency Metric

2

Comparison 

(Reference) 

Number

3

Interpretation

4

Metric Application Method; 

City data compared to 

reference number. Scores 

range from 5 to 1. (5=higher 

capacity, 1=lower capacity)

Cities and Scores. Scores range from 5 to 1. (5=higher capacity, 1=lower capacity)

Coquille Drain Florence Gold 

Beach

Grants 

Pass

Junction 

City

Klamath 

Falls

Lincoln 

City Molalla Rogue River

St. 

Helens 

City

Sublimity Winston

Population size compared to city 

average in sample 7,264 Higher population more capacity

150%=5, 150%-125%=4, 

125%-75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 

50%=1

2 1 3 1 5 2 5 3 3 1 5 1 3

Population change compared to 

State change rate (2000 to 2012) 12%

Greater increase in 

population  more 

resiliency

150%=5, 150%-125%=4, 

125%-75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 

50%=1

1 3 4 5 5 4 2 2 5 5 5 5 4

Population in 20-64 age cohort 

compared to State 61%

Greater population in this 

‘working’ cohort  more 

capacity

150%=5, 150%-125%=4, 

125%-100%=3, 100%-

75%=2, 75%=1

3 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 3

Percent of housing that is owner 

occupied compared to State rate 63%

Higher share of owner 

occupied housing 

generally associated with 

resiliency

150%=5, 150%-115%=4, 

115%-85%=3, 95%-75%=2, 

75%=1

2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2

Unemployment rate compared to 

State 7% A lower unemployment rate  more capacity

150%=1, 150%-115%=2, 

115%-85%=3, 85%-55%=4, 

55%=5

5 2 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 5 3

Jobs Sector Distribution 

Concentration Compared to the 

State (1)

0

A distribution closer to 

the State’s  more 

resiliency

200%=1, 200%-175%=2, 

175%-100%=3, 100%-0%=4, 

0%=5

1 1 3 2 4 3 3 1 3 4 4 4 3

Percent of jobs paying over 

$3,333 per month compared to 

State

37%

A greater share of higher 

paying jobs  more 

capacity

125%=5, 125%-100%=4, 

100%-75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 

50%=1

3 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 4

Median household income 

compared to State 50,036 Higher household incomes  more capacity

150%=5, 150%-100%=4, 

100%-75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 

0%=1

3 2 2 4 5 2 2 2 5 2 4 5 2

Percent of population in poverty 

compared to State 15%

A smaller poverty 

population  more 

capacity

150%=1, 150%-135%=2, 

135%-100%=3, 100%-

50%=4, 50%=5

5 4 4 4 2 2 1 3 4 3 3 5 1

Percent of population with 

health insurance compared to 

State

84%

A higher share of the 

population with insurance 

 more capacity

125%=5, 125%-100%=4, 

100%-75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 

50%=1

3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4

Percent of population with a 4 

year degree compared to State 20%

A higher share of the 

population with a degree 

 more capacity

>150%=5, 150%-125%=4, 

125%-100%=3, <100%=1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1

Assessed Property Value Per 

Capita (dollars) compared to the 

city average in sample

75,099

Higher property value 

higher tax base and more 

capacity

125%=5, 125%-100%=4, 

100%-75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 

50%=1

2 2 5 4 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 2

Acres of outdoor recreation land 

(per 1,000 population) compared 

to the State as a whole 

8,605

More recreation land 

generally associated with 

more capacity

125%=5, 125%-100%=4, 

100%-50%=3, 50%-25%=2, 

50%=1

2 5 2 5 3 2 5 2 1 2 1 1 5

Totals 33 30 38 41 42 33 36 31 39 33 39 45 37

Comparison with Maximum Total of 65 51% 46% 58% 63% 65% 51% 55% 48% 60% 51% 60% 69% 57%

Notes and sources: See Tribes scores table
713 | P a g e

1

Capacity/ Resiliency Metric

2

Comparison 

Number

3

Interpretation

4

Metric Application Method 

Scores range from 5 to 1

Tribes and Scores

Confederated 

Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw 

Indians

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Grand Ronde

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Siletz Indians

Confederated 

Tribes of 

Warm Springs 

Reservation of 

Oregon

Coquille 

Indian 

Tribe

Cow Creek 

Band of 

Umpqua 

Tribe of 

Indians

Klamath 

Tribes

Population compared to tribal average 

in sample 753 Higher population = more capacity 150%=5, 150%-125%=4, 125%-75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 50%=1 1 2 2 5 1 1 1

Population change compared to State 

change rate (2000 to 2012) 12% Greater increase in population = more resiliency

200%=5, 200%-150%=4, 150%-

100%=3, 100%-50%=2, 50%=1 1 5 5 4 3 1 5

Population in 20-64 age cohort 

compared to State 61% Greater population in this “working” cohort = more capacity

150%=5, 150%-125%=4, 125%-

90%=3, 90%-70%=2, 70%=1 2 3 2 3 2 3 1

Percent of housing that is owner 

occupied compared to State rate 57%

Higher share of owner occupied 

housing generally associated with 

resiliency

125%=5, 125%-100%=4, 100%-

75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 50%=1 1 1 3 4 1 5 2

Unemployment rate compared to State 7% A lower unemployment rate = more 

capacity

198%=1, 198%-125%=2, 125%-

75%=3, 75%-50%=4, 50%=5 1 1 2 1 3 5 3

Jobs Sector Distribution Concentration 

Compared to the State (1) 0

A distribution closer to the State’s = 

more resiliency

200%=1, 200%-100%=2, 100%-

75%=3, 75%-0%=4, 0%=5 4 1 3 1 4 4 2

Percent of jobs paying over $3,333 per 

month compared to State 37% A greater share of higher paying jobs = more capacity

150%=5, 150%-125%=4, 125%-

75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 50%=1 2 3 2 2 2 3 2

Median household income compared 

to State 50,036 Higher household incomes = more capacity

150%=5, 150%-125%=4, 125%-

75%=3, 75%-50%=2, 50%=1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1

Percent of population in poverty 

compared to State 15% A smaller poverty population = more capacity

200%=1, 200%-120%=2, 120%-

75%=3, 75%-50%=4, 50%=5 2 2 1 2 2 4

Percent of population with health 

insurance compared to State 84% A higher share of the population with insurance = more capacity

105%=5, 105%-85%=4, 85%-

78%=3, 78%-20%=2, 20%=1 5 4 3 2 3 3 4

Percent of population with a 4 year 

degree compared to State 20% A higher share of the population with a degree = more capacity

100%=5, 100%-50%=4, 50%-

25%=3, 25%-15%=2, 15%=1 1 2 2 2 2 3 5

Acres of outdoor recreation land (per 

thousand population) compared to the 

State as a whole 

8,605 More recreation land generally 

associated with more capacity

150%=5, 150%-125%=4, 125%-

45%=3, 45%-15%=2, 15%=1 3 5 3 1 3 5 5

Totals 24 31 31 30 29 35 35

Comparison with Maximum Total of 60 40% 52% 52% 50% 48% 58% 58%

Notes: (1) A measure of difference in the distribution of jobs by sector in a 5-mile radius of the community compared to the distribution of jobs for the State. A lower number 

means a smaller difference in distribution and is generally healthier, (i.e., closer to the distribution for the State as a whole). Assessed Value Per Capita metric not applicable for 

Tribal lands; no property tax is levied. 

Sources: 

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) based on: 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, DP05, S1901 and S1701; generated by Joan 

Huston; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov; (May 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, DP05, S1901 and S1701; generated by Joan 

Huston; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov; (May 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table DP05; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov; (May 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. OnTheMap Application. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program. http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/, generated by Clive Graham July 

3, 2014. 

Assessed Property Value derived from individual County Assessors Offices Summary of Assessment and Tax Rolls 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2011. Oregon Statewide Outdoor Recreation Resource/Facility Bulletin Final Report. A Component of the 2013–2017 OregonStatewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 
714 | P a g e

The scores for each metric range from 5 (higher capacity) to 1 (lower capacity). The theoretical maximum 

score for a city is 65 (13 metrics times 5). For the Tribes, the maximum is 60, because their dataset used 

only 12 metrics (the ‘assessed value per capita’ is not applicable to Tribal lands). Appendix P includes 

the raw data for the metrics. 

At the bottom of Table 3-192 are the combined total scores for all 13 metrics for each city and Tribe and 

a comparison of the total to the theoretical maximum score, expressed as a percentage. For example, 

Drain’s total score from all 13 metrics is 30, which is 46 percent of 65.

Interview Summary and Conclusions 

Capacity 

The community representatives had different perceptions of their capacity, depending on their 

circumstances and situations. Many of the interviewees felt that their communities are very challenged by 

today’s economic environment; they do not feel they have recovered from the 2007–2009 recession. 

Examples include Coquille, the Coquille Indian Tribe, Gold Beach, Klamath Falls, Rogue River, and 

Winston. These communities tended to fall into two groups: those whose representatives regard the 

community as timber-dependent and those whose representatives regard their economies as heavily reliant 

on the tourism sector, which tends to be seasonal and dependent on the broader economy. 

Few, if any community representatives admitted to having an excess of capacity. Indeed, almost every 

community representative spoke of community financial stresses, especially in light of Oregon’s citizendriven tax cap initiatives that limit cities’ ability to raise revenue. Many community representatives spoke 

of the impact of the reductions in timber payments to the counties, which have resulted in the counties 

reducing or cutting off funds to the cities. 

On the other hand, several community representatives spoke of their strong human capacity, which is the 

willingness and eagerness of their residents to pitch in to benefit and support community life, especially 

in hard times. Examples include Coquille and Junction City. One counter case is St. Helens, whose 

representatives cited a loss of social cohesion, as they estimated 75 percent of the City’s labor force now 

commutes to jobs in Portland and Hillsboro. 

Resiliency 

Community representatives had a range of perceptions regarding their resiliency. Some representatives 

felt their communities are at a ‘tipping point’ or crossroads with respect to their survival as communities 

with the capacity to meet their needs and obligations fully. The Grants Pass representatives used this 

actual ‘tipping point’ phrase, but others expressed similar feelings, including those from Coquille, the 

Coquille Indian Tribe, Drain, Gold Beach, Klamath Falls, Rogue River, and Winston. 

These representatives feel their communities have low resiliency. To a varying extent, they see their 

communities as victims of a combined set of circumstances that has hit them hard: 

 Decline of the timber industry and the resulting loss of ‘family wage’ jobs (the jobs that have 

replaced timber-related jobs pay less) 

 Decline in payments to counties that have resulted in reductions in pass through funds to cities 

 A broader economy that, for some, has not recovered from the 2007–2009 recession 

 Lack of economic options. This varies by community but particularly affects geographically more 

isolated communities (Coquille Indian Tribe, Gold Beach, Klamath Falls) and smaller, timberdependent communities, where the ebbs and flows in timber-related employment have major 

direct and ripple impacts on the community (Coquille, Drain, Rogue River, Winston). The 
715 | P a g e

Coquille representative, for example, estimated that 30–50 percent of all jobs are at the City’s one 

remaining mill. 

 Broad political-economic shifts that favor Oregon’s larger cities and metropolitan areas at the 

expense of western Oregon’s rural areas. Smaller communities’ representatives feel that they just 

cannot compete. 

 Some community representatives feel that decision-making and related lawsuits, especially at the 

Federal level, are unbalanced; they overly favor environmental interests and considerations 

compared to local economic interests, (e.g., Drain, Klamath Falls, and Sublimity). Some 

representatives feel that what they perceive as overly protective environmental regulations deny 

them the tools to adapt economically. 

 Demographic shifts, especially loss of school age children (Coquille, Drain, Rogue River, 

Winston), which is the result of the loss of jobs that support families, and, in some communities, 

an aging population. 

Representatives of both coastal communities (e.g., Florence and Gold Beach) and some interior 

communities (e.g., Klamath Falls and Rogue River) described their communities as experiencing influxes 

of retirees.107 Further, the general feeling among these representatives was that their retirees are not 

particularly beneficial fiscally or economically, unlike for communities that attract retirees that are more 

affluent. 

Some community representatives (Coquille, Gold Beach, and Klamath Falls) described divisions among 

their residents in reaction to these circumstances. They described some groups as seeing the potential for 

a timber-based economy to come back, while others think that it is not coming back and that their 

communities need to adapt to the ‘new normal.’ The representatives pointed out that these divisions make 

it difficult to set future-oriented community policy. 

Most of the community representatives described their efforts to adapt to their new situation, 

notwithstanding the challenges described above, as follows: 

 Some communities have been able to ‘move on’ by diversifying their economies (e.g., Junction 

City and Sublimity). 

 Others are trying to diversify their economies (e.g., Coquille Indian Tribe, Florence, Grand 

Ronde, Grants Pass, and Klamath Falls). 

 Several smaller community representatives described how challenging it is for them to diversify 

(e.g., Coquille, Gold Beach, Klamath Falls, and Rogue River).

 Other community representatives said they were less tied to the natural-resource economy in the 

first place (e.g., Lincoln City). 

 Two of the communities, St. Helens and Molalla, are near the Portland and Salem metropolitan 

areas, and their representatives pointed out that much of their labor forces now commute to these 

areas. 

BLM Influences on Capacity and Resiliency 

The interior communities in the southern part of the planning area (i.e., Coquille Indian Tribe, Drain, 

Grants Pass, Rogue River, and Winston) tended to perceive more direct effects from the BLM compared 

to the other communities. However, nearly all the communities feel that BLM affects them in two ways: 

BLM’s management impacts on the broader economy, and its impacts on the counties, which they feel 

ripple through to the communities. The Grants Pass interviewees said that cities were “joined at the hip”

with the counties. The Coquille Indian Tribe interviewees spoke of the BLM’s impact on the Tribe in 

 

107 The BLM speculates that the lower cost of living in smaller communities may attract some retirees, though some 

communities also cited Oregon’s high quality of life.
716 | P a g e

three ways: direct effects on the Coos County economy, indirect economic effects on the Tribal members 

who are spread across five counties, and direct effects on the Tribe due to its legal mandate to manage its 

forest consistent with BLM’s management practices. The Tribe specifically wants to decouple 

management of the Coquille Forest from BLM management practices. 

With respect to the BLM’s impacts, the way the BLM manages timber is by far the number one issue of 

concern among the communities. The primary concern is economic. The community representatives share 

a common view that the BLM is party to a worldview that no longer allows for economic use of a 

(timber) resource that is abundant and renewable. In their view, the BLM is not managing the resource for 

the benefit of local communities, and, in consequence, they experience the effects of millions of dollars of 

potential income that are lost every year. A few of the communities (Drain, Sublimity) referred to the 

O&C Act of 1937 in making these points. 

In this view, expressed most strongly by representatives of the more timber-dependent communities, the 

loss of income has hurt them economically and fiscally. The economic effects described by these 

representatives include the loss of family wage jobs, and the high poverty rates and demographic changes 

(fewer families with school age children, more elderly and retirees) that they see as resulting in 

communities failing to sustain local business and community activity. They also described reductions in 

services the counties provide (sheriff, courts, libraries, jail, health and social services, and juvenile 

services) and reductions in pass-through funds from the counties (for street repairs and upgrades). Several 

representatives (i.e., Coquille, Coquille Indian Tribe, Grand Ronde, and Winston) spoke of the negative 

impacts from cuts in funding for schools that affect their residents and Tribal members. 

Fire is another major management issue for the communities, including the perceived lack of timber 

management that some interviewees believe has led to increases in fires. The Grants Pass representatives 

felt very strongly about this, citing large fires in 2013 (such as the 75,000-acre Big Windy Fire) that 

effectively shut down the city, causing economic losses, heat, human health effects, and negative 

reputational impacts. From the community representatives’ perspectives, the cost of fighting forest fires is 

huge, affecting State budgets and subsequently affecting counties and cities as the State directs resources 

away from other priorities. 

Several representatives (i.e., Coquille, Grants Pass, Klamath Falls, Rogue River, Sublimity, and Winston) 

felt that fewer managers and loggers in the forest and the steep decline in harvest since the 1990s have 

resulted in forests that are overgrown and more susceptible to damaging fires. They add that reduced or 

blocked access due to lack of management makes fighting the fires more difficult. 

A few of the communities (i.e., Coquille, Florence, Gold Beach, Rogue River, and Winston) mentioned 

nearby BLM-managed recreation or had management concerns for specific sites. However, 

representatives of most communities did not describe BLM-provided recreation as a major factor 

affecting their community, and only a few places (e.g., Grants Pass) perceive it as important to local 

economies. A few communities cited lack of access and increasingly reduced access to the forest as 

reducing or limiting recreational activity, including hunting. The Grand Ronde representative specifically 

expressed disappointment over declining opportunities to hunt deer and elk, fewer openings and meadows 

due to lack of active management. 

Some communities spoke of the BLM’s role in supporting both local, resident-based recreation and the 

region’s broader efforts to attract visitors (Gold Beach, Klamath Falls, and Lincoln City). However, some 

expressed the view that recreation/tourism were poor substitutes for local, resource-based jobs that 

provide family-wage salaries. 
717 | P a g e

Representatives did not mention BLM management of other resources, such as livestock grazing, 

minerals, fisheries, or cultural resources as factors affecting communities, except in site-specific 

circumstances. The Tribes expressed a broader interest in these management practices, since their 

interests range over multiple counties. 

Capacity and Resiliency Summary 

The total scores from the capacity and resiliency data baseline are close, but there are differences. For 

example, the total percentage point spread was 23 points among the cities and 18 points among the Tribes 

(Table 3-193). While strong data trends are a little difficult to discern, with the data from some metrics at 

variance with other data, it is possible to make the following overall observations: 

 Cities in the northern part of the planning area generally have higher capacity and resiliency 

scores. 

 Cities in the southern part of the planning area generally have lower capacity and resiliency 

scores. 

 Grants Pass is a notable exception, its higher score driven by population, income, and 

employment metrics. 

 Cities on the coast generally have lower capacity and resiliency scores. Gold Beach is a notable 

exception, its higher score driven by population, income, and recreation metrics. 

 While there were few larger cities in the sample (only 3 of 13 are > 10,000 population), they 

tended to have higher scores, though Klamath Falls had a lower score. 

 Data limitations and historical/cultural considerations make it difficult to assign capacity and 

resiliency scores to the Tribes. 

Table 3-193. Capacity and resiliency data summary 

1 2 3

Capacity and

Resiliency Category

Percent of Maximum 

Data Score

Category Based on

Data Score Alone

High > 65% Grants Pass

Sublimity

Medium 60–64%

Gold Beach

Molalla

St. Helens

Low 50–59%

Coquille

Florence

Junction City

Klamath Falls

Rogue River

Winston

Very Low < 50% Drain

Lincoln City

Note: Due to data limitations the table does not include the scores of the tribes (see Analytical Methods). 

There are no hard and fast rules to distinguish between different levels of capacity and resiliency, but 

distinguishing among communities is useful for assessing the impacts of the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP. Table 3-193 recognizes four capacity and resiliency categories based on the data score spread: 
718 | P a g e

high, medium, low, and very low. See the categories and ranges in columns 1 and 2 and assignments in 

column 3.108

Figure 3-138 shows the final assignments including adjustments to the scores in Table 3-193 based on 

the insights from the interviews. The figure includes overlapping categories recognizing that capacity and 

resiliency are concepts that encompass a wide range of contributory factors on which communities may 

be variously stronger or weaker. 

 

Not Assigned 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated 

Tribes of Coos Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, 

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, Confederated 

Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, 

Coquille Indian Tribe, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua 

Tribe of Indians, Klamath Tribes 

LOW 

Coquille, Florence, Gold Beach, 

Klamath Falls, Lincoln City, Winston 

VERY LOW 

Drain, Rogue River 

MEDIUM 

Junction City, Molalla, St. Helens 

HIGH 

Grants Pass, Sublimity 

Figure 3-138. Capacity and resiliency affected environment summary 

Environmental Consequences 

To assess effects on community capacity and resiliency, the analysis focuses on: (1) effects on local 

economies, especially jobs and the associated earnings that result in spending in the communities; and (2) 

effects on county payments that affect the services the counties provide in communities, and in some 

cases, funds that counties pass through to communities. 

Employment 

Under the No Action alternative and under Alternative C, BLM-based employment (i.e., the number of 

jobs resulting from BLM activities and programs), would increase in every BLM district model area 

(Table 3-193). This job growth would increase capacity and resiliency in local communities across the 

planning area. Table 3-194 shows change in BLM-based employment by district model area. Table 3-

195 shows the effects of this change on the 13 selected cities. 

108 This grouping of communities based on resiliency scores is consistent with other analyses of the effects of public 

land management, for example: Harris et al. 2000, op. cit. 
719 | P a g e

Table 3-194. Change in BLM-based employment for district model areas 

District

Model Area

Jobs in 

2012*

(Number)

No 

Action

(Percent 

Change)

Alt. A

(Percent 

Change)

Alt. B

(Percent 

Change)

Alt. C

(Percent 

Change)

Alt. D

(Percent 

Change)

PRMP

(Percent 

Change)

Number of 

Communities 

by CapacityResiliency 

Category†

Coos Bay 1,198 < -1% -26% -22% 31% -46% -39% Low - 2

Eugene 1,297 72% 36% 63% 144% 18% 51%

Medium - 1, 

Low - 1

Klamath Falls 231 23% -3% 20% 32% -15% 16% Low - 1

Medford 1,326 103% 32% 66% 87% 20% 57% High -1,

Very Low - 1

Roseburg 1,225 36% -10% 7% 64% -13% 3% Low -1,

Very Low -1

Salem-Other 851 -1% 3% 9% 46% -10% 5% Low - 1

SalemPortland 

MSA

1,275 -3% 3% 7% 17% 3% 7% High - 1, 

Medium - 2 

Totals 7,403 37% 7% 23% 65% -7% 15%

* Jobs in 2012 are the ‘Current-Modified’ jobs from Table 3-182. 

† Number of Communities by Capacity-Resiliency Category is from Table 3-193. 

Notes: Cells with green shading mean an increase in the number of jobs compared to current. Light green (6% to 20% increase), 

medium green (21% to 50% increase), dark green (> 51% increase). Bold red numbers with pink shading mean a 20 percent or 

greater decrease in the number of jobs. Bold red numbers with no shading mean a decrease in the number of jobs of less than 20 

percent. 

Source: BLM, based on employment modeling in Issue 2 

Table 3-195. Effects of change in BLM-based employment by community 

Community

Capacity

Resiliency

Category

District/

Field

Office

County

No

Action

(Effect)

Alt. A

(Effect)

Alt. B

(Effect)

Alt. C

(Effect)

Alt. D

(Effect)

PRMP

(Effect)

Grants Pass High Medford Josephine +++ ++ +++ +++ + +++

Sublimity High Salem Marion + ++ -

Junction City Medium Eugene Lane +++ ++ +++ +++ + +++

Molalla Medium Salem Clackamas + + +

St. Helens Medium Salem Columbia + + +

Coquille Low Coos Bay Coos -- -- ++ -- --

Florence Low Eugene Lane +++ ++ +++ +++ + +++

Gold Beach Low Coos Bay Curry -- -- ++ -- --

Klamath Falls Low Klamath 

Falls Klamath ++ + ++ - +

Lincoln City Low Salem Lincoln + ++ -

Winston Low Roseburg Douglas ++ - + +++ -

Drain Very Low Roseburg Douglas ++ - + +++ -

Rogue River Very Low Medford Jackson +++ ++ +++ +++ + +++

Notes: All symbology refers to change in BLM-based employment in relation to ‘Current-Modified’ jobs from Table 3-182. 

+ = minor benefit (6% to 20% increase); 

++ = moderate benefit (21% to 50% increase); 

+++ = strong benefit (> 51% increase); 

- = minor negative impact (6% to 20% decrease); 

-- = moderate negative impact (21% to 50% decrease); 

--- = strong negative impact (> 51% decrease). 

Blank cell indicates little or no effect (+5% to -5% change).
720 | P a g e

Under the No Action alternative, the highest percentage employment increases would be in the Medford, 

and Eugene model areas followed by the Roseburg area. This would benefit communities across all 

capacity and resiliency categories in these districts (such as Grants Pass, Florence, and Winston) but 

would have little or no effect on communities in other areas, including several communities with low 

capacity and resiliency such as Coquille and Gold Beach. 

Under Alternative C, the highest percentage increases would be in the Medford, Eugene, Roseburg, and 

Salem-Other areas. These districts all have communities with medium, low, and very low capacity and 

resiliency. However, as shown in Table 3-195, all communities would see moderate or strong benefits 

under this alternative. 

Alternatives A, B, and D would have mixed effects, increasing or decreasing community capacity and 

resiliency in different geographies (Table 3-194). Under Alternative A, the Coos Bay, Roseburg, and the 

Klamath Falls model areas would see job losses. These districts contain communities with low or very 

low capacity and resiliency including Coquille, Gold Beach, Winston, and Drain. The Eugene and 

Medford areas would see the highest job increases under Alternative A, but these areas have more of a 

mix of higher and lower capacity/resiliency communities compared to the areas that would see job losses. 

Under Alternative B, only the Coos Bay model area would lose jobs. This would have negative economic 

effects on the area’s low capacity/resiliency communities, such as Gold Beach and Coquille. The other 

areas, especially Eugene and Medford, would see job increases and the communities within these areas, 

such as Grants Pass and Roque River, would see modest to strong benefits. 

Under Alternative D, all model areas except Salem-Portland MSA, Eugene, and Medford would see job 

losses. The highest percentage losses would be in the Coos Bay area, with moderate to high losses in the 

Klamath Falls and Roseburg areas, which contain low and very low capacity/resiliency communities. 

Under the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the highest percentage increases would be in the Medford and 

Eugene model areas, though these increases would be lower than the increases under some of the other 

alternatives. The Klamath Falls area would see a modest increase (16 percent), though its 2012 jobs base 

is low (231 per Table 3-195). The Coos Bay area would see large job losses. As noted above, the Coos 

Bay area contains communities such as Coquille and Gold Beach with low capacity and resiliency. 

County Payments

For purposes of the effects analysis, the BLM assumed that the Federal Government would make 

payments to counties using the formula in the O&C Act (see Socioeconomics Issue 3). Under the 

distribution formula, the counties in the Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts would receive 73 

percent of the total payments (Table 3-196).
721 | P a g e

Table 3-196. Shares of county payments by BLM district 

District/

Field Office

Sum of County Payments 

(Percent)

Coos Bay 10%

Eugene 15%

Klamath Falls 2%

Medford 28%

Roseburg 25%

Salem 20%

Source: Table 3-187

Table 3-197 shows what the payments would be in 2018 by district using the payments to counties data 

and the distribution formula from Table 3-187 and Table 3-189. Table 3-198 shows the potential effects 

of these payments on the 13 selected cities. 

Table 3-197. County payments in 2018 (2012 dollars) 

District/

Field 

Office

2012 Payment

Under O&C

Act Formula*

(Dollars)

No Action

(Dollars)

Alt. A

(Dollars)

Alt. B

(Dollars)

Alt. C

(Dollars)

Alt. D

(Dollars)

PRMP

(Dollars)

Coos Bay $1,117,223 $4,441,647 $2,685,209 $3,479,049 $6,440,522 $1,786,198 $2,444,222

Eugene $1,786,387 $7,101,984 $4,293,522 $5,562,836 $10,298,091 $2,856,046 $3,908,196

Klamath 

Falls $273,749 $1,088,320 $657,946 $852,458 $1,578,096 $437,665 $598,898

Medford $3,246,381 $12,906,356 $7,802,570 $10,109,279 $18,714,606 $5,190,261 $7,102,322

Roseburg $2,930,517 $11,650,603 $7,043,401 $9,125,674 $16,893,725 $4,685,263 6,411,285

Salem $2,344,415 $9,320,482 $5,634,721 $7,300,539 $13,514,980 $3,748,210 $5,129,028

Totals $11,698,672 $46,509,392 $28,117,370 $36,429,835 $67,440,021 $18,703,644 $25,593,951

* Estimated O&C payments in 2012, had county payments been based on the O&C formula that year (see discussion in Issue 3) 
722 | P a g e

Table 3-198. Potential effects of county payments by community 

Community

Capacity

Resiliency

Category

County

Share of

County

Payments

to Each

County*

(Percent)

No

Action

(Effect)

Alt. A

(Effect)

Alt. B

(Effect)

Alt. C

(Effect)

Alt. D

(Effect)

PRMP

(Effect)

Grants Pass High Josephine 12.1% +++ + ++ +++ + +

Sublimity High Marion 1.5% + +

Junction City Medium Lane 15.3% +++ ++ ++ +++ + ++

Molalla Medium Clackamas 5.6% + + + ++ +

St. Helens Medium Columbia 2.1% + + +

Coquille Low Coos 5.9% ++ + + ++ +

Florence Low Lane 15.3% +++ ++ ++ +++ + ++

Gold Beach Low Curry 3.7% + + + ++ +

Klamath Falls Low Klamath 2.3% + + ++

Lincoln City Low Lincoln 0.4% +

Winston Low Douglas 25.1% +++ +++ +++ +++ + ++

Drain Very Low Douglas 25.1% +++ +++ +++ +++ + ++

Rogue River Very Low Jackson 15.7% +++ ++ ++ +++ + ++

* Under the O&C Act distribution formula; see Table 3-187

+ = small benefit ($0.5 million to $2.0 million); 

++ = moderate benefit ($2.0 million to $4.0 million); 

+++ = strong benefit (>$4.0 million). 

Note: A blank cell indicates little or no effect (<$0.5 million). 

Payments to counties would increase under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, relative to what the 

payments would have been in 2012 under the O&C Act formula, though the payments to counties would 

be less than they received in some earlier years under the SRS payments. Driven by timber harvest 

volumes, payments would be highest under Alternative C, followed by the No Action alternative. 

Payments under the Proposed RMP would be approximately $25.6 million in 2018. See the discussion in 

Issue 3. 

Relative to current population, the formula generally benefits the counties within districts with smaller 

populations. For example, counties in the Salem District, with approximately 74 percent of the planning 

area population, receive approximately 20 percent of the payments. This would limit beneficial effects to 

lower capacity resiliency communities in the Salem District such as Lincoln City. The counties in the 

Roseburg District (almost exclusively Douglas County), with approximately 3 percent of the planning 

area population, receives 25 percent. As noted under methods, the BLM assumed continuation of the 

current distribution formula. 

The payments would benefit the counties in districts with low capacity/resiliency communities especially 

in the Coos Bay, Medford, Roseburg, and Eugene Districts. Examples would include Coquille, Drain, 

Florence, and Winston. The Klamath Falls Field Office would see some benefits, but since Klamath 

County receives only 2 percent of total receipts, the benefits would be small. 

Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP except Alternative C, BLM-based employment, and, as a 

consequence, earnings, would fall in some model areas (Table 3-195). In several cases, the loss of total 
723 | P a g e

BLM-based earnings would be greater than the earnings from the county payments.109 Payments to 

counties are a different kind of economic input and not directly comparable to worker earnings. However, 

the economic impact of earnings losses to communities with low capacity and resiliency would be 

substantial.

Earnings losses would exceed payments to counties under Alternatives B and D and the Proposed RMP. 

Under the No Action alternative and Alternative A, payments to counties would exceed earnings losses, 

except in the Coos Bay District under Alternative A. 

Issue 6 

Would the alternatives result in environmental justice impacts (disproportionally high and adverse effects 

on minority, low-income, or Tribal populations or communities)? 

Key Points 

 Employment effects to low-income populations in Coos and Curry Counties would be 

disproportionately negative under Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP. Under 

Alternative D, employment effects in Douglas and Klamath Counties would also be 

disproportionately negative. Low-income communities and Tribes in these counties would be 

vulnerable to these disproportionately negative effects. 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income 

Populations (1994) requires analyses of Federal actions to address human health and environmental 

conditions in minority and low-income communities, and to ensure that disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on these communities are identified and addressed. 

Environmental justice refers to the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement 

of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (EPA 2007). In the context of the RMPs for Western 

Oregon, a potential environmental justice population is one that could experience disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects from the implementation of an RMP. 

To identify potential environmental justice populations, the BLM collected the most recently available 

population and income data for populations in the following 284 geographies in the planning area: 

 19 counties 

 161 incorporated places (i.e., cities)110

 97 census-designated places (CDPs)111

 7 federally recognized Tribes with reservation and off-reservation trust land 

 

109 For example, under the Proposed RMP, the Coos Bay District would see a net loss in worker earnings of 

approximately $28.9 million ($54.4 million minus $25.5 million = $28.9 million - Table 3-182), but payments to 

Coos and Curry Counties would be $2.4 million (Table 3-197). 

110 Three of these 161 places, Bonanza, Butte Falls, and Waterloo are towns not cities, but for simplicity of 

presentation this analysis counts them as cities. 

111 Census Designated Places are settled concentrations of population that identifiable by name but are not legally 

incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. State and local officials and the Census Bureau 

delineate CDPs cooperatively. 
724 | P a g e

The BLM also collected data for the State of Oregon. The State data serve as the reference for 

determining which local geographies contain potential environmental justice populations. 

The BLM collected the population and income data from the American Community Survey. The 

American Community Survey is an ongoing survey by the U.S. Census Bureau that provides data every 

year, and provides more recent and more detailed data, compared to the decennial census. The American 

Community Survey gets data from a sample of the population. As a result, the data have statistical 

margins of error. The margins of error vary across the geography sampled with the data from smaller 

places generally having greater margins of error than larger places.112 In addition, the American 

Community Survey compiles data from multiple years; the data in this analysis are from 2009–2012. 

To identify potential environmental justice populations, the BLM used the following criteria, based on 

guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality for addressing environmental justice (CEQ 1997): 

1. Geographies where the minority or Hispanic population exceeds 50 percent of the total population 

2. Geographies where the minority or Hispanic population is “meaningfully greater” than the 

statewide minority or Hispanic population percentage. This analysis defines meaningfully greater as 

a minority or Hispanic population percentage that is 25 percent or higher than the statewide 

percentage. 

3. Geographies where the percentage of the population in poverty is meaningfully greater than the 

statewide percentage. This analysis defines meaningfully greater as a poverty population percentage 

that is 25 percent or higher than the statewide percentage. 

4. Geographies where the percentage of the population with low income is meaningfully greater than 

the statewide percentage 

Minority populations include individuals that belong to one or more of the following races: AfricanAmerican, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander, Other race, or 

Multiple Races. For this analysis, the BLM summed the separate minority populations to calculate a total 

minority population for each geography. Minority individuals also include those identifying as Hispanic 

or Latino, regardless of race, and the BLM conducted a separate Hispanic or Latino population 

analysis.113

The population in poverty criterion uses data from the American Community Survey that identifies 

persons as below poverty level if that individual’s income, or family’s total income, is below a predefined threshold (U.S. Census Bureau 2014a).114 This analysis defines low-income as the percentage of 

the households whose income is 50 percent or less than the state median household income. For criteria 2, 

3, and 4 above, this analysis defines ‘meaningfully greater’ as a population percentage that is 25 percent, 

or more, higher than the statewide percentage. 

The scale of the decision area and the geographical breadth of the potential impacts are such that it is not 

possible to analyze with useful precision how the alternatives or the Proposed RMP would affect one 

specific geography below the county level, such as a city or CDP versus another. Instead, the analysis 

assumed that positive or negative effects to regions and counties would have similar effects on the local 

geographies within those regions and counties. 

 

112 See the U.S. Census Bureau website (http://www.census.gov) for more information about the American 

Community Survey, sampling, and margin of error. 

113 The U.S. Census Bureau defines race (e.g, African-American and Asian) separately from ethnicity (Hispanic or 

Non-Hispanic). 

114 Each person or family is assigned one out of 48 possible poverty thresholds that vary by size of the family and 

ages of the members. For example, the 2013 threshold for a family of 4 with 2 children under 18 was $23,624. 
725 | P a g e

The first step in the effects analysis was to identify any negative effects that would result from 

implementation of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP, and then to assess whether they would fall 

disproportionately on minority or low-income populations. Views of what constitutes a negative or 

positive impact vary depending on different perspectives and values, but this analysis assumed that 

increases in BLM-based employment, and the increase in earnings that would result, would be positive 

impacts, and that decreases in employment would be negative. Similarly, this analysis assumed that 

increases in payments to counties would be a positive impact, and decreases in payments to counties 

would negative. The effects analysis section addresses these two types of effects on identified 

environmental justice populations. 

The alternatives and the Proposed RMP could affect environmental justice populations in other ways. For 

example, dependence on a resource or use, such as access to recreation or to livestock grazing, that the 

Proposed RMP or alternatives would allocate or manage differently could lead to positive or negative 

impacts. However, such impacts would not likely result in disproportionally high and adverse effects, and 

the locally specific data necessary to assess such impacts at a landscape level are beyond the scope of this 

analysis. 

The Planning Criteria provide additional detail regarding the Analytical Methods (USDI BLM 2014 pp. 

149–151). 

Background 

Table 3-199 presents racial minority and Hispanic data for the counties in the planning area for 2000 and 

2012. As of 2012, the minority population of the planning area as a whole was approximately 520,000 or 

17 percent of the total population, slightly higher than the minority percentage for the State of Oregon (15 

percent). Since 2000, when the planning area’s minority population was 14 percent, the minority 

population has increased by 26 percent, though 4 counties, all in the Salem District, had minority growth 

rate increases above 40 percent (i.e., Linn, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill). 
726 | P a g e

Table 3-199. Racial minority and Hispanic population change, 2000–2012 

Geography

2012 2000 Change 2000 to 2012

All Minorities Hispanic All Minorities Hispanic All Minorities Hispanic

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Oregon 563,921 15% 449,888 12% 459,776 13% 275,314 8% 104,145 23% 174,574 46%

Planning Area 519,755 17% 387,563 11% 411,827 14% 234,876 8% 107,928 26% 152,687 65%

Benton Co. 10,104 12% 5,486 6% 8,475 11% 3,645 5% 1,629 19% 1,841 38%

Clackamas Co. 38,017 10% 29,137 8% 29,539 9% 16,744 5% 8,478 29% 12,393 56%

Clatsop Co. 3,110 8% 2,820 8% 2,445 7% 1,597 4% 665 27% 1,223 70%

Columbia Co. 3,405 7% 2,035 4% 2,430 6% 1,093 3% 975 40% 942 64%

Coos Co. 5,937 9% 3,456 5% 5,039 8% 2,133 3% 898 18% 1,323 62%

Curry Co. 1,686 8% 1,258 6% 1,503 7% 761 4% 183 12% 497 56%

Douglas Co. 7,261 7% 5,042 5% 6,165 6% 3,283 3% 1,096 18% 1,759 44%

Jackson Co. 16,334 8% 21,894 11% 15,144 8% 12,126 7% 1,190 8% 9,768 61%

Josephine Co. 4,969 6% 5,274 6% 4,623 6% 3,229 4% 346 7% 2,045 50%

Klamath Co. 7,945 12% 6,990 11% 8,080 13% 4,961 8% -135 -2% 2,029 35%

Lane Co. 37,680 11% 26,125 7% 30,231 9% 14,874 5% 7,449 25% 11,251 61%

Lincoln Co. 5,326 12% 3,662 8% 4,187 9% 2,119 5% 1,139 27% 1,543 67%

Linn Co. 9,901 8% 9,097 8% 7,010 7% 4,514 4% 2,891 41% 4,583 78%

Marion Co. 61,715 20% 76,429 24% 52,365 18% 48,714 17% 9,350 18% 27,715 42%

Multnomah Co. 158,601 22% 79,791 11% 137,661 21% 49,607 8% 20,940 15% 30,184 44%

Polk Co. 9,316 12% 9,122 12% 6,741 11% 5,480 9% 2,575 38% 3,642 38%

Tillamook Co. 1,838 7% 2,262 9% 1,490 6% 1,244 5% 348 23% 1,018 75%

Washington Co. 122,803 23% 83,085 16% 79,335 18% 49,735 11% 43,468 55% 33,350 40%

Yamhill Co. 13,807 14% 14,598 15% 9,364 11% 9,017 11% 4,443 47% 5,581 39%

Notes: Hispanic status is considered separately from racial identification. 

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. American Community Survey, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Census 2000 

Summary File 1 (SF 1), Table DP-1. American FactFinder, http://factfinder2.census.gov, (Sept 2014) 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, 

DP04, DP05, S1901 and S1701. American FactFinder, http://factfinder2.census.gov, (July 2014) 

The Hispanic population share of the planning area population was 11 percent in 2012, which was very 

close to the percentage for the State as a whole (12 percent). Since 2000, the planning area’s Hispanic 

population increased by 65 percent. Nearly two-thirds of this increase was in three counties: Marion, 

Multnomah, and Washington. 

The median household income in the planning area as whole in 2012 was $51,197, a little higher than the 

statewide median of $50,036 (Table 3-200). Household income varies considerably across the planning 

area. The lowest median incomes (below $40,000) are in the southwest, in Coos, Curry, and Josephine 

Counties, and the highest (above $55,000) in the north, in Clackamas, Columbia, and Washington 

Counties. Between 2000 and 2012, the median household income increased in all counties in the planning 

area. For the planning area as whole, the increase of $8,955 was slightly lower than for the State of 

Oregon. 
727 | P a g e

Table 3-200. Poverty population and median household income, 2000 and 2012 

Geography

2000 2012 Change 2000 to 2012

Population 

in Poverty

Median 

Household 

Income

Population 

in Poverty

Median 

Household 

Income

Population 

in Poverty

Median 

Household 

Income

Oregon 388,740 $40,916 584,059 $50,036 195,319 $9,120

Planning Area 341,468 $42,242 515,861 $51,197 174,393 $8,955

Benton Co. 10,665 $41,897 17,418 $48,635 6,753 $6,738

Clackamas Co. 21,969 $52,080 36,265 $63,951 14,296 $11,871

Clatsop Co. 4,625 $36,301 5,725 $44,330 1,100 $8,029

Columbia Co. 3,910 $45,797 6,797 $55,358 2,887 $9,561

Coos Co. 9,257 $31,542 10,661 $37,853 1,404 $6,311

Curry Co. 2,554 $30,117 3,048 $38,401 494 $8,284

Douglas Co. 12,999 $33,223 18,777 $40,096 5,778 $6,873

Jackson Co. 22,269 $36,461 33,346 $43,664 11,077 $7,203

Josephine Co. 11,193 $31,229 16,301 $36,699 5,108 $5,470

Klamath Co. 10,515 $31,537 12,143 $41,066 1,628 $9,529

Lane Co. 45,423 $36,942 64,705 $42,628 19,282 $5,686

Lincoln Co. 6,084 $32,769 7,262 $41,996 1,178 $9,227

Linn Co. 11,618 $37,518 19,237 $47,129 7,619 $9,611

Marion Co. 37,104 $40,314 55,223 $46,654 18,119 $6,340

Multnomah Co. 81,711 $41,278 123,434 $51,582 41,723 $10,304

Polk Co. 6,943 $42,311 10,788 $52,365 3,845 $10,054

Tillamook Co. 2,718 $34,269 4,197 $41,869 1,479 $7,600

Washington Co. 32,575 $52,122 57,466 $64,375 24,891 $12,253

Yamhill Co. 7,336 $44,111 13,068 $53,950 5,732 $9,839

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. American Community Survey, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 Census 2000 

Summary File 3 (SF 3), Table DP-3. American FactFinder, http://factfinder2.census.gov, (Sept 2014) 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, 

DP04, DP05, S1901 and S1701. American FactFinder, http://factfinder2.census.gov, (July 2014) 
728 | P a g e

Affected Environment 

Minority Populations 

Table 3-201 summarizes the data for minority populations in the planning area. Map 3-8 shows their 

locations. Appendix P contains the data for all the minority population geographies in the planning area. 

Table 3-201. Summary of minority populations meeting environmental justice criteria 

Geography

Number of Geographies

50 Percent 

Criterion

Additional Meaningfully

Greater Criterion Total, Both Criteria

Counties - 3 3

Cities 5 29 34

CDPs 2 19 21

Tribes 6 - 6

Totals 13 51 64

Population Population

Total Minority Total Minority Total Minority

Counties 1,584,319 343,119 1,584,319 343,119

Cities 28,637 16,718 86,766 21,028 115,403 37,746

CDPs 261 146 15,286 4,457 15,547 4,603

Tribes 5,247 4,647 5,247 4,647

Totals 34,145 21,511 1,686,371 368,604 1,720,516 390,115

Notes: Population numbers for cities and CDPs do not include those cities in Marion, Multnomah, and Washington Counties. 

Sources: BLM staff compiled from: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009. Appendix P

contains more detailed source descriptions. 
729 | Page

Map 3-8. Minority populations and counties within the planning area 

Note: BLM administrative boundaries, counties, and Tribal lands are shown for reference.

Note: BLM administrative boundaries, counties, and Tribal lands are shown for reference.
730 | P a g e

50 Percent Criterion 

Thirteen geographies meet the 50 percent criterion, (i.e., the racial minority or Hispanic population 

exceeds 50 percent of the total population). In total, these 13 geographies contain approximately 34,100 

people, or approximately 1 percent of the total population of the planning area. 

None of the 19 counties as a whole meets the 50 percent criterion. 

Six of the seven Tribal land areas meet the criterion. The only Tribe not meeting the criterion is the Cow 

Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. Note that the data for the Tribes have limitations. First, as noted 

in the Summary of Analytical Methods for Issue 5, the American Community Survey uses data derived 

from a sample of the population, and is not a 100 percent count. These data are subject to sampling error, 

and, in addition, some of the Tribes have very small populations (e.g., less than 30 persons) living on 

Tribal lands, thereby compounding the potential for error. 

In particular, with respect to the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, this potential for error is 

further compounded by the fact that the most recent available American Community Survey data was 

from 2009. In addition, the population on reservation and off-reservation trust land is not the entire Tribal 

membership. The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data for the entirety of a Tribe’s members. Some 

of the Tribes commented on this as part of the capacity/resiliency analysis, expressing concerns 

specifically with the lack of accuracy of the American Community Survey information as representative 

of their Tribal populations. Tribes were unable, however, to provide the BLM with population data that 

more accurately presented their members. As such, the BLM used this American Community Survey 

information, but acknowledges the uncertainties and inaccuracies in the analysis. 

Seven other geographies meet the criterion: Summit CDP in Benton County; Chiloquin, Malin, and 

Merrill City in Klamath County; and Gervais, Woodburn, and Labish Village CDP in Marion County. Of 

these, five meet the criterion based on their Hispanic populations, and three meet the criterion based on 

their non-Hispanic minority populations.115

Meaningfully Greater Criterion 

Fifty-one geographies, in addition to the 13 above, meet the meaningfully greater criterion, (i.e., the 

minority or Hispanic population is 25 percent or higher than the statewide percentages). The statewide 

percentages are 15 percent minority and 12 percent Hispanic. These geographies include 3 counties, 29 

cities, and 19 CDPs. The three counties are Marion, Multnomah, and Washington (Table 3-201 and Map 

3-9).

 

115 Labish Village in Marion County meets the criterion based on both its Hispanic and non-Hispanic minority 

populations. 
731 | Page

Map 3-9. Low-income and poverty populations and counties within the planning area

Note: BLM administrative boundaries, county boundaries, and Tribal lands are shown for reference.

Note: BLM administrative boundaries, county boundaries, and Tribal lands are shown for reference.
732 | P a g e

Of the 48 cities and CDPs with meaningfully greater populations, 42 are in the Salem District, mostly 

along the I-5 corridor between Salem and Portland, and in the Portland metropolitan area itself. 

Total, Both Criteria 

In total, 64 geographies meet one or both of the criteria. These geographies contain approximately 1.72 

million people, or approximately 50 percent of the total population of the planning area (approximately 

3.4 million). Of the 1.72 million, approximately 390,000 are minority persons and approximately 199,000 

are Hispanic (some of whom could also be non-Hispanic minority persons, such as Black Hispanics). The 

City of Portland, with a 22 percent minority population, accounts for approximately 586,000 of the 1.72 

million, or 34 percent. 

Low-income Populations 

Table 3-202 presents data for low-income populations in the planning area as of 2012. Map 3-9 shows 

their locations. Appendix P contains the data for all the low-income population geographies in the 

planning area. 

Table 3-202. Summary of low-income populations meeting environmental justice criteria 

Geography Number of Geographies

Poverty Additional Low-Income Totals

Counties 2 4 6

Cities 45 18 63

CDPs 31 16 47

Tribes 5 1 6

Totals 83 39 122

Population

Counties 33,719 17,249 50,968

Cities 84,977 7,688 92,665

CDPS 15,903 630 16,533

Tribes 1,281 5 1,286

Totals 135,880 25,571 161,451

Note: To avoid double counting, the populations for additional low-income geographies exclude the populations counted as 

poverty. 

Sources: BLM staff compiled from: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009. Appendix P

contains more detailed source descriptions. 

Poverty Criterion 

A total of 83 geographies meet the poverty criterion, (i.e., the percentage of residents in poverty is 25 

percent or higher than the statewide percentage, which is 15 percent). These geographies comprise 2 

counties (Benton and Josephine), 45 cities, 31 CDPs, and 5 of the Tribes. The total population of these 83 

geographies is approximately 992,000 (29 percent of the planning area population). The number of people 

in poverty within the 83 geographies is approximately 136,000. 

The poverty populations are scattered throughout the planning area and can be found in every county and 

BLM district (Map 3-9).
733 | P a g e

Low-income Criterion 

Thirty-nine geographies meet the low-income criterion, i.e., the percentage of residents with income 50 

percent or less than the state median household income is 25 percent or higher than the statewide 

percentage, which is 24 percent. 

These geographies are all in addition to the 83 geographies meeting the poverty criterion, and include 4 

counties, 18 cities, 16 CDPs, and 1 Tribe. The four counties are Coos, Curry, Klamath, and Lincoln. The 

number of additional people with low income within these 39 geographies is approximately 25,600. 

Environmental Consequences 

Minority Populations 

The Affected Environment section identified three counties (Washington, Multnomah, and Marion) that 

meet the environmental justice criteria because of their minority populations; these 3 counties also contain 

31 of the 55 minority cities and CDPs that meet environmental justice criteria. Altogether, the Salem 

District contained 43 of the 55 minority cities and CDPs plus 3 of the 7 Tribal land areas. The other 12 

minority populations are scattered across the Klamath Falls Field Office, and the Coos Bay and Medford 

Districts. 

To assess whether the alternatives or the Proposed RMP would disproportionately affect minority 

communities negatively, the BLM assessed whether any of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP would 

lead to disproportionately fewer BLM-based jobs in the Salem model area or lower payments to counties 

in the Salem District compared to the other districts. 

The Salem model areas would gain in employment under Alternatives A, B, and C and under the 

Proposed RMP, so the impacts on employment would be beneficial (Table 3-194). Under the No Action 

Alternative, the Salem model areas would be the only area with job losses, though the losses would be 

modest (3 percent in the Portland MSA model area and 1 percent in the Salem-Other (more rural) model 

area. Under Alternative D, employment would increase in the Portland MSA area but decrease by three 

percent in the Salem-Other area (Table 3-194). However, the decrease in employment under Alternative 

D would be higher in the other three model areas that would experience decreases in BLM-related 

employment (-13 percent in the Roseburg area, -46 percent in the Coos Bay area, and -15 percent in the 

Klamath Falls area). Therefore, there would be no disproportionately negative effects on employment in 

minority counties. However, minority populations in the Coos Bay area could experience negative effects 

related to jobs under the Proposed RMP. 

The BLM also assessed whether there would be any disproportionately negative effects on minority 

populations due to changes in payments to counties under the Proposed RMP or alternatives. Under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, every county would receive higher payments under the O&C Act 

formula in both 2018 and 2028 than they would have received in 2012 under the O&C Act-based formula 

(Table 3-189). Therefore, there would be no disproportionately negative impacts because of changes in 

county payments. 

Low-income Populations 

The Affected Environment section identified 116 geographies that meet the low-income environmental 

justice criteria: 6 counties, 110 cities or CDPs, and 6 Tribes. Unlike the minority populations, which are 

concentrated in three counties, the low-income analysis showed that low-income populations are spread 
734 | P a g e

out more widely across the planning area, making the analysis of potential effects more complex (see 

Map 3-8 and Map 3-9).

BLM-based total employment would increase in 2018 under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

compared to 2012. However, some of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in reductions 

in BLM-based employment in some model areas (Table 3-194). Three areas would experience the largest 

decreases (13–46 percent): Coos Bay, the Klamath Falls, and Roseburg areas. Under Alternatives A and 

D, employment would decrease in all three areas. Under the No Action alternative and under Alternative 

B, employment would decrease in the Coos Bay area only. Under the Proposed RMP, the Coos Bay area 

would experience a large decrease employment (-39% or approximately 500 jobs), but employment 

effects would be positive in all other areas. 

The counties within Coos Bay District, the Klamath Falls Field Office, and Roseburg District are Coos, 

Curry, Klamath, and Douglas Counties. Three of these counties meet the low-income environmental 

justice criteria, and the fourth (Douglas) is within 1 percent of the low-income threshold, and contains 14 

cities or CDPs meeting the low-income environmental justice criteria.116 In total, four of the six lowincome counties in the planning area are in this southern part of the planning area.117

The BLM concludes that employment effects in Coos and Curry Counties would be disproportionately 

negative under Alternatives A, B and D, and the Proposed RMP, with greater negative effects under 

Alternative D and the Proposed RMP. Under Alternative D, employment effects in Douglas and Klamath 

Counties would also be disproportionately negative. Low-income cities, CDPs and Tribes in these 

counties would also be vulnerable to these disproportionately negative effects. 

Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, every county would receive higher payments under the 

O&C Act formula in both 2018 and 2028 than they would have received in 2012 (Table 3-189). 

Therefore, there would be no disproportionately negative impacts because of changes in county payments. 

However, the BLM notes that under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP (except Alternative C), 

employment and earnings would fall in some model areas, and the loss of total BLM-based earnings 

would in many cases be greater than the earnings from the county payments (see the discussion of county 

payments in Issue 5). 

A key issue for the counties is how any increased payments would compare to payments under Secure 

Rural Schools (SRS) funding (Table 3-185, Table 3-186, and Table 3-187). Coos, Curry, Douglas, and 

Josephine Counties are the counties most dependent on the SRS funding based on the high percentages of 

their general funds that the SRS payments represent (25 percent to 82 percent, Table 3-186). Three of 

these counties are low-income and Douglas County is within 1 percent of the low-income threshold. The 

State of Oregon Business Development Department considers all four counties as distressed (see the 

Background section). 

The future of the SRS program and distributions to counties are outside the control of the BLM and 

cannot be assessed in the analysis of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Nevertheless, the BLM 

notes that decreases in SRS funding since 2003 have disproportionately negatively affected these four 

counties (Table 3-185), and three of these counties would experience employment losses under some of 

the alternatives which could exacerbate their distressed financial condition. Under the Proposed RMP, 

only Coos and Curry Counties would experience employment losses. 

 

116 Of the 14, 3 are in western Douglas County in the Coos Bay District. 

117 The fourth is Josephine County (adjacent to Curry and Douglas Counties), which meets the criteria for a poverty 

county. 
735 | P a g e

Mitigation of Environmental Justice Impacts 

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (USDI BLM 2005) specifies how to address disproportionately 

high and adverse environmental justice impacts associated with the proposed action—

With the cooperation of the partners, affected minority populations, low-income 

communities, and Tribes, adopt and implement creative measures to eliminate, minimize, 

and/or correct identified Environmental Justice impacts (Appendix D, p. 12). 

One option for addressing the impacts to Coos and Curry Counties is avoidance. The Draft RMP/EIS 

explored two alternatives (Alternative C and the No Action alternative) that would avoid the identified 

environmental justice impacts; however, these alternatives would not meet the purpose and need as well 

as the Proposed RMP. For example, the purpose of contributing to the conservation and recovery of the 

marbled murrelet restricts the BLM’s ability to manage its land in ways that would generate more jobs in 

Coos and Curry Counties. 

There is also scientific uncertainty associated with prediction of socioeconomic effects because social and 

economic systems are very dynamic rather than static. People and communities can respond to change in 

a number of ways. That is why the Draft RMP/EIS included an analysis of community resiliency; some 

communities and populations are better equipped to react to change or proactively create it. Yet even 

considering resiliency as a mediating variable, it is difficult to predict the effects of BLM plan 

implementation because many variables apart from BLM management have greater effects on 

employment and earnings and low-income populations in the affected counties. These variables include 

changes in national, state, regional, and local demographics, economies, and policies. See also the 

discussion of Economic Conditions in the Analysis of the Management Situation (USDI BLM 2013, pp. 

2-100 – 2-110). 

Public comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS also reflected a difference in beliefs regarding the 

nature and type of environmental justice impacts expected under the alternatives. Some commenters 

believed that alternatives having higher levels of timber harvest, despite having higher direct and indirect 

levels of employment and income, pose a cost in terms of lower property values, lower amenity values, 

and lower attractiveness to current and potential future residents. 

Therefore, it is difficult to propose specific mitigation at this time. The BLM would monitor 

environmental justice effects as the RMP as implemented. The BLM will already be measuring the level 

and type of timber harvest, payments to counties, and changes in resource conditions. However, these 

measurements will not tell the BLM how low-income populations are being affected, so that a 

supplemental, targeted monitoring effort would be required. This monitoring, developed collaboratively 

with the cooperators and others, would identify and track appropriate indicators of social and economic 

conditions. The U.S. Forest Service’s experience monitoring the socioeconomic effects of the NWFP 

suggest that it is difficult to link community effects to plan changes using only published information 

(Grinspoon and Phillips 2011; Grinspoon et al. in press). Therefore, the BLM would conduct primary 

research, such as focus groups or interviews with community residents, leaders, and others, to supplement 

and interpret the secondary data. 

The results of the monitoring would allow the BLM and its partners to identify environmental justice 

impacts that have not been mitigated through the RMPs as implemented or by other means, pointing the 

way toward potential mitigation actions. The BLM would not allocate a specified amount of money 

toward mitigation of environmental justice impacts at this time, but would be committed to the 

monitoring effort, an open discussion of the results, and addressing environmental justice effects that can 

be attributed to actions taken under the Proposed RMP. 
736 | P a g e

Issue 7 

What would be the cost to the BLM to implement the alternatives? 

Key Point 

 The alternatives and the Proposed RMP (except for Alternative D) would result in an increase in 

the BLM’s budget compared to the current budget. The Proposed RMP would result in a 6 

percent increase in BLM’s budget in the middle of the first decade compared to the current 

budget. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM refined the cost per Mbf of timber volume from the $200 per Mbf average in the Draft 

RMP/EIS to a cost per Mbf that is unique to each district and the timber management activities for future 

costs under each alternative and the Proposed RMP. The BLM recalculated the costs for the No Action 

alternative and the action alternatives based on these refined cost values. This recalculation altered the 

estimates of costs by district, but did not alter the total costs across the decision area by alternative. 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM compiled budget information for FY 2012 for each of the five BLM districts in the planning 

area and for the Klamath Falls Field Office. The budget data did not include the administrative cost of the 

BLM’s Oregon State Office, because the State Office budget would not be affected by the RMPs. The 

budget data also did not include the fire program, because the fire budget can fluctuate widely from year 

to year, depending on the extent and scale of wildfires. 

The BLM estimated the portions of the districts’ budgets that are attributable to the timber program under 

current conditions, based on 2012 timber harvest volumes and an average timber volume cost of $200 per 

Mbf, a figure the State Office uses for budget estimates. This figure includes all of the work associated 

with preparing, offering, and administering timber sales. It includes work done by members of a timber 

sale interdisciplinary team, National Environmental Policy Act compliance work, overhead, etc. 

To estimate the potential cost to the BLM to implement the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM 

applied a cost per Mbf that is unique to each district and the timber management activities under each 

alternative and the Proposed RMP. In order to account for the variation in harvest volume yield per acre 

and produce more accurate estimates of relative timber program costs by district, the BLM proportionally 

increased or decreased the estimated per Mbf costs by district relative to the weighted average Mbf per 

acre produced for each alternative and the Proposed RMP, while maintaining the overall average cost of 

$200 per Mbf. Cost per Mbf ranged from a low of $95 for the Salem District under Alternative D to a 

high of $362 for the Klamath Falls Field Office under Alternative A (Table 3-203).
737 | P a g e

Table 3-203. Estimated timber program costs per Mbf of timber volume 

District/

Field Office

No Action

(Dollars/

Mbf)

Alt. A

(Dollars/

Mbf)

Alt. B

(Dollars/

Mbf)

Alt. C

(Dollars/

Mbf)

Alt. D

(Dollars/

Mbf)

PRMP

(Dollars/

Mbf)

Coos Bay $172 $171 $219 $186 $233 $203

Eugene $219 $142 $148 $148 $188 $136

Klamath Falls $172 $362 $305 $310 $284 $315

Medford $218 $333 $319 $331 $316 $318

Roseburg $182 $291 $257 $241 $283 $265

Salem $204 $155 $124 $170 $96 $138

The BLM estimated budgets based on projected harvests for the average of the first decade. The BLM 

added this figure to the non-timber portion of the budget, which the BLM assumed would remain 

unchanged between alternatives and the Proposed RMP, consistent with the analytical assumptions set 

forth in the Planning Criteria. The total of the timber and non-timber portion of the budget resulted in a 

total BLM budget by alternative and the Proposed RMP. The BLM expressed all dollar figures in constant 

2012 dollars. 

Note that as a landscape-level planning effort, none of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP prescribe 

project-level or site-specific activities on BLM-administered lands. Further, the BLM’s selection of an 

alternative or the Proposed RMP does not authorize funding to any specific project or activity nor does it 

directly tie into the agency’s budget as appropriated annually through the Federal budget process. 

Consequently, the effects analysis does not cover non-timber resources, even though these resources do 

have associated management costs. 

Affected Environment 

The BLM’s budget for the 6 districts in the planning area totaled approximately $109.2 million in FY 

2012, including labor and non-labor costs. The labor costs cover approximately 780 employees across all 

6 districts (Table 3-204). The Medford office, which has the largest number of employees, accounts for 

approximately 30 percent of the total area-wide budget. Non-labor costs include items such as rent, 

transportation, and supplies, but the largest single component is contracts to non-BLM entities for a 

variety of services on BLM-administered lands. 

Table 3-204. BLM budget by district, FY 2012 

District/

Field Office

Employees

(FTE)

Expenditures Totals

($ Millions)

Programmatic Breakdown

Labor

($ Millions)

Non-Labor

($ Millions)

Timber

($ Millions)

Non-Timber

($ Millions)

Coos Bay 109 $9.1 $8.0 $17.1 $14.2 $2.9

Eugene 130 $10.4 $7.5 $18.0 $7.2 $10.8

Klamath Falls 41 $2.9 $3.0 $5.9 $0.9 $5.0

Medford 231 $17.7 $15.5 $33.2 $4.7 $28.5

Roseburg 117 $9.4 $4.1 $13.5 $9.0 $4.5

Salem 150 $12.3 $9.2 $21.6 $12.4 $9.1

Totals 778 $61.9 $47.3 $109.2 $48.5 $60.7

Totals (Percent) 57% 43% 44% 56%
738 | P a g e

Management of the BLM’s timber program in FY 2012 accounted for an estimated $48.5 million, or 44 

percent, of the total $109.2 million budget. The remaining 56 percent covered all other programs, such as 

recreation, mining, fisheries, and livestock grazing. 

Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-205 and Table 3-206 show the estimated effects on the BLM’s staff and budget under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP and the percent change compared to current conditions. The 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP (except for Alternative D) would result in an increase in the BLM’s 

budget compared to the current budget (i.e., approximately $109.2 million). Alternative C, with its higher 

projected timber harvests compared to current, would require the highest budget, approximately $171.7 

million, a 57 percent increase compared to the budget under current conditions (FY 2012). The No Action 

alternative would result in a 29 percent increase compared to current. Alternative D, with the lower 

projected timber harvests would require a lower budget, approximately 11 percent below current. The 

Proposed RMP would result in a budget that is about 6 percent higher than current. 

Table 3-205. BLM employees by district; current condition and the average of the first decade 

District/

Field Office

Current

(FTE)

No 

Action

(FTE)

Alt. A

(FTE)

Alt. B

(FTE)

Alt. C

(FTE)

Alt. D

(FTE)

PRMP

(FTE)

Coos Bay 109 93 68 85 134 51 58

Eugene 130 218 142 166 243 140 150

Klamath Falls 41 45 43 50 56 45 48

Medford 231 326 285 326 349 261 310

Roseburg 117 152 110 142 221 94 132

Salem 150 174 141 141 230 101 137

Totals 778 1,008 789 911 1,234 692 835

Percent Change 

from Current 30% 1% 17% 59% -11% 7%

Table 3-206. BLM budget by district; current condition and the average of the first decade 

District/

Field Office

Current

($ 

Millions)

No Action

($ 

Millions)

Alt. A

($ 

Millions)

Alt. B

($ 

Millions)

Alt. C

($ 

Millions)

Alt. D

($ 

Millions)

PRMP

($ 

Millions)

Coos Bay $17.1 $14.6 $10.7 $13.2 $20.9 $8.0 $9.0

Eugene $18.0 $30.2 $19.7 $23.0 $33.7 $19.4 $20.7

Klamath Falls $5.9 $6.4 $6.1 $7.1 $8.0 $6.4 $6.9

Medford $33.2 $46.9 $41.0 $46.9 $50.2 $37.6 $44.6

Roseburg $13.5 $17.7 $12.7 $16.5 $25.7 $10.9 $15.3

Salem $21.6 $25.0 $20.2 $20.2 $33.0 $14.4 $19.7

Totals $109.2 $140.6 $110.4 $127.0 $171.4 $96.7 $116.2

Percent Change 

from Current 29% 1% 16% 57% -11% 6%
739 | P a g e

References 

Adams, V., and D. M. Gaid. 2008. Federal Land Management and County Government: 1908–2008. A Report of the “Changing 

Federal County Payments Policy and Rural Oregon Counties: Impacts and Options” Project. Rural Studies Program 

Working Paper Series. Working Paper Number RSP 0804. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/12484/RSP-08-04.pdf?sequence=1. 

Association of O&C Counties (AOC). 2014. Conversations and data collected through the Association of O&C Counties with the 

help of Executive Director Rocky McVay. Multiple unpublished files. 

Babcock, L. 2014. Receipt distribution in western Oregon. BLM Eastern OR/WA (PD) Forestry Lead, Oregon State Office. 

Portland, OR. 

Balmford, A., A. Bruner, P. Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. Green, M. Jenkins, P. Jefferiss, V. Jessamy, J. Madded, K. 

Munro, N. Myers, S. Naeem, J. Paavola, M. Rayment, S. Rosendo, J. Roughgarden, K. Trumper, and K. Turner. 2002. 

Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950–953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1073947. 

Barnard, J. 2014. Why redwood burl poaching is so destructive. The Christian Science Monitor. 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2014/0305/Why-redwood-burl-poaching-is-so-destructive. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2014. Regional Economic Accounts – Tables CA04, SA05, SA05N, SA27, and SA27N. 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. Accessed on April 25, 2013 and August 7, 2014. 

Behrer, A. P. 2010. Building in the mountains: A hedonic analysis of the value of degraded mountain views using GIS modeling. 

Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Harvard Environmental Economics Program, Cambridge, MA. 

Blatner, K. A., and S. Alexander. 1998. Recent price trends for non-timber forest products in the Pacific Northwest. Forest 

Products Journal 48(10): 28–44.

Bowker, J. M., A. E. Askew, H. K. Cordell, C. J. Betz, S. J. Zarnoch, and L. Seymour. 2012. Outdoor recreation participation in 

the United States—projections to 2060: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. General 

Technical Report SRS-160. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 34 pp. 

http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs160.pdf.

Bulte, E. H., and G. C. Van Kooten. 1999. Marginal valuation of charismatic species: Implications for conservation. 

Environmental and Resource Economics 14(1): 119–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008309816658. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2014. Regional Economic Accounts – Tables CA04, SA05, SA05N, SA27, and SA27N. 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. Accessed on April 25, 2013 and August 7, 2014. 

Business Oregon. 2014. http://www.oregon4biz.com/Publications/Distressed-List/. Accessed October 30, 2014. 

Carter, C. A., G. C. Rausser, and A. Smith. 2011. Commodity booms and busts. Annual Review of Resource Economics 3: 87–

118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.012809.104220. 

Corn, M. L. 2014. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified. Congressional Research Service RL31392. February 

20. www.crs.gov, http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501681/m1/1/high_res_d/RL31392_2014Dec10.pdf. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

December 10, 1997. Website: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. 

---. 2013. Principles and requirements for Federal investments in water resources. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/final_principles_and_requirements_march_2013.pdf. 

de la Torre, M. (Ed.). 2002. Assessing the values of cultural heritage. Research Report. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los 

Angeles, CA. 125 pp. http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/assessing.pdf. 

Diffendorfer, J. E., J. B. Loomis, L. Ries, K. Oberhauser, L. Lopez-Hoffman, D. Semmens, B. Semmens, B. Butterfield, K. 

Bagstad, J. Goldstein, R. Wiederholt, B. Mattsson, and W. E. Thogmartin. 2013. National valuation of monarch butterflies 

indicates an untapped potential for incentive-based conservation. Conservation Letters 7(3): 253–262. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12065. 

Draffan, G. 2006. Report on the floral greens industry. The Evergreen State College Labor Center, Olympia, WA. 

http://www.endgame.org/floral.pdf. 

Dümcke, C., and M. Gnedovsky. 2013. The social and economic value of cultural heritage: literature review. European Expert 

Network on Culture (EENC). http://addict.pt/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/EENC-CD%C3%BCmcke-MGnedovskyCultural-Heritage-Literature-Review-July-2013.pdf. 

Earth Economics. 2012. Nature’s value in the McKenzie Watershed: A rapid ecosystem service valuation. Prepared for the 

Eugene Water and Electric Board. Tacoma, WA. 

http://www.eartheconomics.org/FileLibrary/file/Reports/Earth%20Economics%20McKenzie%20Watershed%20rESV.pdf. 

ECONorthwest. 2015. Outdoor recreation scarcity and abundance in western Oregon: a spatial analysis. Prepared for the Bureau 

of Land Management Oregon and Washington. Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/recreation.php. 

Ericsson, G., J. Kindberg, and G. Bostedt. 2007. Willingness to pay (WTP) for wolverine Gulo gulo conservation. Wildlife 

Biology 13(Suppl. 2): 2–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2007)13[2:WTPWFW]2.0.CO;2. 

Farber, S. C., R. Costanza, and M. A. Wilson. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. 

Ecological Economics 41: 375–392. 

http://www.pdx.edu/sustainability/sites/www.pdx.edu.sustainability/files/media_assets/iss/fellow_publications/Farber_et_al.

pdf. 
740 | P a g e

Freeman, J., R. Madsen, and K. Hart. 2008. Statistical analysis of drinking water treatment plant costs, source water quality, and 

land cover characteristics. Trust for Public Land white paper.30 pp. 

http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/landwater_9_2008_whitepaper.pdf. 

Gale, C. B., C. E. Keegan III, E. C. Berg, J. Daniels, G. A. Christensen, C. B. Sorenson, T. A. Morgan, and P. Polzin. 2012. 

Oregon’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2008: Industry trends and impacts of the Great Recession through 

2010. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-868. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr868.pdf. 

Governor’s Task Force. 2009. Final report Federal forest payments and county services. January. 

http://library.state.or.us/repository/2009/200902270759325/governor.oregon.gov_Gov_docs_toffp_final_report_020309_am

_nobkmk.pdf. 

Grinspoon, E. and R. Phillips. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan–The First 15 Years [1994–2008]: Socioeconomic Status and Trends. 

Technical Paper R6-RPM-TP-02-2011. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 80 pp. 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/15yr-report/NWFP%20Socioeconomic%20Status%20and%20Trends%20-

%20WEB.pdf. 

Grinspoon, E., D. Jaworski, and R. Phillips. In press. Northwest Forest Plan–The First 20 Years [1994–2013]: Socioeconomic 

Monitoring. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 84 pp. 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report/20150511NWFP%20Soc%20Econ%20FinalFullReport.pdf. 

Hagen, D. A., J. W. Vincent, and P. G. Welle. 1992. Benefits of preserving old-growth forests and the spotted owl. Contemporary 

Policy Issues X(April 1992): 13–26 and Contemporary Economic Policy 10(2) 13–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-

7287.1992.tb00221.x. 

Hall, T. E., H. Heaton, and L. E. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: trends in activity 

participation. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-778. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Portland, OR.108 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr778.pdf.

Harris, C. C., W. McLaughlin, G. Brown, and D. R. Becker. 2000. Rural communities in the inland Northwest: an assessment of 

small communities in the interior and upper Columbia River basins. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-477. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr477.pdf. 

Haynes, R. W. 2008. Emergent lessons from a century of experience with Pacific Northwest timber markets. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-747. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr747.pdf. 

Haynes, R.W., D. M. Adams, R. J. Alig, P. J. Ince, J. Mills, and X. Zhou. 2007. The 2005 RPA timber assessment update. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-699.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 212 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr699/. 

Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. 2010. Technical Support Document: 

Social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866. Retrieved December 24, 2014, from 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf. 

---. 2013. Technical Support Document: Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under 

Executive Order 12866. Retrieved December 24, 2014, from 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatorimpact-analysis.pdf. 

---. 2015. Technical Support Document: Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under 

Executive Order 12866. Retrieved October 10, 2015, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scctsd-final-july-2015.pdf. 

Jepson, M., and L. L. Colburn. 2013. Development of social indicators of fishing community vulnerability and resilience in the 

U.S. southeast and northeast regions. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-129. 64 pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/councils/training/2014/r_h3_fishing_community_vulnerability.pdf. 

Johnson, D. 2009. Letter to Representative Arnie Roblan and County Duties and Services Required By Oregon Law. State of 

Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee. April 1, 2009. 

King, D. M., and M. J. Mazzotta. 2000. Ecosystem valuation. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and 

USDC National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). http://ecosystemvaluation.org. 

Krieger, D. 2001. Economic value of forest ecosystem services: a review. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C. 40 pp. 

http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esrm.465/2007/readings/ws_valuation.pdf. 

Krumenauer, G., and B. Turner. 2014. Employment projections by industry and occupations 2012–2022, Oregon and regional 

summary. Oregon Employment Department, April 2014. https://www.qualityinfo.org/. Electronic file accessed and 

downloaded November 21, 2014. 

Loomis, J. 2005.Updated outdoor recreation use values on national forests and other public lands. General Technical Report. 

PNW-GTR-658. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 34 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr658.pdf. 

Loomis, J., A. Edwards, and L. Richardson. 2014. Total economic value of threatened and endangered species. June 28, 2014. 

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/51cbef167896bb431f69c4a9/. 

Loomis, J., and A. González-Cabán. 1998. A willingness to pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire. 

Ecological Economics 25(3): 315–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00044-X. 
741 | P a g e

Loomis, J., and R. Walsh. 1997. Recreation economic decisions: comparing benefits and costs. 2nd ed. State College: Venture 

Publications. xxi + 440 pp. 

Loomis, J. B., and D. S. White. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological 

Economics 18(3): 197–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(96)00029-8. 

Malpezzi, S. 2002. Hedonic pricing models: a selective and applied review. Prepared for Housing Economics: Essays in Honor of 

Duncan Maclennan. The Center for Urban Land Economics Research. The University of Wisconsin. 45 pp. 

http://down.cenet.org.cn/upfile/49/20072137445140.pdf. 

Mapes, J. 2013a. Curry County, seeking to avoid state intervention, once again asks voters for tax hike. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/08/curry_county_seeking_to_avoid.html. August 20, 2013. 

Mapes, J. 2013b. Curry County voters one again reject property tax increase; state may now intervene. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/11/curry_county_property_tax_vote.html. November 5, 2013. 

Mapes, J. 2014a. Financially troubled Curry County to vote on whether to dump its full-time commission. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/04/financially_troubled_curry_cou.html. April 18, 2014. 

Martín-López, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. 

Conservation Biology 22(3): 624–635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00921.x. 

MIG, Inc. 2013. IMPLAN version 3 software and Oregon state package data set. Huntersville, NC. http://implan.com/. 

Mortenson, E. 2012a. Rural Oregon counties scramble as timber payments dry up, while critics say it’s time they paid for 

services. http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/03/oregon_timber_counties_scrambl.html. March 4, 2012. 

Mortenson, R. 2012b. Oregon’s hard-hit timber counties are ‘eating our seed corn’ as budget problems grind on. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/09/oregons_hard-hit_timber_counti.html. September 13, 2012. 

Moskowitz, K., and J. Talberth. 1998. The economic case against logging our national forests. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Forest 

Guardians. 

Muir, P. S., K. N. Norman, and K. G. Sikes. 2006. Quantity and value of commercial moss harvest from forests of the Pacific 

Northwest and Appalachian Regions of the U.S. The Bryologist 109(2): 197–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1639/0007-

2745(2006)109[197:QAVOCM]2.0.CO;2. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2013. Revised delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical 

Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and guidance on uses of the delineations of these areas. Bulletin No. 13-01. February 

28. Washington, D.C. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b-13-01.pdf. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). [No Date]. Threatened and Endangered Species. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/threatened_endangered_species.asp. 

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2009. Oregon’s forests: Some facts and figures. 3 pp. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/AboutODF/ForestryFactsFigures.pdf. 

---. 2014. Oregon Timber Harvest Data. https://data.oregon.gov/Natural-Resources/Oregon-Timber-Harvest-Data/2p6a-trc8. 

Oregon Employment Department (OED). 2014. Covered employment and wages by county, 2012. Salem, OR. 

https://www.qualityinfo.org/ed-ewind/?at=1&t1=0~4101000000~00~5~0000~00~00000~2015~03. Web database accessed 

February 29, 2016. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014. 2014 Final Draft Oregon Nonpoint Source Management Program 

Plan. Water Quality Division.77 pp. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/docs/2014NPSDraftPlan.pdf. 

---. [No Date]. Overview of the State of Oregon water quality rules and regulations for BLM Western Oregon RMP Revision 

Cooperating Agency Advisory Group. 

http://www.mediate.com/DSConsulting/docs/Overview%20of%20the%20State%20of%20Oregon%20Water%20Quality%2

0Rules%20and%20Regulations%20for%20the%20BLM%20Western%20Oregon%20RMP%20Revision%2011-8-2012.pdf. 

Oregon DEQ and USDI BLM. 2014. 2011 BLM and DEQ MOU. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/docs/USFSDEQMOU.pdf. 

Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). 2012. Forage lease rate calculation. Rangelands. Retrieved December 24, 2014 from 

http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/LW/Pages/rangeland.aspx. Archived at 

http://library.state.or.us/repository/2009/200903251626273/index.pdf.

Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI). 2012. The 2012 Forest Report: An economic assessment of Oregon’s forest and wood 

products manufacturing sector. Portland, OR. Data support provided by Dr. Dan Green of Economic Analysis Systems. 

Moscow, ID. http://library.state.or.us/repository/2012/201212110947192/. 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). 2011. Oregon Statewide Outdoor Recreation Resource/Facility Bulletin Final 

Report. A component of the 2013–2017 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/docs/scorp/2013-2018_SCORP/2013-2017-SCORP_App_B.pdf. 

Oregon Secretary of State. 2012. Counties Financial Condition Review, Report Number 2012. May 17, 2012. 

http://sos.oregon.gov/Documents/audits/full/2012/2012-17.pdf. 

---. 2014. Counties Financial Condition Review, Report Number 2014-19. September 2014. 

http://sos.oregon.gov/audits/Documents/2014-19.pdf. 

Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree Association. 2014. 2013 Tree Harvest. Facts at a glance. http://www.pnwcta.org/newsevents/facts-at-a-glance/. 

Pascual, U., and R. Muradian. 2010. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. Chapter 5 in The Economics 

of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB). http://www.teebweb.org/our-
742 | P a g e

publications/teeb-study-reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/, and http://doc.teebweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/D0-Chapter-5-The-economics-of-valuing-ecosystem-services-and-biodiversity.pdf. 

Pimentel, D., C. Wilson, C. McCullum, R. Huang, P. Dwen, J. Flack, Q. Tran, T. Saltman, and B. Cliff. 1997. Economic and 

environmental benefits of biodiversity. BioScience 47(11): 747–757. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1313097. 

Portland State University Population Research Center. 2014. Population Estimates. http://www.pdx.edu/prc/population-reportsestimates. 

Powe, N. A., G. D. Garrod, C. F. Brunsdon, and K. G. Willis. 1997. Using a geographic information system to estimate an 

hedonic price model of the benefits of woodland access. Forestry 70(2): 139–149. 

http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/content/70/2/139.full.pdf. 

Rasker, R., P. H. Gude, and M. Delorey. 2013. The effect of protected federal lands on economic prosperity in the nonmetropolitan west. The Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy 43(2): 110–122. http://www.jrapjournal.org/pastvolumes/2010/v43/v43_n2_a2_rasker_etal.pdf. 

Rubin, J., G. Helfand, and J. Loomis. 1991. A benefit-cost analysis of the northern spotted owl. Journal of Forestry (December 

1991): 25–29. 

Sarukhán, J., and A. Whyte (editors). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis / Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 

Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. 

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf. 

Schlosser, W., K. Blatner, and B. Zamora. 1992. Pacific Northwest forest lands potential for floral greenery production. 

Northwest Science 66(1): 44–55. 

https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/1599/v66%20p44%20Scholsser%20et%20al.PDF?sequence=

1&isAllowed=y. 

Schlosser, W., and K. Blatner. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: a 1992 survey of 

processors. Journal of Forestry 93(3): 31–36. 

Schlosser, W., and K. Blatner. 1997. Special forest products: An east-side perspective. In: Quigley, T., ed. 1997. Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-380. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 27 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr380.pdf. 

Snyder, R., R. Williams, and G. Peterson. 2003. Culture loss and sense of place in resource valuation: Economics, anthropology, 

and indigenous cultures. In: Jentoft, S., H. Minde, and R. Nilsen (eds.). Indigenous peoples: Resource management and 

global rights. pp. 107–123. Eburon Publishers, Delft, The Netherlands. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2003_williams_d002.pdf. 

Templeton, A. 2013. Voters in 3 Oregon counties reject public safety levies. Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB). 

http://www.opb.org/news/article/curry-county-rejects-public-safety-levy-in-early-results/. November 6, 2013. 

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MES). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends, Volume 1. 

Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press: Washington, 

Covelo, London. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Global.html. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Wild Salmon Center. 2012. Atlas of conservation values on Bureau of Land Management 

holdings in western Oregon. Oregon Explorer. http://oregonexplorer.info/landuse/AtlasofConservationValues. 

Thomas, M., and D. Schumann. 1993. Income opportunities in special forest products: Self-help suggestions for rural 

entrepreneurs. Agriculture Information Bulletin 666, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 203 pp. 

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/usda/agib666/aib666.pdf. 

Tuchman, T., and C. Davis. 2013. O&C Lands Report. Prepared for Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber. State of Oregon, Oregon 

Department of Forestry and Office of Governor John Kitzhaber. February 6, 2013. 94 pp. 

http://media.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/other/OCLandsReport.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table DP05. Generated by Joan Huston using American FactFinder, 

http://factfinder2.census.gov (May 2014). 

---. 2009. American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, DP05, 

S1901 and S1701.Generated by Joan Huston using American FactFinder, http://factfinder2.census.gov (May 2014). 

---. 2010. 2010 Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles and 2010 Census Summary File 1 Demographic Profile. 

https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html. 

---. 2011. American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, DP05, 

S1901 and S1701. Generated by Joan Huston using American FactFinder, http://factfinder2.census.gov (May 2014). 

---. 2012. American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, DP05, 

S1901 and S1701. Generated by Joan Huston using American FactFinder, http://factfinder2.census.gov (May 2014). 

---. 2013. OnTheMap Application. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program. http://onthemap.ces.census.gov. 

Generated by Clive Graham July 3, 2014. 

---. 2014. 2010 Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles and 2010 Census Summary File 1 Demographic Profile. 

https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html. 

---. 2014a. How poverty is calculated in the American Community Survey. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html. Accessed September 13, 2014. 

---. 2014b. State and County Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41071.html. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics .2015. American Time Use Survey. http://www.bls.gov/tus/
743 | P a g e

USDA FS. 2000. Water and the Forest Service. FS-660. USDA Forest Service, Policy Analysis, Washington, D.C. January 3, 

2000. 40 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/types/publication/field_pdf/water-forest-service-01-2000.pdf. 

---. 2005. The 2005 RPA timber assessment update. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-699.USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 212 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr699/. 

---. 2014a. Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool. Unpublished. Ecosystem Management Staff, Washington Office, Ft. 

Collins, CO. 

---. 2014b. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts/. 

---. 2015. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act website. http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts/. Accessed 

November 13, 2015. 

USDI. 2014. Payments in Lieu of Taxes website. http://www.doi.gov/pilt/index.cfm. Accessed July 25, 2014. 

USDI BLM. 2005. Land Use Planning Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1601-1.

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.54063.File.dat/

h1601-1.pdf. 

---. 2006. Southwest Oregon Interagency Biomass Utilization Strategy. Medford District BLM and Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest. Draft Report. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/files/Biomass.pdf. 

---. 2010. Woody Biomass and Energy. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/forests_and_woodland/biomass.html. 

---. 2011. Minimum SFP Price List. BLM Salem District, Salem, OR. 

---. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. USDI BLM, 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-westernoregon.pdf. 

---. 2013a. Economic methods for estimating nonmarket environmental values. BLM Socioeconomics Program Guidance. 

Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning. Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-131, Change 1. September 12, 

2013. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/IM_2013-

131__Ch1.print.html. 

---. 2013b. Appendix O: Economic Impact Analysis Methodology. Nevada and Northeast California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft 

LUPA/EIS. October. https://www.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/lup/21152/45037/48538/O_EconomicImpactMethods.pdf. 

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 

---. 2014a. Report on Community Listening Sessions for the Bureau of Land Management, Resource Management Plans for 

Western Oregon. January 9, 2014. 44 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/comm-listen-report.pdf. 

Accessed February 29, 2016. 

---. 2014b. O&C Counties historical information. http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/ctypayhistory.php. 

---. 2014c. New energy for America. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy.html. 

---. 2014d. Fact sheet on the BLM’s management of livestock grazing. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.print.html. 

---. 2014e. BLM and Forest Service announce 2014 grazing fee. January 31, 2014. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/january/NR_01_31_2014.html. 

---. 2014f. Recreation Management Information System. http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/viewresource.php?courseID=313. 

---. 2014g. Official payments made to counties. http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/ctypayments.php. 

---. 2014h. Timber Sale Information System (TSIS). Data provided by Mike Bechdolt (Senior Forester O&C, BLM, Washington, 

D.C. Office) on September 29, 2014. 

---. 2015. Official Secure Rural Schools Payments Made to Counties website. http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/ctypaypayments.php. 

Accessed November 13. 2015. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2013. ESA basics 40 Years of conserving endangered species. USFWS, Endangered 

Species Program. January. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf. 

USDI National Park Service (NPS). 2014. More Cultural Resources. Laws, Executive Orders, and Regulations. 

http://www.nps.gov/history/laws.htm. Retrieved December 24, 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Guidelines for preparing economic analyses. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf. 

Vaidya, K. 2012. Oregon’s demographic trends. Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, State of 

Oregon, December 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/Pp./demographic.aspx. Accessed November 20, 2014. 

White, E. M. 2010. Woody biomass for bioenergy and biofuels in the United States—a briefing paper. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-825. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 45 pp. 

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lulcd/Publicationsalpha_files/White_pnw_gtr825.pdf. 

White, E. M., D. B. Goodding, and D. J. Stynes. 2013. Estimation of national forest visitor spending averages from National 

Visitor Use Monitoring: round 2. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-883. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 65 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr883.pdf. 

White, E. M. 2014. Personal communication and unpublished data file for rounds 2 and 3 of NVUM. Oregon State University. 

Corvallis, OR. 

White, P. C. L., K.W. Gregory, P. J. Lindsey, and G. Richards. 1997. Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case 

study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biological Conservation 82(3): 345–354. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00036-0. 
744 | P a g e

World Resources Institute (WRI). [No Date]. Natural Infrastructure–Investing in forested landscapes for source water protection 

in the United States. Editors T. Gartner, J. Mulligan, R. Schmidt, and J. Gunn. In: Collaboration with Earth Economics and 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Washington, D.C. 140 pp. 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E44E2289436C7F3A273B24D3AD8CDE06?doi=10.1.1.405.2425

&rep=rep1&type=pdf. 

Zheng,Y. 2013a. Oregon lawmakers prepare for worst-case scenarios in near-broke timber counties. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/02/oregon_lawmakers_prepare_for_w.html. February 27, 2013. 

---. 2013b. Oregon House approves bill allowing state agencies to provide services to financially distressed timber counties. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/oregon_house_approves_bill_all.html. June 14, 2013. 

Zhou, X. 2013. Production, prices, employment, and trade in northwest forest industries, all quarters 2012. Resource Bulletin 

PNW-RB-265. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 163 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb265.pdf. 

Zhou, X., and D. Warren. 2012. Production, prices, employment and trade in northwest forest industries, all quarters 2011. 

Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-264. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb264.pdf. 
745 | P a g e

Soil Resources 

Key Points 

 All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would increase the acreage of detrimental soil disturbance 

from timber harvest, road construction, and fuels treatments by 13–29 percent of current amounts 

during the first decade. 

 The BLM would be able to reduce the acreage of detrimental soil disturbance from timber 

harvest, road construction, and fuels treatments through management practices that would limit 

initial compaction levels, remove existing or created compacted surfaces, and improve soil water 

and organic matter levels. 

 Detrimental soil disturbance from public motorized travel activities would be highest under the 

No Action alternative because the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not designate 

any areas as open for public motorized access. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

 The analysis includes corrections to data for Alternative A under Issue 1. Additional acres of 

detrimental soil disturbance were not totaled correctly in the Draft RMP/EIS analysis. 

 The analysis also includes updated data for Issue 2. The BLM revised road mileage calculations 

for all alternatives and the Proposed RMP based on reduced road miles when thinning forest 

stands. 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Soil quality is the innate capacity of any soil to function within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, 

to sustain plant and animal productivity, to maintain or enhance water and air quality, and to support 

ecosystem health. Land management practices most often reduce soil quality through declines in two 

ecosystem properties: site organic matter and soil porosity (Powers et al. 1990). 

In this analysis, the BLM evaluated reductions in soil quality based on acres of detrimental soil 

disturbance. Detrimental soil disturbance is created when the innate soil properties change and the 

inherent capacity to sustain growth of vegetation is reduced (Powers et al. 1998). Detrimental soil 

disturbance generally represents unacceptable erosion levels, organic matter loss, soil compaction, soil 

displacement, severe heating to seeds or microbes, or a combination of these due to the implementation of 

management actions. The BLM evaluated the acres of detrimental soil disturbance created as a result of 

several sources of management-directed changes (e.g., ground-based and cable yarding, heating of soil 

during burning, and compaction during fuel reduction operations) and the cumulative total of all sources 

as a decrease in the innate ability of a soil to function and provide ecosystem services. 

Evaluating soil quality is complicated by the diversity of soil properties that drive the functional 

processes, appraisal techniques, and soil uses (Page-Dumroese et al. 2000). This analysis evaluated a 

departure from soil quality using acres of detrimental soil disturbance rather than other measures such as 

changes to soil quality index or site index as discussed below. 

Amacher et al. (2007) introduced the Forest Inventory and Analysis program that measured a number of 

chemical and physical properties of soils in order to address specific questions about forest soil quality or 

health. This soil quality index integrated 19 measured physical and chemical properties of forest soils into 

a single number that could serve as the soil’s vital sign of overall soil quality. This effort monitors 
746 | P a g e

changes in forest soil properties with time, but this index requires specific data that is not available at this 

scale of analysis across the decision area. 

Site index class characterizes soil productivity by tree height growth over a set time. Across the decision 

area, there is a distinct differentiation between the high productivity soils in the north (predominately Site 

Classes 2 and 3) and the lower productivity soils in the south (predominately Site Classes 4 and 5). 

However, this traditional measure of soil productivity does not encompass the full spectrum of the 

functions that define soil quality as the measurement requires a more holistic method that defines growth 

as it relates to functional processes in the soil. 

For several aspects of this analysis, the BLM categorized the decision area into the coastal/north (the 

Salem, Coos Bay, and Eugene Districts, and the northern portion of the Roseburg District) and the 

interior/south (southern portion of the Roseburg District, the Medford District, and the Klamath Falls 

Field Office). This division represents a general divide in geology, soil conditions, and forest productivity 

within the planning area. 

Issue 1 

How would timber harvest under the alternatives affect soil quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Timber harvest causes detrimental soil disturbance most often from displacement of surface material and 

soil compaction during yarding activities. The extent of detrimental soil disturbance varies with the type 

of yarding method and the mitigation measures employed. 

The intensity, location, and extent of compaction differ under a variety of yarding systems. In this 

analysis, the BLM assumed that determining the proper design measures to reduce or eliminate adverse 

effects could not be applied at this level of analysis but can be determined at the project scale as specific 

site conditions would be known. Therefore, the different yarding methods in this analysis assumed to 

create detrimental soil disturbance were applied under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP according 

to the following surface area percentage within each harvest unit: 

 Ground-based – 35 percent 

 Cable – 12 percent 

 Aerial – 6 percent 

(Heilman et al. 1981, Fleming et al. 2006, Froehlich 1976, Han et al. 2009, Miller et al. 1989) 

Ground-based cutting and yarding systems have the greatest detrimental effects to soil. Ground-based 

equipment includes previous models of rubber-tired skidders and tracked dozer equipment in addition to 

the current type of cut-to-length harvesters, feller bunchers, multi-wheeled forwarders, and excavators or 

de-limbers. When soil moisture contents result in maximum compaction effects, cut-to-length and wholetree harvesting methods could cause a greater degree of soil compaction by needing an increased amount 

of designated skid trails across a harvest unit. Cut-to-length systems can cause less compaction in the 

center of the skid trail than whole tree harvesting especially when operators minimize compaction by 

placing heavy slash loads on skid trails before traversing a harvest unit. Whole-tree harvesting disturbs a 

larger area, sweeps slash from trails, and causes a high degree of compaction in the center of the track 

(Han et al. 2009). The extent of the equipment’s coverage across a harvest unit can vary from several 

well-spaced designated skid trails to, coverage over a moderate amount of a harvest unit with unlimited 

skid trails. Typically, compaction on steeper slopes does not occur where slope conditions exceed groundbased machine capabilities because this equipment cannot operate on steeper slopes. In contrast, on 
747 | P a g e

accessible slopes, repetitive tracking across the same skid trail causes the extent of compaction to go 

deeper into the soil until equilibrium between site conditions and loads exists. More mechanized groundbased yarding equipment in use today is capable of traversing more of each harvest unit, both in area and 

on steeper slopes. These changes have resulted in equipment operating on terrain in new ways with heavy 

and large mechanical systems, and operating in harvest units where previous equipment had been unable 

to travel. 

Cable yarding systems typically cause compaction at the landing area as well as within a harvest unit 

under cable corridors. Compacted areas stretch out like spokes from the landing or a road but are only as 

wide as the area of the sweeping tail end of a yarded log. Since there are many logs pulled to the landing 

along one yarding corridor, they create a compacted trail that ranges from 3 to 8 feet wide. 

For aerial yarding, most compaction is within the work areas adjacent to a harvest unit. These areas 

generally undergo rehabilitation after harvest or are incorporated into the road system. Compaction from 

yarding activities inside such harvest units is typically negligible. 

The BLM used available GIS data from the BLM Timber Sale Information System to determine the type 

of yarding system employed during timber harvest; this information provided an estimate of the levels of 

detrimental soil disturbance based on the assumed percentages listed above. The BLM used the final 

harvested acres from timber sale contracts from 1990 to 2012118 to characterize current levels of 

detrimental soil disturbance. Using these 22 years of timber harvest data provides a partial indication of 

the current amount of detrimental soil disturbance. Past management of timber stands also have evidence 

of compacted trails within them. Depending on the soil type, root interactions, water and temperature 

conditions, and wildlife effects (e.g., burrowing and tunneling), the length of time soils remain compacted 

would be decades (Froehlich and McNabb 1984). However, the BLM does not have sufficient 

information to quantify detrimental soil disturbance from these older timber harvests at this scale of 

analysis. That level of detail should occur at the project level analysis. 

The Woodstock model provided outputs on acres of each silvicultural system by alternative and the 

Proposed RMP for the first decade (see also Appendix C for more information). Districts provided 

estimates for projecting yarding methods based on past practices and projecting silvicultural systems 

under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP to estimate expected use of ground-based, cable, or aerial 

methods. The BLM only quantified the first decade of expected harvest for this analysis because yarding 

methods and equipment are subject to change and application of assumptions beyond the first decade 

would be speculative. 

In this analysis, the BLM calculated the amount of detrimental soil disturbance generated from each 

timber harvest method by multiplying the areal extent (acres) of that yarding method by the percentages 

listed above. 

Background 

Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are pressed together reducing the pore space between them 

and increasing the weight of solids per unit volume of soil (bulk density). Soil compaction occurs in 

response to pressure from above (e.g., from animals or equipment). Heavy equipment operates directly on 

forest soils with a high potential to affect soil quality negatively, especially soil bulk density, which 

would affect plant and tree growth (Labelle and Jaeger 2011). Soil compaction during harvesting 

generally occurs in the first few passes of the equipment, but compaction reaches a maximum within the 

 

118 2012 represents the most current year for which completed timber sale activity was available for analysis across 

the decision area. 
748 | P a g e

first ten passes (Han et al. 2006). Bustos and Egan (2011) noted that compaction is a function of mass, 

number of passes, and total mass transported per pass. Using existing skid trails and having a designated 

skid trail system are effective methods for reducing impacts to soils with high initial bulk densities as this 

can result in less change to soil structure (i.e., compaction) than soils with a low initial bulk density (Han 

et al. 2009). The risk for compaction is greatest when soils are wet (USDA NRCS 1996). Compaction is 

usually described as an increase in bulk density and results in plants having to increase their root strength 

in order to penetrate the soil for growth. 

Studies show that an increase of bulk density greater than 15 percent can have varied impacts to plant 

growth depending on soil texture, plant species, and competing vegetation (Tan et al. 2009). Powers et al.

(2005) found that soil compaction effects depended upon initial bulk density and type; vegetation growth 

declined on compacted clay soils but increased on sands. Page-Dumroese et al. (2006) determined that 

overall, initial soil bulk density determined the degree of severe compaction. As initial bulk density 

increased, the level of change decreased. Fine-textured soils often had the lowest initial bulk density but 

the largest increase after treatment with a majority of compaction occurring after a single pass by the 

equipment. Long-term soil productivity studies in North America measured similar patterns of a larger 

percent increase in bulk density on fine-textured soils (Williamson and Neilsen 2000). Landsberg et al. 

(2003) measured resistance to penetration in 4 steep units with residual skid trails from salvage logging 

about 70 years earlier and the skid trails averaged more than elsewhere in the units. Page-Dumroese et al.

(2006) noted some bulk density recovery after 5 years on coarse-textured soils in the surface soil (0–10 

cm), but recovery was less in the subsoil (10–30 cm depth). Fine-textured soils such as silts and clays 

exhibited little recovery. 

In general, soil compaction that reduces water infiltration rates and large pore space for gas and water 

movement constitutes detrimental soil disturbance and can last decades (Froehlich and McNabb 1984, 

Cafferata 1992, Page-Dumroese et al. 2007). Compaction restricts rooting depth, which reduces the 

uptake of water and nutrients by vegetation. Compaction decreases the soil pore size that can absorb 

water and decreases soil temperature. Soil organisms respond to compaction by decreasing their soil 

organic matter decomposition, which then decreases their release of nutrients back into the soil. Smaller 

pore spaces decrease the infiltration of both water and air into soil, which can lead to runoff with a 

corresponding increase of water erosion risk or hazard. The degree of soil compaction depends on the 

type of equipment used, number of equipment passes over the same location, and site conditions such as 

soil texture, water content, and temperature (Tan et al. 2009). Powers et al. (1990) hypothesized that the 

two most important site disturbances that reduce forest productivity are soil compaction and organic 

matter removal. Richardson and Wulfsohn (2004) found the most important characteristics related to the 

fertility of a site are the organic matter in the forest floor as well as the upper mineral layer and soil 

porous structure. 

Soil compaction reduces tree growth, but the relationship between compaction and tree growth is complex 

and difficult to predict because it is dependent on many variables. For example, Miller et al. (1996) found 

a reduction in the early growth of seedlings planted on compacted skid trails compared to uncompacted 

locations; however, growth of most seedlings on compacted locations caught up to uncompacted locations 

after eight years. Tan et al. (2009) also found variable responses of three-year-old seedlings, depending 

on level of compaction, species, organic matter removal, and intensity of amelioration of compacted 

surfaces. Decreasing competition for site resources (e.g., water and nutrients) would offset severe 

compaction, and tree growth may not be affected (Sanchez et al. 2006). 

As cited in Richardson and Wulfsohn (2004), organic matter serves an important role in site fertility. 

Organic matter includes needle cast and leaf litter, limbs and boles of trees, and underground roots. Soil 

fertility from organic materials is another element that contributes to overall soil productivity. Leaving the 

finer materials, such as the needles or twigs, has been determined to contribute to soil productivity when 
749 | P a g e

removing the bole portion for processing (Farve and Napper 2009). Whole tree removal has been 

demonstrated to have impacts to soil productivity where nutrients are limited. However, implementation 

of forest management actions, including timber removal, fuel reduction, and biomass removal, have been 

found to protect soil productivity through reserving residual amounts of fine and down woody material 

(Farve and Napper 2009). Leaving a residual amount of cut material or redistributing fine materials or 

limbs without burning allows the decomposition processes an opportunity to work on those materials and 

return nutrients to the soil. This action allows a variety of soil microbes to exist and process materials as 

well as to increase water retention and provide resilience to the ecological system. 

A vast array of microbiotic organisms with potential to be affected by detrimental soil disturbance exists 

in the soil. Most of these organisms are the decomposers of organic matter, which return nutrients to the 

soil for use by plant roots or other organisms. However, little research exists on the effects of detrimental 

soil disturbance on microbiotic organisms other than the fungi and bacteria components. Most research on 

soil compaction in forests has focused on tree growth in skid trails or on tree growth response after 

amelioration treatment. Only recently did Shestak and Busse (2005) compare microbial composition, 

community size, activity, and diversity on compacted forest soils. They noted their results show tolerance 

or resilience by microbial communities. These authors suggest the reconfiguration of pores following 

compaction resulted in reduced total porosity and a near elimination of large pores, but an increase in 

habitable pore volume use by bacteria and fungi. Therefore, with the exception of poorly drained soils or 

for those regions receiving high annual precipitation where saturation is a concern, changes with 

compaction appear to be of little consequence to the microbial community. Previous studies have 

identified a variety of negative, neutral, and positive responses, yet there are few unifying concepts 

(Busse et al. 2006). 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Current levels of detrimental soil disturbance from past timber harvests include 29,564 acres in the 

decision area: 12,688 acres are in the coastal/north and 16,876 acres are in the interior/south (Figure 3-

139). The 29,564 acres of detrimental soil disturbance from past timber harvests constitute approximately 

1 percent of the decision area. 

Figure 3-139. Detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvest by yarding system, 1990–2012 

6,161

13,934

6,328

1,929

199

1,014

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

18,000

Coastal/North Interior/South

Soil Disturbance (Acres) 

Ground-based Cable Aerial
750 | P a g e

This acreage of detrimental soil disturbance constitutes 20 percent of the harvested acres in the decision 

area: 17 percent in the coastal/north and 23 percent in the interior/south. The interior/south has a higher 

percentage of detrimental soil disturbance on harvested acres because of the extensive use of groundbased yarding systems, which results in detrimental soil disturbance over a larger surface area within each 

harvest unit. 

In the first ten years, the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in approximately 12,380–

27,000 acres of detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvesting (Figure 3-140 and Table 3-207). 

Alternative C would result in the most acreage of detrimental soil disturbance (27,000 acres) followed by 

Alternative B (25,217 acres), the No Action alternative (24,172 acres), the Proposed RMP (23,505 acres), 

and Alternative D (21,742 acres). In contrast, Alternative A would result in substantially smaller acreage 

of detrimental soil disturbance compared to the other alternatives and the Proposed RMP (12,380 acres) 

(Table 3-207). The amount of detrimental soil disturbance largely reflects the total acreage of timber 

harvested and the associated yarding system. 

Figure 3-140. Detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvest by yarding system during the first decade 

9,672

5,810

11,357 11,607

9,834 10,991

13,250

5,729

12,082

13,562

10,490

10,901

1,250

841

1,778

1,831

1,418

1,613

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

24,000

28,000

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Detrimental Soil Disturbance (Acres)

Ground-based Cable Aerial
751 | P a g e

Table 3-207. Detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvest and by harvest method during the first decade for the coastal/north and 

interior/south 

* This acreage is derived from Figure 3-139 that only described detrimental soil disturbance from the years 1990–2012. 

† This number does not account for detrimental soil disturbance that is ameliorated over time. 

Detrimental Soil 

Disturbance

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Coastal/

North

(Acres)

Interior/

South 

(Acres)

Coastal/

North

(Acres)

Interior/

South

(Acres)

Coastal/

North

(Acres)

Interior/

South

(Acres)

Coastal/

North

(Acres)

Interior/

South

(Acres)

Coastal/

North

(Acres)

Interior/

South

(Acres)

Coastal/

North

(Acres)

Interior/

South

(Acres)

Ground-based 5,496 4,176 2,364 3,446 4,847 6,510 5,633 5,975 4,411 5,423 4,560 6,431

Cable 9,320 3,930 3,421 2,308 7,368 4,715 8,812 4,750 6,760 3,730 6,360 4,541

Aerial 777 473 361 479 676 1,102 873 958 580 839 595 1,018

Sub Totals 15,594 8,578 6,147 6,233 12,890 12,327 15,318 11,682 11,750 9,992 11,515 11,990

Alternative/

Proposed RMP Totals 24,172 12,380 25,217 27,000 21,742 23,505

Current Condition* 29,564 29,564 29,564 29,564 29,564 29,564

Totals†

53,736 41,944 54,781 56,564 51,306 53,069

Percentage of Current 

Condition 80% 42% 85% 91% 74% 80%
752 | P a g e

The detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvest modeled during the first decade under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in new disturbance levels ranging from 42–91 percent of 

the current levels of detrimental soil disturbance from past timber harvests (Table 3-207). As a result, the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, together with past timber harvest, would result in a cumulative total 

of detrimental soil disturbance ranging from 41,944 acres to 56,564 acres, which would account for about 

2 percent of the decision area. Each alternative and the Proposed RMP would result in detrimental soil 

disturbance averaging 15–16 percent of the total area as harvested by the three different systems in the 

first 10 years. These acres of detrimental soil disturbance do not account for disturbance that has been or 

would be ameliorated over time. 

The BLM would be able to ameliorate detrimental soil disturbance by reducing soil compaction after 

harvest in ground-based units, and the landing areas for other systems. However, the extent and 

effectiveness of such amelioration depends heavily on site-specific and project-specific factors. For 

example, past implementation of sub-soiling and placement of woody debris and organic matter in 

conjunction with planting or seeding of native soil surfaces has produced ecosystems that resemble the 

unaltered soil conditions; simple closure to traffic of a rocked surface does not. Because of the variability 

driven by site-specific conditions and amelioration systems employed, the BLM cannot quantify those 

reductions in detrimental soil disturbance in this analysis. 

Detrimental soil disturbance could result in some reduction of future tree growth. The BLM incorporated 

an assumption of 10 percent growth loss in the vegetation modeling of future stand growth over the length 

of the next rotation in stands with 20 percent detrimental soil disturbance levels. Management direction 

limits the increase of detrimental soil disturbance to 20 percent of any given treatment unit and includes 

all types of disturbances, including those resulting from treatments as well as new road and landing areas. 

All alternatives and the Proposed RMP, as analyzed, would increase the current level of detrimental soil 

disturbance by various percentages. Thus for some alternatives including the Proposed RMP, some 

mitigation of these impacts through the application of best management practices would be required. 

Currently, detrimental soil disturbance covers approximately six percent of the decision area. Raising that 

level by 20 percent would increase the detrimental soil disturbance to approximately seven percent of the 

decision area. Even then, there is only an expected reduction of growth from those areas in the future of 

10 percent. Therefore, the sustainability of all lands under the decision area remains at approximately 99 

percent of their current potential. However, at this scale of analysis and with the data available, it is not 

possible to quantify specifically the reduction in future tree growth from detrimental soil disturbance 

because the influence of site-specific and project-specific factors on the extent and intensity of 

detrimental soil disturbance is unknown. 

Issue 2 

How would road construction under the alternatives affect soil quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that both permanent and temporary road construction would result in 

detrimental soil disturbance. It is not possible to forecast in this analysis if a given road segment would be 

decommissioned and mitigate detrimental soil disturbance, or how long after decommissioning 

detrimental soil disturbance would continue. Therefore, this analysis assumed that all new road 

construction would result in detrimental soil disturbance even though eventual decommissioning might 

mitigate these soil effects for some roads. 

The BLM assumed that road construction would result on average in detrimental soil disturbance across a 

45-foot width from upper cutbank to the lower toe of fill. However, the BLM is typically able to construct 
753 | P a g e

forest roads to narrower widths, and the 45-foot width average represents an overstatement of these 

narrower road footprints. Because of modeling parameters, road construction modeled in Woodstock 

applied the 45-foot width assumption for all roads (Brian Thauland and Carolina Hooper, BLM, personal 

communication, July 2013). 

The BLM described the calculation of the mileage of road construction under each alternative and the 

Proposed RMP in the Trails and Travel Management section in this chapter. 

The BLM calculated the acreage of detrimental soil disturbance from road construction by multiplying the 

length of roads in feet by the 45-foot road width and converting the net square feet into acres. 

The Planning Criteria identified that this analysis would also address landings (USDI BLM 2014, p. 156). 

However, most of the landing area would be included in the road construction assumptions and is 

therefore not included here as a separate analysis. 

Background 

Road construction—by its very nature—removes the organic layer, cuts deep into the soil horizon, and 

produces a compacted surface. This results in detrimental soil disturbance, which decommissioning can 

potentially ameliorate. However, the effectiveness of decommissioning in reducing detrimental soil 

disturbance is not clear. Tan et al. (2009) note better growth on compacted sites with coarse sandy soils. 

Most of the decision area does not have coarse sandy soil types with the exception of some areas in the 

Medford District. 

As noted by Powers et al. (1990), soil compaction and organic matter removal are the two most important 

site disturbances caused by forest management practices. These have the largest potential to reduce forest 

productivity. Replenishing the organic matter and reducing the amount of compaction both within the 

depth of a road surface and across the surface are key factors to providing quality soils for future tree 

growth. Lloyd et al. (2013) describes the effectiveness of different road decommissioning techniques for 

rehabilitation of ecological and hydrological systems in densely roaded forest ecosystems. Their 

overarching hypothesis is that restoration designs that fail to address explicitly both aboveground and 

belowground ecosystem structure and function would result in recovery to an alternative state that has 

diminished ecological and hydrological functions relative to a forest where a road was never built. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are currently 14,416 miles of roads in the decision area. This constitutes a detrimental soil 

disturbance on 79,311 acres which is approximately 3 percent of the decision area. 

Over the first decade, Alternative C would have the largest acreage of detrimental soil disturbance from 

road construction (3,822 acres) while Alternative D would have the least (1,319 acres; Figure 3-141). 
754 | P a g e

Figure 3-141. Detrimental soil disturbance from road construction during the first decade 

3,484 

1,643 

2,899 

3,822 

1,319 

2,393 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Detrimental Soil Disturbance (Acres) 

The detrimental soil disturbance from road construction during the first decade under the alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP would constitute approximately 2–5 percent of the current detrimental soil disturbance 

from past road construction (Table 3-208). As a result, the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, together 

with past road construction, would result in a cumulative total of detrimental soil disturbance ranging 

from 80,630 to 83,133 acres. 

Table 3-208. Acres of cumulative detrimental soil disturbance from road construction during the first 

decade 

Detrimental Soil Disturbance 

From Road Construction

No Action

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP 

(Acres)

Current Condition 79,311 79,311 79,311 79,311 79,311 79,311

First Decade Construction 3,484 1,643 2,899 3,822 1,319 2,393

Totals 82,795 80,954 82,210 83,133 80,630 81,704

Construction Percentage of 

Current Condition 4.4% 2.1% 3.7% 4.8% 1.7% 3.0%

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, given the analytical assumptions, approximately 51–61 

percent of the new road construction would be permanent roads and 39–49 percent would be temporary 

roads (Table 3-209). Temporary roads include both native-surfaced and rock-surfaced roads. The BLM 

could potentially decommission these temporary roads to ameliorate detrimental soil disturbance. Lloyd 

et al. (2013) describes the effectiveness of different road decommissioning techniques, include removing 

rock, loosening the compacted sub-grade, replenishing some of the organic matter, and implementing 

erosion-control measures. By following those techniques found to be most successful, the BLM could 

potentially decommission temporary roads to ameliorate detrimental soil disturbance. In past project 

implementation, removing rock, loosening the compacted sub-grade, replenishing some of the organic 

matter, and implementing erosion-control measures have successfully established trees and protected the 

soil environment. On permanent roads, where roads are established using a hardened surface of gravel or 

pavement, the potential for decommissioning is lower, as the cost of decommissioning can be equal to or 
755 | P a g e

greater than the cost of construction. Under BLM terminology, permanent roads can be considered 

decommissioned when supporting infrastructure (e.g., remove culverts or cross-drains) is removed to 

close these roads from continued use. However, this level of decommissioning would retain the hard 

surface and compacted subsoil. As such, this level of decommissioning is not included in this soils 

analysis, as the roads would not be fully decommissioned to restore the soil environment. For the 

purposes of soil analysis in all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM only considers 

decommissioning of temporary roads to result in amelioration of detrimental soil disturbance to levels that 

successfully establish trees and protected the soil environment. 

Table 3-209. Acres of detrimental soil disturbance from road construction by road type during the first 

decade 

Detrimental Soil Disturbance 

by Road Construction Type

No Action

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP 

(Acres)

Permanent Roads 1,763 990 1,586 2,233 799 1,275

Temporary Roads 1,721 653 1,313 1,589 520 1,118

Totals 3,484 1,643 2,899 3,822 1,319 2,393

Percentage of Permanent Roads 51% 60% 55% 58% 61% 53%

Percentage of Temporary Roads 49% 40% 45% 42% 39% 47%

Given the vast size of the planning area and the complexity of road construction, not all temporary roads 

would undergo decommissioning adequate to ameliorate detrimental soil disturbance. However, 

temporary roads disturb less of the subsoil and have lower traffic volumes and so would be the most 

likely to be decommissioned. Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, decommissioning of 

temporary roads would provide some reduction in the acres of detrimental soil disturbance, but it is not 

possible at this scale of analysis with the data available to quantify this potential reduction in this 

analysis. 

Even if all newly constructed roads were permanent, the increased acreage of detrimental soil disturbance 

from new road construction in the first decade would range from 1.7–4.8 percent of the current total 

(Table 3-208). This would be an increase from the current condition of 3.2 percent of the decision area 

with detrimental soil disturbance from road construction, to 3.25–3.35 percent of the decision area after 

10 years depending on the alternative and the Proposed RMP. Detrimental soil disturbance could result in 

some reduction of future tree growth as described in Issue 1. The BLM incorporated an assumption of one 

percent growth loss in future stand growth for every two percent of detrimental soil disturbance created. 

The increase of detrimental soil disturbance due to roads is included in the 10 percent growth loss over 

the length of the next rotation, as it comprises part of the 20 percent detrimental soil disturbance levels. 

This represents a negligible increase in the acreage of detrimental soil disturbance from road construction. 

It also represents an overestimation as these numbers represent overstatements of road widths (45 feet) for 

many BLM roads. This analysis is also an overestimate because the BLM does not quantitatively account 

for potential reductions from road decommissioning. 

Issue 3 

How would fuel reduction treatments under the alternatives affect soil quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Fuel reduction treatments can result in detrimental soil disturbance through soil compaction, soil 

displacement, bare soil erosion, excessive soil heating, or the production of a thick mulch of chopped or 
756 | P a g e

chipped vegetation. The portion of treated areas experiencing detrimental soil disturbance varies by fuel 

reduction methods. 

In this analysis, the BLM grouped together fuel reduction treatments for activity fuels such as the slash 

remaining after timber harvest and for hazardous risk fuels not associated with timber harvest. This is a 

change from the discussion in the Planning Criteria, which presented separate issues for the effects of 

treatment of activity fuels and hazardous risk fuels (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 166–171). At this scale of 

analysis with the data available, treatments for activity fuels or hazardous risk fuels do not have a 

discernible difference in creating detrimental soil disturbance. 

This analysis evaluated fuel reduction treatments over a 22-year period. Fuel reduction by any method is 

temporary in nature as vegetation resprouts and needs retreatment in 5–15 years. In some instances, the 

type of fuel treatment changes from the removal of larger diameter trees to the reduction of understory 

shrubs or small diameter trees which increases the fuels component after overstory removals. 

The BLM derived the acreage of past fuel reduction treatments for activity fuels by querying the 

Mechpoly and Burnpoly corporate BLM data.119 The BLM used the Woodstock model outputs to obtain 

acreages for each alternative and the Proposed RMP for the six different silvicultural treatments of 

broadcast burns, hand piles, machine piles, landing piles, lop and scatter, and mastication during the first 

decade. 

The BLM derived the acreage of fuel reduction treatments for hazardous risk fuels by querying the district 

fuel specialists for the level of treatment in the past two decades. Then the BLM projected a decadal level 

of treatment. The BLM assumed in this analysis that the amount of fuel reduction treatments for 

hazardous risk fuels would be the same among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Based on 

management objectives and direction in the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM concluded that 

there is no basis for predicting a change in treatment of hazardous risk fuels from current and recent 

practices regardless of how other land management decisions would change. 

The BLM assumed the following detrimental soil disturbance would occur: 25 percent of areas treated 

with excavator machine piling, 35 percent of areas treated with heavy machinery mastication methods, 

and 5 percent of areas treated with broadcast burning. These estimations incorporate the number of times 

equipment travels across the units, the length of the boom on the equipment, the size of the piles, the 

material size to burn, and conclusions from previous publications and studies describing negative effects 

to the soil. 

In this scale of analysis, the BLM assumed that hand pile burning, landing pile burning, and lop and 

scatter methods of fuel reduction treatment would not result in measurable detrimental soil disturbance. 

Hand-piling material that is smaller in diameter and in smaller piles typically does not generate lethal soil 

temperatures. Landing piles can be large enough to generate lethal temperatures, but the area already has 

detrimental soil disturbance from road construction. The BLM has used two methods of lop and scatter: 

(1) manual labor to cut and disperse excess vegetation in the treated area and (2) mechanical grinders to 

cut and disperse excess material (Busse et al. 2014). Grinding equipment remains on existing roads 

limiting the potential for detrimental soil disturbance. Neither method would result in detrimental soil 

disturbance that would be measureable at this scale of analysis. 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that machine pile burning and broadcast burning have the potential to 

cause some detrimental soil disturbance, especially where concentration of slash would cause deep 

heating of the soil or where large wood would be allowed to smolder for long periods of time. However, 

 

119 These are two layers in the BLM’s corporate GIS database. As fuel reduction treatments are completed, 

specialists input the activity into these layers. However, these layers are not complete. 
757 | P a g e

these circumstances would constitute only a small portion of the broadcast burn area, and quick mop-up 

after burning would limit the scope and extent of any detrimental soil disturbance. For machine piling, the 

scattered nature of constructing piles is reliant on the level of fuel loading. Less fuel equals larger 

distances between piles and potentially less compaction and lethal temperatures during ignition of the 

piles. The burning of machine piles causes detrimental soil disturbance from both the soil compaction 

around the pile from the equipment and the heating of the soil beneath the center of the pile. 

Generally, mastication involves using mechanical equipment to grind cut vegetation and distributing 

treated material by spreading or blowing it out on the ground (Busse et al., 2014). For mastication of 

fuels, the BLM assumed that most machines would be mobile across the treatment area. The impact to the 

soil resources would come from compaction, displacement, and some concentration of chipped material 

deeper than three inches. The BLM has employed boom excavators and horizontal bar type machines that 

need to traverse most of the unit for mastication. Grinding of heavy fuel loads has previously built up 

chipped material that impedes plant growth. 

The Planning Criteria provides more discussion of the analytical methods for detrimental soil disturbance 

from prescribed burning and is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 157–161). 

Background 

Prescribed fire can heat the soil to a lethal temperature that kills the microbes, which process organic 

matter in the soil to provide nutrients to growing vegetation. These same organisms connect roots and 

soil, which provide additional water and increase water uptake for plants. Inadequately populated soils 

that lack diverse bacterial and fungi communities demonstrate reduced growing capacity and function 

which would result in less vegetative growth. 

The effects of prescribed burning on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties depend on specific 

properties or species. Threshold temperatures classed by Busse et al. (2014) for soil physical, chemical, 

and biological properties fall into low, moderate, or high classes. Mortality of bacteria or fungi 

components, as well as seeds and fine roots of plants within the soil, occurs in the low class between 100 

°F and 300 °F. Most soil structure and organic matter changes occur in the moderate class, between 390 

°F and 930 °F. The high class is where nutrient volatilization proceeds and occurs between 700 °F and 

2,700 °F. The lethal threshold for roots is approximately 140 °F, while that of many soil organisms is 

between 122 °F and 392 °F. 

Chemical and biological effects to soils from prescribed burning include oxidation of surface and soil 

organic material, changes in nutrient availability and pool size, changes in pH, and lethal heating to biota 

and fine roots. Soil properties most indicative of detrimental changes differ between fuel reduction 

practices, making comparisons among treatment types problematic. 

Soil heating is a particular concern given anticipated changes to soil nutrient content and availability, 

microbial composition and function, soil carbon content, soil mineralogy, water repellency, and 

infiltration following severe burning (Neary et al. 2005). Busse et al. (2013) determined that, regardless 

of pile size or fuel composition, the soil heat pulse during burning was quenched rapidly with soil depth. 

The greatest soil heating occurred in the surface 4 inches, whereas benign temperatures registered at the 

12-inch depth; mean maximum values were 104 °F for slash piles and 167 °F for woodpiles. Soil 

moisture plays a key role in heating dynamics, particularly when burning natural fuels or scattering slash. 

Heat penetration is substantially lower in moist soil than in dry soil due to the additional energy required 

to heat water (Busse et al. 2010). 
758 | P a g e

Soils in the interior/south are generally lower in organic matter and nutrients and are more susceptible to 

degradation by prescribed burning than soils in the coastal/north. Detrimental soil disturbance from 

prescribed burning is particularly severe with machine piling because piled fuel concentrates heat in the 

center of the pile and equipment use compacts the soil around the pile. Smaller hand piles or the use of 

broadcast burning generally results in less detrimental soil disturbance than machine piling. 

Mastication occurs with various types of equipment, including wheeled or tracked equipment, equipment 

with a rotary head attached to a boom, and equipment with the rotary mechanism attached directly to the 

front of the equipment. Boom-mounted masticators can reach areas such as deep ditches and steep 

embankments and can treat more area with less compaction than machines with the rotary mechanism on 

the front of the machine (Ryans and Cormier 1994). Tracked equipment can work on steeper slopes and 

softer soils than wheeled equipment. Mastication would cause some soil compaction and displacement 

depending on the type of equipment, soil conditions and type, operator experience, and stand conditions. 

Limiting masticators to designated skid trails or using low-ground-pressure equipment can reduce the 

extent and intensity of physical soil disturbance (Busse et al. 2014). Most mastication fuels treatments are 

fundamentally different from ground-based harvest yarding systems in which yarding concentrates traffic 

to skid trails that receive multiple passes. Most masticators track over broad areas to treat fuels, especially 

if using a horizontal fixed bar design. Boom-mounted masticators are more similar to ground-based 

yarding; for this type of mastication treatment, confining the equipment to skid trails, operating on a deep 

slash mat, and using low ground pressure equipment reduces or avoids detrimental soil disturbance. 

Mastication produces a coating of cut vegetation debris across the forest floor. Because the resulting 

debris is unlike the natural forest floor in terms of particle size, composition, bulk density, and moisture 

regime, there are few direct comparisons to natural wildland systems or processes. Due to the limited 

number of studies of mastication impacts on soil resources within the planning area, it is difficult to 

interpret long-term ecological consequences. Short-term studies published in the last 5 years have found 

few detrimental effects, but the majority of these studies are conducted on sandy soils in California and 

juniper woodland vegetation types in Colorado. Those soils do not compact in the same manner as claytextured soils in the planning area. Most short-term impacts center on compaction, mycorrhizal 

reductions, and nutrient loss or tie up, but long-term consequences or indirect effects from mastication 

remain largely unstudied (Busse et al. 2014). These same studies caution that results are very site-specific 

and taking the results to other treatment areas needs to be conducted with caution. More research is 

needed to understand the variability across landscapes. Thus, the BLM has cautiously assumed that 

mastication will affect soil resources in a manner similar to timber harvesting with mechanical type 

systems. 

Mastication can substantially modify soil temperature and moisture regimes by creating mulch that 

insulates the soil and traps moisture at the soil surface. This mulch would keep soils cooler in the summer 

and warmer in the late fall and early winter. The extent that cut vegetation debris is incorporated into the 

soil during mastication determines the degree that soil temperature changes and water content increases. 

Masticated debris can act as a barrier against both water infiltration into the soil and evaporative losses 

from the soil. 

Reducing fuels through mastication has limited short-term effects on soil microbial communities, largely 

because of the insulating and buffering effect of the cut vegetation debris. Mastication removes 

vegetation, which opens treated areas to the sun, but the resultant mulch reduces soil drying. Studies of 

mastication treatments in pinyon-juniper woodlands did not find differences in abundance, species 

richness, or community composition of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi 2.5 years after treatment (Busse et 

al. 2014). 
759 | P a g e

Mastication would reduce soil nitrogen availability. Mulch is generally low in nitrogen and high in 

carbon. After the addition of mulch to the soil, microbes will use inorganic nitrogen from the soil in order 

to decompose the added carbon-rich material. Under such circumstances, this nitrogen immobilization 

could temporarily reduce the amount of soil nitrogen available for plant growth. While such effects on 

soil nitrogen are possible, few studies have examined nitrogen transformations and dynamics following 

mastication. The depth of mulch influences the effect of these treatments on plant-available nitrogen. 

Ryan et al. (2011) found that patchy mulch 0.5–1.5” thick had no negative impact on soil nitrogen at the 

stand level, but uniform mulch 3–6” thick had substantial effects on soil nitrogen. While the depth of the 

mulch layer was not identified, in a comparison of fuel treatments in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 

commercial thinning followed by mastication did not significantly alter available nitrogen or net 

nitrification rates 2 years after treatment as compared to untreated control stands (Moghaddas and 

Stephens 2007). The soil moisture content of the study area is drastically less than the coastal/north 

portion of the decision area, and the microbial processes would not come into equilibrium in the same 

manner of the studies. 

A study conducted from 2003 to 2008 on the southeastern edge of the Klamath Mountains in northern 

California found that mastication and burning treatments did not significantly alter any overall 

community composition and species richness of mycorrhizal fungi (Southworth and Gibson 2010). In 

addition, mechanical mastication followed by burning did not significantly change soil nutrients at the 

depth of fine roots and mycorrhizal fungi, and soil nutrient composition did not vary among treatments. 

Reduction in the fruiting bodies of truffles did occur if the masticated fuels were burned. This study area 

comes closest to soil and weather conditions found in the interior/south portion of the decision area. 

Limited research in this area—particularly on clay-textured soils that are well-drained—makes it difficult 

to determine that similar results would occur in the decision area, particularly in the coastal/north area. 

Fuel reduction through biomass removal can remove both carbon and nutrients. Long-term productivity 

can be reduced by removing these materials, particularly where soils are previously low in these nutrients 

(Poggiani et al. 1983, Swank and Reynolds 1986). The risk of reduction in soil quality due to nutrient loss 

is largest in the areas of lower productivity in the interior/south. Removal of material to meet hazard 

reduction goals may conflict with long-term site productivity. 

Under the 1995 RMPs, the BLM placed greater emphasis on removing hazardous fuels in the 

interior/south than in the coastal/north (Table 3-210). Fuel reduction for hazard risk included removal of 

material along roadsides and pulling material into treated harvest units, which the BLM may not have 

recorded as fuel reduction treatments. Many areas recorded as burn treatments do not reflect in the totals 

as hazardous fuels reduced.
760 | P a g e

Table 3-210. Fuel treatments by method, 2003–2012 

Fuels Treatment

Coastal/North Interior/South

Totals 

(Acres)

Activity 

Fuel 

(Acres)

Hazardous 

Risk Fuel

(Acres)

Total 

Area 

Treated 

(Acres)

Activity 

Fuel 

(Acres)

Hazardous 

Risk Fuel 

(Acres)

Total 

Area 

Treated 

(Acres)

Underburn/Broadcast Burn 81,142 2,725 83,867 57,095 33,053 90,148 174,015

Machine Pile and Burn 310 16,690 17,000 33,976 25,018 58,994 75,994

Mastication - 2,773 2,773 - 5,359 5,359 8,132

Total Treatment Acres 81,452 22,188 103,640 91,071 63,430 154,501 258,141

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Fuel treatments over the past 20 years have potentially resulted in detrimental soil disturbance on 30,424 

acres in the decision area: 9,292 acres in the coastal/north, and 21,132 acres in the interior/south (Table 3-

211).

Table 3-211. Detrimental soil disturbance from fuel treatments by method, 2003–2012 

Fuels Treatment Coastal/North

(Acres)

Interior/South

(Acres)

Totals

(Acres)

Underburn/Broadcast Burn 4,071 4,507 8,578

Machine Pile and Burn 4,250 14,749 18,999

Mastication 971 1,876 2,847

Totals 9,292 21,132 30,424

For each alternative and the Proposed RMP, the total detrimental soil disturbance acres from treatment 

disturbance ranges from approximately 4,400–10,100 acres (Figure 3-142). This acreage ranges from 5 to 

7 percent of the acres treated in each of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Alternative C would 

result in the largest amount of detrimental soil disturbance from fuel treatments (10,139 acres), and 

Alternative D would result in the least (4,346 acres). Alternative A (4,410 acres), the No Action 

alternative (5,330 acres), the Proposed RMP (5,665 acres), and Alternative B (6,055 acres) would result in 

only slightly more detrimental soil disturbance from fuel treatments than Alternative D and substantially 

less than Alternative C. 
761 | P a g e

Figure 3-142. Detrimental soil disturbance from fuel treatments during the first decade 

The detrimental soil disturbance from fuel treatments during the first decade under the alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP would be approximately 14–33 percent (Table 3-212) of the current detrimental soil 

disturbance from past fuel treatments. As a result, the alternatives and the Proposed RMP summed with 

past fuel treatments would result in a cumulative total of detrimental soil disturbance ranging from 34,770 

acres to 40,563 acres. 

Table 3-212. Detrimental soil disturbance from fuels treatments compared to the current condition 

3,489 

1,674 

3,252 

4,307 

2,575 2,878 

1,311 

1,810 

1,816 

4,005 

1,136 

1,906 

530

926 

987 

1,827 

635 

881 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

 Detrimental Soild Disturbance (Acres) 

Machine Pile Mastication Under Burn

Detrimental Soil Disturbance 

From Fuel Reduction Treatments

No Action

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP 

(Acres)

Current Condition 30,424 30,424 30,424 30,424 30,424 30,424

Fuels Reduction Treatments 5,330 4,410 6,055 10,139 4,346 5,665

Totals 35,754 34,834 36,479 40,563 34,770 36,089

Percentage of Current Condition 18% 14% 20% 33% 14% 19%

There are differences among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP based on the method of treatment 

that would produce different detrimental effects. Except Alternative A, machine piling would be the 

largest contributor to detrimental soil disturbance (Figure 3-142) in the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP. Mastication is the largest contributor to detrimental soil disturbance in Alternative A. Where 

machine piling occurs, there would be compaction that would reduce seedling growth or impede 

vegetative cover of native plants. Where soil temperature is elevated above lethal temperatures, there 

would be loss of microbial activity and reduced soil attachment to roots that improve growth. If 

masticated materials accumulate in layers greater than 3 inches, the mulch layer would impede 

evaporation, water infiltration, and solar heating. The effect on seedling growth could be negative or 
762 | P a g e

positive depending on site and soil particulars. Across the 2.5 million acre decision area, the total number 

of treated acres would range from 5,330 to 10,139 acres. This increased level of detrimental soil 

disturbance would reflect a 10 percent reduction of growth on less than half of one percent of the decision 

area, which constitutes an insignificant loss under any alternative. 

Issue 4 

How would public motorized travel activity under the alternatives affect soil quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that areas designated as open for public motorized access would 

experience detrimental soil disturbance. Areas designated as closed would not experience detrimental soil 

disturbance because the BLM would not permit public motorized travel activities. Areas designated as 

limited would not experience measurable additional detrimental soil disturbance because the BLM would 

limit public motorized travel activities to existing or designated roads and trails, which have already 

experienced detrimental soil disturbance through the construction of the roads or trails. Until the BLM 

completes route designations through implementation-level travel management planning (TMP), the BLM 

cannot identify which routes would be designated in any alternative and the Proposed RMP. Therefore, 

the BLM cannot quantify these more site-specific effects in this analysis, and the BLM would address 

these effects as part of the analysis supporting implementation-level TMP decisions. 

Although the BLM has some site-specific and anecdotal information about illegal public motorized travel 

activities, the BLM does not have a basis for predicting the location or effects of any widespread or 

systematic illegal public motorized travel activities. In addition, much of the decision area has physical 

limitations to potential illegal public motorized travel activities, including dense vegetation, steep slopes, 

and locked gates. Terrain, vegetation, and a greater amount of open spaces in most of the interior/south 

can lead to degradation and erosion in a greater proportion than the coastal/north where vegetation is 

denser and terrain is steeper. However, the BLM lacks a basis for characterizing current illegal public 

motorized travel activities or forecasting potential illegal public motorized travel activities in the future 

under any of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP at this scale of analysis. In this analysis, the BLM 

assumed that members of the public participating in motorized travel recreation would operate vehicles 

consistent with BLM decisions about public motorized travel opportunities (see the Trails and Travel 

Management section of this chapter). 

Background 

Public motorized travel activities can cause detrimental soil disturbance as vehicle traffic compacts or 

displaces soil (Ouren et al. 2007). The effects can vary based on the type of vehicle. Vehicles include 

two-wheel and four-wheel all-terrain vehicles, large four-wheel-drive trucks, sport utility vehicles, and 

any other vehicle capable of off-road travel. Depending on the type of soil, there will be different effects. 

Relatively uniform sandy or clay soils are less vulnerable to compaction than loamy sands or coarsetextured, gravelly soils characterized by variability in particle size (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). In 

addition, soils capable of holding greater water content are more susceptible to compaction than soils 

containing less moisture (Webb 1982). However, even soils in semi-arid and arid lands experience 

compaction because the texture of these soils is slow to recover through natural soil-loosening processes, 

including shrinking, swelling, drying, wetting, freezing, and thawing (Webb 1982). 

Public motorized travel activities can cause soil erosion, which occurs when fine-grained particles blow 

off in the wind or wash off due to precipitation on an unprotected surface. The removal of the top layers 

of soil, particularly the organic matter, degrades the potential for soil function. The result can range from 
763 | P a g e

barren surfaces or very deep gullies depending on soil type, slope gradient, and amount of exposure to 

precipitation.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action alternative, approximately 63,500 acres of the decision area would remain 

designated as closed for public motorized access, and approximately 319,600 acres would remain

designated as open for public motorized access (see Trails and Travel Management Table 3-218 in this 

chapter). The BLM would designate the remaining 84.4 percent as limited for public motorized access. 

Detrimental soil disturbance has occurred, and would continue to occur, on some portion of the 319,600 

acres designated as open for public motorized access. It is not possible for the BLM to determine at this 

scale of analysis with current data the extent of the 319,600 acres of open for public motorized access that 

are actually experiencing detrimental soil disturbance or would experience detrimental soil disturbance in 

the future. However, within areas designated as open for public motorized access, such effects would

occur throughout the open area without future analysis or decision-making by the BLM.

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, there would be no areas designated as open for 

public motorized access. Compared to the No Action alternative, this would curtail potential detrimental 

soil disturbance on over 319,400 acres or 13 percent of the decision area currently designated as open. 

The BLM would designate the entirety of the decision area as closed for public motorized access or 

limited for public motorized access. While public motorized vehicle use for recreational purposes is 

expected to increase as opportunities and demand increase (see Recreation and Visitor Services in this 

chapter), additional detrimental soil disturbance from public motorized travel on roads and trails would 

not be expected under the action alternatives or Proposed RMP from increased use. The BLM assumes 

that limited designations would confine continued public motorized travel activities to proposed, existing,

or designated roads and trails, which would have already experienced detrimental soil disturbance through 

the construction of the roads or trails. As such, there would be no additional detrimental soil disturbance 

from public motorized travel activities measurable at this scale of analysis with the data available under 

any of the action alternatives or the Proposed RMP.

Until the BLM completes route designations through implementation-level TMPs, the BLM cannot 

identify specific routes designated in any alternative or the Proposed RMP. Therefore, the BLM cannot 

quantify these more site-specific effects in this analysis, and the BLM would address these effects as part 

of the analysis supporting implementation-level TMP decisions.

Issue 5

How would the combination of timber harvest, road construction, and fuel reduction treatments120 under 

the alternatives affect soil quality?

Summary of Analytical Methods

In this analysis, the BLM combined the individual levels of detrimental soil disturbance from timber 

harvest, road construction, and fuel reduction treatments. For the purposes of this analysis, the BLM 

considered all acres of detrimental soil disturbance to be equal: acres of detrimental soil disturbance from 

timber harvest are equivalent to those from road construction or fuel reduction treatments. There are 

 

120 The BLM is unable to measure detrimental soil disturbance from public motorized travel activities with the data 

currently available at this scale of analysis (see Issue 4). Therefore, the BLM did not combine detrimental soil 

disturbance from public motorized travel activities with these other sources because no quantifiable metric is 

presently available.
764 | P a g e

differences in how detrimental soil disturbance from different management actions would affect soil 

quality. However, it is not possible to distinguish quantitatively these differences in detrimental soil 

disturbance at this scale of analysis with the data currently available. In addition, there would likely be 

some overlap in the acres of detrimental soil disturbance from these three sources (i.e., the same location 

within a harvest unit would experience detrimental soil disturbance from the ground-based yarding 

equipment during harvesting and from machine piling and burning during fuels treatment). However, it is 

not possible at this scale of analysis to separate the acres of detrimental soil disturbance from each source 

and identify overlapping acres. Therefore, these estimates overestimate the acres of detrimental soil 

disturbance in part because of the overlapping acres. 

The BLM compared the combined amount of detrimental soil disturbance to a threshold of 20 percent of 

areas treated. The BLM derived this analytical threshold in part from a U.S. Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Region standard in which overall soil quality is considered negatively impacted and 

amelioration must ensue when detrimental soil disturbance exceeds 15 percent of an area treated (USDA 

FS 2010). However, this 15 percent standard does not account for road construction. The BLM increased 

this analytical threshold from 15 percent to 20 percent to account for detrimental soil disturbance from 

road construction. This 20 percent threshold only provides an approximate analytical threshold at this 

scale of analysis. Comparing the amount of detrimental soil disturbance as a percentage of total area 

treated across the decision area over 10 years to this 20 percent analytical threshold provides only limited 

and approximate information. This estimated percentage does not reveal whether or not any particular site 

or treatment area would exceed this 20 percent threshold. The relevant scale for evaluating detrimental 

soil disturbance and determining the need for mitigation or amelioration is at the site scale such as an 

individual timber harvest unit or individual treatment area. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Currently, 139,299 acres in the decision area have experienced detrimental soil disturbance from past 

timber harvest, road construction, and fuel reduction treatments (Table 3-213).

Table 3-213. Detrimental soil disturbance from all sources, by the current condition and during the first 

decade 

Management Action

Current

Condition 

(Acres)

No 

Action

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Fuels Treatments 30,424 5,330 4,410 6,055 10,139 4,346 5,665

Road Construction 79,311 3,484 1,643 2,899 3,822 1,319 2,393

Timber Harvest 29,564 24,172 12,380 25,217 27,000 21,742 23,505

Totals 139,299 32,986 18,433 34,171 40,961 27,407 31,563

Total Combined with 

Current Condition - 172,285 157,732 173,470 180,260 166,706 170,862

Percentage of Current 

Condition 24% 13% 25% 29% 20% 23%

Through the first decade, the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would increase detrimental soil 

disturbance amounts by 13–29 percent of current amounts. Alternative C would result in the largest 

combined increase in detrimental soil disturbance (40,961 acres), with decreasing acreages in Alternative 

B (34,171 acres), No Action (32,986 acres), the Proposed RMP (31,563 acres), and Alternative D (27,407 

acres). Alternative A would result in the smallest combined increase in detrimental soil disturbance 

(18,433 acres). 
765 | Page

Timber harvest activities are the largest source of detrimental soil disturbance under the alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP. New road construction based on silvicultural management would be low under all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP as most of the required transportation system is currently in place. 

Fuels treatments for both the disposal of harvest waste and fire risk reduction activities under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would use less of the treatment methods likely to result in detrimental 

soil disturbance than in the past. The expected treatments employ more hand piling or scattering, more 

landing burning, and less mastication or machine piling acres. 

As noted in the issues above, the BLM would be able to reduce the acreage of detrimental soil disturbance 

from timber harvest, road construction, and fuel reduction treatments through management practices that 

would limit initial compaction levels, remove existing or created compacted surfaces, and improve soil 

water and organic matter levels. The BLM would apply the best management practices listed and 

described in Appendix I as necessary to limit the overall detrimental soil disturbance to 20 percent or 

less. However, because the extent and effectiveness of such mitigation or amelioration depends heavily on 

site-specific and project-specific factors, the BLM cannot quantify those reductions in detrimental soil 

disturbance in this analysis. Management direction limits the increase of detrimental soil disturbance to 

20 percent of any given treatment unit and includes all types of disturbances, including those resulting 

from treatments as well as new road and landing areas. All alternatives and the Proposed RMP, as 

analyzed, would increase the current level of detrimental soil disturbance by various percentages. Thus 

for some alternatives including the Proposed RMP, some mitigation of these impacts through the 

application of best management practices would be required. Currently the detrimental soil disturbance 

covers approximately six percent of the decision area. Raising that level by 20 percent would increase the 

detrimental soil disturbance to approximately seven percent of the decision area. Even then, there is only 

an expected reduction of growth from those areas in the future of 10 percent. Therefore, the sustainability 

of all lands under the decision area remains at approximately 99 percent of their current potential. 

Appendix J
766 | P a g e

References 

Amacher, M. C., K. P. O’Neil, and C. H. Perry. 2007. Soil vital signs: A new Soil Quality Index (SQI) for assessing forest soil 

health. Research Paper RMRS-RP-65WWW. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

12 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp065.pdf. 

Busse, M. D., S. E. Beattie, R. F. Powers, F. G. Sanchez, and A. E. Tiarks. 2006. Microbial community responses in forest 

mineral soil to competition, organic matter removal and vegetation control. Can. J. For. Res. 36(3): 577–588. 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_busse001.pdf. 

Busse, M. D., C. J. Shestak, K. R. Hubbert, and E. E. Knapp. 2010. Soil physical properties regulate lethal heating during burning 

of woody residues. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74(3): 947–955. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/SSSAJ2009.0322. 

Busse, M. D., C. J. Shestak, and K. R. Hubbert. 2013. Soil heating during burning of forest slash piles and wood piles. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 22(6): 786–796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF12179. 

Busse, M. D., K. R. Hubbert, and E. E. Y. Moghaddas. 2014. Fuel reduction practices and their effects on soil quality. General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-241.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. 156 pp. 

https://www.firescience.gov/projects/08-2-1-14/project/08-2-1-14_Soils_Synthesis.pdf. 

Bustos, O., and A. Egan. 2011. A comparison of soil compaction associated with four ground-based harvesting systems. 

ProQuest Earth Science Collection, Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 28(4): 194–198. 

Cafferata, P. 1992. Soil compaction research. In: Skaugset, A., editor, Forest soils and riparian zone management–the 

contributions of Dr. Henry A. Froehlich to forestry. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. pp. 8–22. 

Coulter, E. D., K. Coulter, and T. Mason. 2002. Dry forest mechanized fuels treatment trials project. Final Report to the USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest and Intermountain Regions. 

https://secure.hosting.vt.edu/www.cofe.frec.vt.edu/documents/2002/COFE_2002_DodsonCoulter_et_al.pdf. 

Farve, R., and C. Napper. 2009. Biomass fuels and whole tree harvesting impacts on soil productivity–Review of literature. 

USDA Forest Service, National Technology & Development Program, San Dimas, CA. 66 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/td/pubs/pdf/hi_res/09201803hi.pdf. 

Fleming, R. L., R. F. Powers, N. W. Foster, J. M. Kranabetter, D. A. Scott, F. Ponder, Jr., S. Berch, W. K. Chapman, R. D. 

Kabzems, K. H. Ludovici, D. M. Morris, D. S. Page-Dumroese, P. T. Sanborn, F. G. Sanchez, D. M. Stone, and A. E. 

Tiarks. 2006. Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction, and vegetation control on a 5-year seedling performance: a 

regional comparison of long-term soil productivity sites. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(3): 529–550. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x05-271. 

Froehlich, H. A. 1976. The influence of different thinning systems on damage to soil and trees. Proceedings, XVIIIUFRO World 

Congress Division IV. pp. 333–334. 

Froehlich, H. A., and D. S. McNabb. 1984. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest forests. pp. 159–192. In E. L. Stone 

(ed.) Forest soils and treatment impacts. Proceedings of the 6th North American Forest Soils Conference. Knoxville, TN. 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/RPs/Froehlich_McNabb_1983.pdf. 

Han, H.-S., D. Page-Dumroese, S.-K. Han, and J. Tirocke. 2006. Effect of slash, machine passes, and soil moisture on penetration 

resistance in a cut-to-length harvesting. International Journal of Forest Engineering 17(2):11–24. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2006_han_h001.pdf. 

Han, S.-K., H.-S. Han, D. Page-Dumroese, and L. R. Johnson. 2009. Soil compaction associated with cut-to length and whole 

tree harvesting of a coniferous forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 976–989. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2009_han_s001.pdf. 

Heilman, P. E., H. W. Anderson, and D. M. Baungartner, eds. 1981. Forest soils of the Douglas-fir region. 298 pp. 

Johnson, D. W. 2010. Soil quality: some basic considerations and case studies. In Page-Dumroese, D., D. Neary, C. Trettin, tech. 

eds. 2010. Scientific background for soil monitoring on National Forests and Rangelands: workshop proceedings; April 29–

30, 2008; Denver, CO. Proc. RMRS-P-59. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp. 

1–12. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p059.pdf. 

Labelle, E. R., and D. Jaeger. 2011. Soil compaction caused by cut-to-length forest operations and possible short-term natural 

rehabilitation of soil density. Soil Science Society of America Journal 75(6): 2314–2329. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0109. 

Landsberg, J. D., R. E. Miller, H. W. Anderson, and J. S. Tepp. 2003. Bulk density and soil resistance to penetration as affected 

by commercial thinning in northeastern Washington. Research Paper PNW-RP-551.USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 35 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/rp551.pdf. 

Lloyd, R. A., K. A. Lohse, and T. P.A. Ferré, 2013. Influence of road reclamation techniques on forest ecosystem recovery. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(2): 75–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/120116. 

Lovich, J. E., and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation of the southern California desert ecosystem and prospects for 

natural recovery and restoration. Environmental Management 24(3): 309–326. 

http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/products/pdfs/restore.pdf. 

Miller, R. E., W. Scott, and J. W. Hazard. 1996. Soil compaction and conifer growth after tractor yarding at three coastal 

Washington locations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26(2): 225–236. 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/InfoPath/documents/Miller.pdf. 

Miller, R. E., W. I. Stein, R. L. Heninger, W. Scott, S. N. Little, and D. J. Goheen. 1989. Maintaining and improving site 

productivity in the Douglas-fir region. pp. 98–136 In: D. A. Perry and others, eds. Maintaining the long-term productivity of 

Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems. Proceedings of a symposium, March 31–April 2, 1987. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/silv/publications/opt/326_MillerEtal1989.pdf. 
767 | P a g e

Moghaddas, E. Y., and S. L. Stephens. 2007. Thinning, burning, and thin-burn fuel treatment effects on soil properties in a Sierra 

Nevada mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 250(3): 156–166. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.011. 

Neary, D. G., K. C. Ryan, and L. F. DeBano. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soil and water. General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 250 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_4.pdf. 

Ouren, D. S., C. Haas, C. P. Melcher, S. C. Stewart, P. D. Ponds, N. R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and Z. H. Bowen. 2007. 

Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated 

bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353, 225 

pp. https://www.fort.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/products/publications/22021/22021.pdf. 

Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, W. Elliot, T. Rice, J. Nesser, T. Collins, and R. Meurisse. 2000. Soil quality standards and 

guidelines for forest sustainability in northwestern North America. Forest Ecology and Management 138(1): 445–462. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2000_page_dumroese_d001.pdf. 

Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, A. E. Tiarks, F. Ponder Jr., F. G. Shanchez, R. L. Fleming, J. M. Kranabetter, R. F. Powers, 

D. M. Stone, J. D. Elioff, and D. A. Scott. 2006. Soil physical property changes at North American long-term soil 

productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compactions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 551–564. 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_page-dumroese001.pdf. 

Page-Dumroese, D., R. Miller, J. Mital, P. McDaniel, and D. Miller, tech. eds. 2007. Volcanic-ash-derived forest soils of the 

inland Northwest: Properties and implications for management and restoration. Proceedings RMRS-P-44, November 9–10, 

2005, Coeur d’Alene, ID. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 220 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p044.pdf. 

Poggiani, F., H. T. Z. Couto, and W. S. Filho. 1983. Biomass and nutrient estimates in short rotation intensively cultured 

plantation of Eucalyptus grandis. Revista IPEF 23: 29–36, abr. 1983, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 

Powers, R. F., A .E. Tiarks, and J. R. Boyle. 1998. Assessing soil quality: practicable standards for sustainable forest productivity 

in the United States. In: Davidson, E. A., M. B. Adams, and K. Ramakrishna (eds.). The contribution of soil science to the 

development and implementation of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. Special Publication No. 53. 

Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), Madison, WI, 53±80 pp. 

https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/books/abstracts/sssaspecialpubl/thecontribution/53. 

Powers, R. F., D. H. M. Alban, R. E. Miller, A. E. Tiarks, C. G. Wells, P. E. Avers, R. G. Cline, R. O. Fitzgerald, and N. S. 

Loftus, Jr. 1990. Sustaining site productivity in North American forests: Problems and prospects. pp. 49–79 in Sustained 

Productivity of Forest Soils, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 

Powers, R. F., D. A. Scott, F. G. Sanchez, R. A. Voldseth, D. Page-Dumroese, J. D. Elioff, and D. M. Stone. 2005. The North 

American long-term soil productivity experiment. Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and 

Management 220(2005): 31–50. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_powers002.pdf. 

Richardson, E., and D. Wulfsohn. 2004. Landscape-level comparison of soil impacts by two forest harvesting systems. 

AgEng2004, Leuven, Belgium, September 12–16, 2004. 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.615.3889&rep=rep1&type=pdf. 

Ryan, M., M. A. Battaglia, C. Rhoades, and M. E. Rocca. 2011. Reducing fuels through mulching treatment: What are the 

ecological effects? Fire Science Brief Issue 140. 6 pp. 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=jfspbriefs. 

Ryans, M., and D. Cormier. 1994. A review of mechanized brush-cutting equipment for forestry. Special Report No. SR-10. 

Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC). 36 pp. 

Sanchez, F. G., A. D. Scott, and K. H. Ludovici. 2006. Negligible effects of severe organic matter removal and soil compactions 

on loblolly pine growth over 10 years. Forest Ecology and Management 227: 145–154. 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_sanchez010.pdf. 

Shestak, C. J., and M. D. Busse. 2005. Compaction alters physical but not biological indices of soil health. Soil Science Society 

of America Journal 69: 236–246. http://pubag.nal.usda.gov/pubag/downloadPDF.xhtml?id=4078&content=PDF. 

Southworth, D., and J. Gibson. 2010. Going underground: Studying fuel treatment effects on the mycorrhizal community of 

Northern California. Fire Science Brief, Issue 105. 6 pp. 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=jfspbriefs. 

Swank, W. T., and B. C. Reynolds. 1986. Within-tree distribution of woody biomass and nutrients for selected hardwood species. 

Paper presented at Eighth Annual Southern Forest Biomass Workshop, Knoxville, Tennessee, June 16–19, 1986. 

http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/435.pdf. 

Tan, X., M. P. Curran, S. X. Chang, and D. G. Maynard. 2009. Early growth responses of lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir to soil 

compaction, organic matter removal, and rehabilitation treatments in southeastern British Columbia. Forest Science 

ProQuest Earth Science Collection 55(3): 210–220. http://nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/?id=30076. 

USDA FS. 2010. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500, Chapter 2550 Soil Management, Amendment No. 2550-2010-1, effective 

November 23, 2010. USDA Forest Service, Forest Service Manual National Headquarters (WO), Washington, D.C.

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/soils/wo_fsm2550.pdf. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. Soil quality resource concerns: compaction. Soil Quality 

Information Sheet. April 1996. 2 pp. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_019200.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/rmp-criteria.pdf. 
768 | P a g e

Webb, R. H. 1982. Off-road motorcycle effects on a desert soil. Environmental Conservation 9(3): 197–208. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900020403. 

Williamson, J. R., and W. A. Neilsen. 2000. The influence of forest site on rate and extent of soil compaction and profile 

disturbance of skid trails during ground-based harvesting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 1196–1205. 

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/x00-041. 
769 | P a g e

Sustainable Energy 

Key Points

 Under all the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the majority of the land in the decision area 

would be available for the potential development of sustainable energy resources. 

 Alternative C would produce the largest amount of biomass. 

 While Alternative A would have the largest acreage in exclusion areas, the BLM concluded that 

Alternative D would most likely constrain substantially wind energy and transmission line 

development by designating over a third of the decision area as avoidance areas. 

 While there is currently no geothermal development and limited potential in the decision area, all 

action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would be less constraining to geothermal development 

than the No Action alternative, with Alternative A being the least constraining. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM corrected the quantities of slash available from timber harvest operations using a more direct 

conversion factor. In addition, the BLM recalculated the amount of available biomass, moving from 

green-ton metric to bone-dry-ton metric, which more consistently reflects energy available from biomass. 

Background 

For the purposes of this Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM uses the term ‘sustainable energy’ in lieu of 

the term ‘renewable energy’, which the laws and policies that guide the management of the resources 

addressed in this section more commonly use. The term ‘renewable’ implies that an energy resource 

undergoes a cycle of availability (i.e., a cycle that alternates between energy depletion and energy 

replenishment). For this analysis, the BLM believes that it is more accurate to characterize these resources 

as sustainable. 

Issue 1 

How would management alternatives for forest treatments affect the availability of slash as a biomass 

energy source? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM evaluated the alternatives and the Proposed RMP and quantified the projected volume of timber 

harvest in million board feet (MMbf). Using this harvest data, the BLM quantified the maximum 

quantities of slash that would be produced using the assumption that 750 bone dry tons of slash would be 

made available for every MMbf of harvest. 

While other types of biomass exist, the BLM focused this analysis on slash (i.e., wood residue from 

timber harvest) since this is the specific type of biomass that provides the most practical opportunity for 

sustainable energy development in the planning area. Slash consists primarily of the branches and treetops 

of harvested merchantable timber. Slash excludes other biomass present in abundance but which is more 

difficult to transport such as snags, downed logs, and stumps (Cross et al. 2013, p. 1) or which might be 

left for other resource uses.
770 | P a g e

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 164–165). 

Background 

While the availability of 750 tons of bone-dry slash per MMbf of timber is an acceptable assumption for 

the purposes of this analysis, the precise amount of biomass produced would vary based on several factors 

including the location and type of harvested stand. Other factors include the amount of non-merchantable 

hardwoods, the amount of sub-merchantable material designated for cutting and removal in fire-prone 

stands, and the level of defect within a given stand. Thinning would typically produce biomass that 

consists mainly of tops and sub-merchantable stems whereas regeneration harvest would produce more 

cull material and broken pieces. 

Topography, vegetation, and yarding systems would affect the accessibility of biomass produced through 

timber harvest. Areas suitable for ground-based equipment would have a higher recovery level. Steep 

areas with dense brush would have a lower recovery level due to the difficulty of locating the material and 

bringing it to a landing using cable-yarding systems. 

The sale of biomass also depends on market conditions. The amount sold is generally less than what is 

available because biomass typically lacks sufficient energy density for economical transport as a fuel for 

electrical power generation except where generating plants are close to harvest areas. A study sponsored 

by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on the harvesting and transporting of biomass resulted in a 

negative energy balance (i.e., the expenditure of energy necessary to harvest was greater than was yielded 

by the product harvested; USDOE 1981, p. 5). 

There are wood fiber biomass combustion boilers at 21 industrial or institutional sites in the planning 

area, supplying heat for industrial processes. At nine of these sites, steam-driven generators produce 

electric power. Private individuals and commercial companies also cut firewood on BLM-administered 

lands, which the BLM includes in the definition of biomass available on BLM-administered lands but 

does not come from slash. 

Affected Environment 

Biomass occurs in abundance throughout the planning area, but as described above, factors such as the 

distance from harvest areas to power generation sites influence its sales and use. Based on the harvest 

level in 2012, 152,782 bone-dry tons of biomass were available as slash from BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area. In addition to its use for energy generation, biomass currently harvested in the 

decision area is also sold for use in landscaping material, as raw manufacturing material for fiberboard, or 

for making charcoal briquettes. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 3-214 shows the biomass available as slash from BLM-administered lands. As described above, a 

number of additional factors affect the biomass actually produced, as opposed to simply made available, 

from BLM-administered lands. These factors would likely lead to the production of less biomass than is 

described as available in Table 3-214. These factors would be consistent across alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP so the results in the table provide a reasonable basis for comparing the relative levels of 

biomass made available. Alternative C would make available the most biomass, followed by the No 

Action alternative, Alternative B, the Proposed RMP, Alternative A, and Alternative D. 
771 | P a g e

Table 3-214. Biomass available from BLM-administered lands as timber harvest slash 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Biomass Available 

(Bone Dry Tons)

No Action 300,000

Alt. A 187,500

Alt. B 248,250

Alt. C 416,250

Alt. D 135,000

PRMP 211,650

Issue 2 

How would right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas in the alternatives affect the potential siting of 

wind energy developments and sustainable energy corridor designations? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

As presented in the Planning Criteria (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 164–165), the BLM intended to use the 

existing wind energy resource data compiled in the 2005 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Land in the Western United States 

(USDI BLM 2005) to assess how the alternatives and the Proposed RMP affect the potential for wind 

energy development. However, the BLM found that the data in the 2005 Wind EIS is not detailed enough 

to reveal specific areas of high-energy potential within the planning area. 

Instead, the BLM compared acres of right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas to determine the extent 

to which each alternative and the Proposed RMP might constrain the development of wind energy and 

sustainable energy transmission. The BLM administers both wind energy and transmission lines through 

the granting of a right-of-way, so avoidance and exclusion areas would directly affect the potential for 

developing wind energy and transmission lines on BLM-administered lands. For the purposes of this 

analysis, the BLM assumed that right-of-way avoidance areas would preclude wind energy and 

transmission lines in most cases. 

Background 

According to the American Wind Energy Association, Oregon as a whole currently has approximately 

435 megawatts of installed wind power generating capacity with another 140 megawatts proposed. The 

2005 Wind EIS projected that by 2025, 196 megawatts of wind energy will originate from BLMadministered lands throughout Oregon (USDI BLM 2005, pp. 5–104). 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) wind resource map for Oregon indicates that the 

state has wind resources consistent with community-scale production. The good-to-excellent resource 

areas for community-scale production are concentrated on ridge crests throughout Oregon. None of the 

good-to-excellent non-ridge crest areas with at least good wind resource potential are located in the 

decision area. There are a few sites with wind resources of this quality along the ridge peaks of the 

Cascade Range on the eastern border of the planning area and scattered along the Pacific coast. Current 

NREL mapping resolution does not reveal the presence of utility-scale wind resources in the decision area 

(USDOE 2014). 
772 | P a g e

Wind energy development on BLM-administered lands is permitted through right-of-way authorizations 

in accordance with requirements of the FLPMA and the 2008 BLM Wind Energy Development Policy. 

Affected Environment 

Currently, there is no wind energy production or proposals for wind energy production on BLMadministered lands in western Oregon. As noted in the background section, there are no known sites with 

potential utility-scale wind development within the decision area of this RMP. 

In addition to this limited potential, the lack of critical infrastructure necessary for development also 

limits the growth of sustainable energy resources (including wind) in western Oregon. There are currently 

no transmission lines that could easily transmit energy collected from wind energy in the planning area. 

There are no current plans to construct transmission lines that could fill this need. Any transmission line 

through BLM-administered lands would require a right-of-way. 

Environmental Consequences 

The alternatives and the Proposed RMP differ in the acreage of both exclusion areas and avoidance areas 

(Table 3-82). Since the BLM is unable to grant rights-of-way for energy transmission corridors in 

exclusion areas (unless legally mandated), Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP would 

decrease the percent of the decision area compared to the No Action alternative in which the BLM could 

grant a right-of-way for wind power. Alternative A would exclude wind energy and transmission line 

development from the largest percentage of the decision area, while Alternative D would slightly decrease 

the current acreage of exclusion areas. 

Table 3-215. Right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas 

No Action

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Exclusion Areas 43,590 130,597 93,274 93,274 42,568 107,790

Avoidance Acres* 243,928 179,436 326,510 575,444 871,713 456,801

* Right-of-way avoidance total acreage is not a direct sum of the individual criteria acres due to criteria that overlap 

geographically. Areas that overlap with right-of-way exclusion areas are subtracted from the sum of the total avoidance acres 

because right-of-way exclusion is more restrictive than right-of-way avoidance. 

The BLM is able to grant a right-of-way in avoidance areas if a right-of-way is compatible with the 

protection of the values for which the BLM designated the avoidance area or if no other route is possible. 

However, it is unlikely that the development of wind power would be compatible with the values for 

which the BLM would designate the avoidance areas. The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

would designate ACECs, RMAs, Wilderness Study Areas, some WSRs, and VRM Class II areas as 

avoidance areas (see the Lands and Realty section of this chapter). Wind energy development would 

adversely affect the values associated with these designations, such as wildlife and vegetation, recreation, 

and visual quality; the 2005 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy 

Development on BLM-Administered Land in the Western United States analyzed the effects of wind 

energy development and that analysis is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2005, Chapter 5, pp. 

1–102). These avoidance areas would thus likely constrain the development of wind energy and 

sustainable energy transmission corridors on these BLM-administered lands. Alternative A would 

decrease the acres of avoidance areas compared to the No Action alternative while Alternatives B, C, and 

D, and the Proposed RMP would substantially increase this acreage (Table 3-82). Although Alternative A 

would have the largest acreage in exclusion areas, the BLM concludes that Alternative D would most 

likely constrain wind energy and transmission line development substantially by designating over a third 
773 | P a g e

of the decision area as avoidance areas. However, because of the absence of any current wind energy 

production, proposals for wind energy production, or known sites with potential utility-scale wind 

development in the decision area, and the lack of critical infrastructure necessary for wind energy 

development, the differences in acreage in the decision area available for wind energy development 

would have no meaningful effect on any reasonably foreseeable wind energy development in the decision 

area. 

Issue 3 

How would the alternatives affect the development of geothermal as a sustainable energy source? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

To assess the effects of the development of geothermal energy resources in the planning area, the BLM 

compared the extent to which each alternative and the Proposed RMP would condition the development 

of fluid minerals; geothermal energy is managed as a fluid mineral. The BLM assumed that leasable 

stipulations with major constraints, such as no surface occupancy, would negatively affect, though not 

entirely preclude, the potential for geothermal development on BLM-administered lands. 

Background 

Although Oregon has yet to achieve commercial generation of electricity from geothermal energy, the 

potential exists. A U.S. Department of the Interior report identifies 7 sites within Oregon as having the 

highest geothermal potential out of 35 sites on public lands throughout the country (Kirby et al. 2003). 

Among these sites only the area within and in the immediate surroundings of Klamath Falls is within the 

planning area. 

Affected Environment 

There is no current geothermal development occurring on BLM-administered lands within the planning 

area. Geothermal potential exists in Oregon; however, it is primarily located in the eastern portion of the 

State. Some potential exists in the southern part of the State on the eastern border of the planning area of 

this RMP (USDI BLM and USDA FS 2008, p. I-9). 

The BLM has applied no surface occupancy stipulations to 692,100 acres of BLM-administered lands. 

Environmental Consequences 

The alternatives and Proposed RMP would impose requirements for fluid mineral stipulations on differing 

acreages of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. The differing arrangement in each 

alternative and the Proposed RMP of ACECs, RMAs, Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness 

Areas drives these differences. Table 3-216 compares acres for which the BLM would require 

stipulations across the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. It is important to note that while the No Action 

alternative acreage includes only acres to which the BLM has applied no surface occupancy stipulations, 

the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP acreages include all areas the BLM has identified as 

requiring stipulations. These stipulations include minor constraints, such as timing provisions, and major 

constraints, such as no surface occupancy. 
774 | P a g e

Table 3-216. Acres that would have leasable stipulations 

Criteria No Action 

(Acres)

Alt. A 

(Acres)

Alt. B 

(Acres)

Alt. C 

(Acres)

Alt. D 

(Acres)

PRMP 

(Acres)

Leasable stipulations 692,100* 190,389 211,638 318,915 498,525 246,747

* This includes only no surface occupancy acres.

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would substantially reduce the acreage 

requiring leasable mineral stipulations compared to the No Action alternative. Alternative A would have 

the least acreage requiring stipulations. Thus, all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would be less 

constraining to geothermal development than the current condition. 

Issue Considered but Not Analyzed In Detail 

How would management alternatives affect the development of solar radiation as a sustainable energy 

source? 

In the joint BLM-USDOE analysis, NREL could not demonstrate a potential for solar energy 

development to be a notable sustainable energy resource on BLM-administered lands in the planning area 

(USDI BLM and USDOE 2003, pp. 13–14, 19–20, A2–A3, E9). The BLM did not assess the effects on 

solar energy because of the lack of commercial prospects on the BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area. 

References 

Cross, J. C., E. C. Turnblom, and G. J. Ettl. 2013. Biomass production on the Olympic and Kitsap Peninsulas, Washington: 

updated logging residue ratios, slash pile volume-to-weight ratios and supply curves for selected locations. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-872. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. pp. vi + 30 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr872.pdf.

Jones, G., D. Loeffler, E. Butler, S. Hummel, and W. Chung. 2013. The financial feasibility of delivering forest treatment 

residues to bioenergy facilities over a range of diesel fuel and delivered biomass prices. Biomass and Bioenergy 48: 171–

180. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2013_jones_g001.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 1982. Energy demand for harvesting aquatic biomass in the natural environment. Final 

Report. Technical Report DOE/R6/12009-T1. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/5567165. 

---. 2014. Oregon 80-Meter Height Wind Resource Map. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=or. Accessed December 1, 2014. 

USDI BLM. 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-administered 

lands in the western United States. FES-05-11. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/index.cfm. 

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/rmp-criteria.pdf. 

USDI BLM and USDA FS. 2008. Geothermal leasing in the western United States. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/geothe

rmal_eis/final_programmatic.Par.90935.File.dat/ROD_Geothermal_12-17-08.pdf. Accessed December 30, 2014. 

USDI BLM and USDOE. 2003. Assessing the potential for renewable energy on public lands. Report DOE/GO-102003-1704. 

Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Bureau of Land Management for the U.S. Department of 

Energy–Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 95 pp. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33530.pdf. 
775 | P a g e

Trails and Travel Management 

Key Points 

 All action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would increase the acreage of areas closed to 

public motorized access compared to the No Action alternative. 

 All action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not designate any areas as open to public 

motorized access. 

 Alternative D would provide the most trail-based opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized recreation activities. 

 Easements and reciprocal right-of-way agreements secure access for BLM forest management 

activities. Reciprocal right-of-way agreements over O&C and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands do 

not grant rights for public access and recreational use. For this reason, a portion of BLMmanaged roads and BLM-administered lands preclude legal public access. 

 The overall replacement value of the BLM’s transportation system exceeds $10 billion. 

Approximately 30 percent of road mileage is in fair or poor condition, primarily due to depleted 

surfacing aggregate and well-used minor culverts. Currently, the deferred maintenance backlog 

exceeds $300 million. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The analysis of new road construction for commercial thinning in Issue 2 of this section uses new road 

construction ratios derived from six years (2007–2012) of harvest volume sold data and timber sale 

contract data rather than estimated new road construction ratios for commercial thinning from the 2008 

FEIS. Ratios based on actual timber sale experience are intended to provide more accurate analytical basis 

than the estimates in the Draft RMP/EIS. These actual ratios are lower than the estimated 2008 FEIS 

ratios ranging from 33 percent lower in the Coos Bay District to 80 percent lower in the Medford District. 

Background 

BLM-managed Travel and Transportation System 

The BLM manages a complex and well-utilized travel system within western Oregon. The BLM manages 

approximately 15,000 miles of roads and 395 miles of designated trails within the decision area. The 

primary purpose of the BLM transportation system is access for resource management, recreation use, and 

transportation of forest products. Due to the BLM’s historic checkerboard land ownership pattern in 

Oregon, this road network has been developed in concert with neighboring private timberland owners, 

and thus has elements of a joint-use BLM/private road network. The BLM has designated a network of 

trails and travel management areas within the planning area to address particular concerns and prescribe 

specific management actions. Travel management areas frame transportation issues and help delineate 

and administer travel networks to support specific uses and resource requirements. 

Long-term or perpetual reciprocal right-of-way agreements provide legal access to Federal and private 

timberlands for BLM administrative use and private timberland owners as authorized by the FLPMA, as 

well as other Federal laws and regulations. A reciprocal right-of-way agreement provides both the BLM 

and the private landowner with a non-exclusive right to use, construct, and maintain roads on each other’s 

property for administrative purposes such as forest management. These types of agreements are in effect 

on nearly 75 percent of BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Approximately 85 percent of the 

15,000-mile BLM-administered road system is on BLM-administered lands. Assuming the network is 
776 | P a g e

distributed uniformly among the 75 percent of BLM-administered lands managed under reciprocal rightof-way agreements, approximately 64 percent of BLM-managed roads on BLM-administered lands are 

covered by these agreements. Consistent with this assumption, the remaining 36 percent of BLMmanaged roads on BLM-administered lands are not covered by reciprocal right-of-way agreements. 

Additionally, approximately 13 percent of the BLM-managed road system is on private land, with the 

majority of roads on lands managed by reciprocal right-of-way agreements. Thus, approximately 77 

percent of BLM transportation system mileage is likely to be managed under a reciprocal right-of-way 

agreement. 

Reciprocal right-of-way agreements over O&C and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands under 43 CFR 2812 do 

not grant rights for public access and recreational use. For this reason, a substantial portion of BLMmanaged roads and BLM-administered lands do not include legal public access. BLM-managed roads can 

afford public access under certain circumstances, (e.g., when the BLM obtains non-2812 easements), or 

when contiguous road segments both originate and terminate upon BLM-administered lands. Current 

commercial use of the BLM’s portion of the joint-use network consists predominantly of forest 

management activities. 

The BLM manages public motorized access under three possible categories based on BLM land use 

planning decisions that take into account natural resource protection and public safety. The public 

motorized access categories applied to public motorized access designations are (1) open, which allows 

for unlimited travel, including cross-country, (2) limited, where motorized use is restricted to meet 

specific resource management objectives, and (3) closed to motorized use. These categories are described 

in more detail below under Issue 1. The BLM would apply designations of open, limited, and closed for 

public motorized access by alternative and the Proposed RMP to all acres in the decision area. 

Implementation-level Travel Management Planning 

Consistent with current BLM policy121, the BLM is deferring implementation-level travel management 

planning during the current planning effort. Implementation-level travel management planning is the 

process of establishing a final travel and transportation network that includes route-specific designations 

within the broader land use planning level area designations. Land use planning-level designations are 

applied to all acres of BLM-administered lands within the planning area and designate areas as open, 

limited, or closed to public motorized access, as defined in the BLM Travel and Transportation 

Management manual (USDI BLM 2011). Through this planning effort, the BLM would designate all 

lands in the decision area as one of these three options and would identify areas in limited designations 

where implementation-travel management planning would occur under the action alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. The BLM would complete route-specific designations within areas in limited

 

121 The BLM Travel and Transportation Management Manual-1626 (USDI BLM 2011) outlines the BLM’s policies 

for travel and transportation management planning in the land use planning process consistent with 43 CFR 8342. 

Included in this policy direction are reasons for deferring the development of an implementation-level travel 

management plan, which include: the size and complexity of the area, controversy, or incomplete data. The BLM 

has deferred implementation-level travel management planning for the planning area due to the size of the planning 

area and the complexities brought from the checkerboard landownership pattern and the number of reciprocal rightof-way agreements throughout. Additionally, the BLM is currently revising the 1626 Manual, and is updating it to 

reflect current practices in travel and transportation management planning, including establishing a more orderly and 

comprehensive process to address travel and transportation planning and management. As part of the revisions, the 

BLM is updating policy on the travel management planning process in land use planning in that “[c]ompleting only 

the required land use planning level decisions and considerations when developing an RMP, and deferring more 

detailed site-specific TTM planning to subsequent implementation level decisions will be the standard approach to 

addressing TTM in the planning process. This is due to the complex nature, potential for controversy, sizable 

datasets and often incomplete data available to complete a planning area-wide, site-specific TMP concurrently with 

a land use plan.” (USDA BLM 2014, .06 (B) 6).
777 | P a g e

designations within 5 years after the completion of this plan revision (Appendix X). Although the land 

use planning-level designations of open, limited, or closed address only public motorized access, 

subsequent implementation-level travel management planning would address all modes of public travel, 

including non-motorized travel. 

Implementation-level travel planning would follow a site-specific process for selecting a final public road 

and trail network. Selection of final public road and trail networks would consider types of use (e.g., 

motorized and non-motorized), class of user,122 and seasons of use. The BLM would make final public 

route designations through implementation-level travel management planning123 for the decision area in 

comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plans (TMPs) scheduled to be 

completed within 5 years after approval of the RMP revision. The BLM’s GIS geodatabase would provide 

information for identifying public roads and trails for both motorized and non-motorized recreation 

activities. The BLM began on-the-ground route inventories across the decision area during the summer of 

2014. Route inventories will continue throughout 2016. The BLM estimates that there are approximately 

1,000 miles of non-designated user-created routes within the decision area. Where these routes are located 

within areas designated as limited for public motorized access, the BLM would develop proposed future 

public route designations or closures through public scoping and NEPA analysis utilizing draft route 

inventories to evaluate amendments to the existing travel network during an implementation-level travel 

management planning. Appendix Q includes interim public motorized access guidelines that the BLM 

would apply to limited to existing designations until subsequent travel management plans would be 

completed. Appendix Q also identifies areas where the BLM has completed implementation-level travel 

management plans prior to this RMP revision process. 

Table 3-217 displays existing travel management area designations within the decision area under the 

1995 RMPs. 

Table 3-217. Existing 1995 RMP public motorized access designations within the decision area 

District/

Field Office

Open 

(Acres)

Limited to 

Existing 

Roads and 

Trails 

(Acres)

Limited to 

Existing 

Roads and 

Designated 

Trails 

(Acres)

Limited to 

Designated 

Roads and 

Trails 

(Acres)

Limited to 

Designated 

Roads 

(Acres)

Closed 

(Acres)

Totals 

(Acres)

Coos Bay - - - 318,676 - 3,489 322,165

Eugene - 320,883 - - - 3,547 324,430

Klamath Falls 29,902 137,154 - 47,222 - 10,702 224,980

Medford 139,878 26,514 - 661,357 - 46,371 874,120

Roseburg - 416,560 - 6,731 - 3,283 426,574

Salem 160,614 48,771 87,144 16,192 69,508 17,197 399,426

Totals 330,394 949,882 87,144 1,050,178 69,508 84,589 2,571,695

 

122 Class of user identifies the type of activity allowed. For motorized roads and trails, classes may include 

designated routes for highway-legal vehicles, OHVs, or two-wheeled vehicles. For non-motorized routes, classes 

may include designated routes for mountain biking, hiking, or horseback riding. 

123 Implementation-level travel management planning decisions generally constitute the BLM’s final approval 

allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed. These types of decisions require site-specific planning and 

environmental (e.g., NEPA) analysis. The implementation level travel management planning will be conducted 

using an interdisciplinary team approach to address all resource uses, including administrative, recreation, 

commercial and associated modes of travel (motorized, mechanized and non-motorized types). 
778 | P a g e

R.S. 2477 Assertions 

Section 8 of the Mining Act of 1866 provided that “be it further enacted, that the right-of-way for the 

construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.” The statute 

was self-enacting; rights were established by construction of a highway on unreserved public lands 

without acknowledgement or action by the Federal government. Congress later recodified this section of 

the statute as Revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 2477). The FLPMA repealed R.S. 2477 in 1976 with a savings 

provision for prior rights to be established. 

There are a total of 53 documented R.S. 2477 assertions within the decision area: 2 in the Coos Bay 

District, 14 in the Eugene District, 1 in the Klamath Falls Field Office, 10 in the Medford District, 10 in 

the Roseburg District, and 16 in the Salem District. 

A travel management plan is not intended to provide evidence bearing on—or address the validity of–R.S. 

2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 rights are determined through a process independent of the BLM’s planning 

process. Consequently, travel management planning does not take into consideration R.S. 2477 assertions 

or evidence. Travel management planning is based upon resource uses and associated access to public 

lands and waters. Should a decision be made on R.S. 2477 assertions, the BLM may adjust travel routes 

accordingly. 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect the BLM’s ability to provide trail and travel opportunities in western 

Oregon? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM analyzed the effect of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on trail and travel opportunities 

based on the acres designated as open, limited, or closed for public motorized access. 

Although the BLM has some site-specific and anecdotal information about illegal public motorized travel 

activities, the BLM does not have a basis for predicting the location or effects of any widespread or 

systematic illegal public motorized travel activities. In addition, much of the decision area has physical 

limitations to potential illegal public motorized travel activities such as dense vegetation, steep slopes, 

and locked gates. Terrain, vegetation, and a greater amount of open spaces in most of the interior/south 

can lead to degradation and erosion in a greater proportion than most of the coastal/north where 

vegetation is denser and terrain is steeper. However, at this scale of analysis, the BLM does not have a 

basis for characterizing current illegal public motorized travel activities or forecasting potential illegal 

public motorized travel activities in the future under any of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The 

site-specific and anecdotal information that the BLM has about illegal public motorized travel activities is 

fragmentary and highly variable. Many areas that are experiencing illegal public motorized travel 

activities are apparently similar in characteristics such as public access, proximity to population centers, 

and terrain to many other areas that are not experiencing illegal public motorized travel activities. To use 

this site-specific and anecdotal information to project illegal public motorized travel activities in other 

areas within the decision area or to project future illegal public motorized travel activities would be 

unreliable and speculative. Therefore, in this analysis, the BLM assumed that members of the public 

participating in motorized travel recreation typically operate vehicles consistent with BLM decisions 

about public motorized travel opportunities. 

The Planning Criteria provides additional information on analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, 

and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 115–

119). 
779 | P a g e

Background 

All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would designate all lands in the decision area as open, limited, or 

closed to public motorized access, which are defined as follows: 

 Open—Areas where the BLM does not limit public motorized travel activities since there are no 

issues regarding resources, visitor conflicts, or public safety to warrant limiting cross-country 

travel 

 Limited—Areas where the BLM has restricted public motorized travel activities in order to meet 

recreational and resource management objectives; restrictions may include the number or types of 

vehicles, the time or season of use, uses required to be permitted or licensed; and uses limited by 

existing or designated roads and trails 

 Closed—Areas that the BLM has closed to all public motorized travel activities to protect 

resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce visitor conflicts 

For areas designated as limited, the BLM would designate through subsequent, implementation-level 

travel management planning the types or modes of public travel, the limitations on time or season of use, 

the limitations to certain types of vehicles, the limitations on specific public routes, or limitations of other 

types. 

The BLM based all designations on the protection of resources, the promotion of safety for all users, and 

the minimization of conflicts of users of BLM-administered lands. In developing the action alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP, the BLM applied the following designation criteria (43 CFR 8342.1) when 

designating lands as open, limited, or closed to public motorized access: 

a) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or other 

resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability. 

b) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of 

wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species and 

their habitats. 

c) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other 

existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the 

compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise 

and other factors. 

d) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas. 

Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer determines that 

off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, esthetic, scenic, or 

other values for which such areas are established. 

In applying the following designation criteria to the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM 

designated lands with special management designations as follows: 

 Lands with wilderness values—The BLM designated all Wilderness Areas and DistrictDesignated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics as closed under the 

action alternatives and the Proposed RMP to protect resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce 

visitor conflicts and prevent impairment of wilderness suitability. 

 Recreation Management Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern—The BLM 

conducted site-specific reviews of the more than 450 Recreation Management Areas and Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern to evaluate potential resource issues, visitor conflicts, or public 

safety concerns in determining the appropriate designation for each area. The public motorized 

access designation of each Recreation Management Area and Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern is provided in Appendix O and in Appendix F (Table F-2), respectively. These 

designations include areas identified as limited and areas identified as closed. These site-specific 

evaluations considered desired recreation opportunities, recreational settings, relevant and 

important values, and special management needs to identify the appropriate public motorized 
780 | P a g e

access designation. The BLM did not find any Recreation Management Areas or Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern appropriate to designate as open. 

The BLM designated all remaining BLM-administered lands as limited under the action alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP, even though not all remaining BLM-administered lands have legal public access due 

to the checkerboard nature of the planning area and right-of-way agreements across private lands that do 

not provide for public use. The BLM did not identify any acres under the action alternatives or the 

Proposed RMP where there would be no issues regarding resources, visitor conflicts, or public safety to 

warrant not limiting cross-country travel to designate as open. 

The BLM would make refinements as needed to public travel routes within lands designated as limited

through additional analysis and implementation-level travel management planning. The BLM would 

collaborate with affected and interested parties in evaluating the designated road and trail network for 

suitability for active route use and management, envisioning potential changes to the existing system or 

adding new trails that would help meet current and future demands within lands designated as limited. In 

conducting such evaluations, the BLM would apply designation criteria in 43 CFR 8342 and use 

prioritization guidance provided in Appendix Q for determining the order for completion of these 

evaluations. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The BLM currently manages 63 individual public trails and trail systems, with over 395 miles of trails in 

the decision area. Trail-based recreation opportunities within the decision area include supporting public 

trail systems for motorized and non-motorized users and providing a range of available activities across 

various recreation settings. Popular activities include hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and 

riding OHVs. Appendix Q contains an overview of the existing trail opportunities within the decision 

area. 

The BLM would provide specific opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized trails in portions of 

the decision area designated for motorized use under RMA designations (see the Recreation section of 

this chapter). These designations would increase opportunities over the long-term by facilitating increased 

funding for motorized routes and trails and non-motorized trails. 

Under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would designate varying acreage of RMAs 

that would emphasize public motorized recreation activities (see the Recreation section of this chapter and 

Appendix O). Management of these RMAs would, over time, concentrate public motorized recreation 

activities within these RMAs and reduce dispersed motorized travel activities on other BLM-administered 

lands. Motorized users would be attracted to greater opportunities within these managed areas that 

provide targeted public motorized recreation opportunities. 

For visitors engaging in non-motorized activities within RMAs specifically managed for motorized travel 

activities, the quality of their experiences would diminish to these extent that their activities would be 

incompatible with motorized travel activities. Over time, visitors seeking non-motorized forms of 

recreation would avoid RMAs specifically managed to accommodate motorized travel activities. In 

general, RMAs specifically managed for motorized travel activities would segregate user groups, 

eventually resulting in an overall improvement in the quality of experiences for all visitors. 

If the BLM would not specifically manage some RMAs for motorized recreation opportunities, visitors 

seeking motorized forms of recreation would experience reduced opportunities over time. Therefore, 

conflicts between motorized and non-motorized visitors would increase in popular use areas, resulting in 

lower quality recreation experiences for both non-motorized and motorized visitors. 
781 | P a g e

Public Motorized Access Designations 

Table 3-218 summarizes public motorized access designations across the decision area by alternative and 

the Proposed RMP. 

Table 3-218. Public motorized access designations 

Trails and Travel 

Management Designations

No Action 

(Acres)

Alt. A 

(Acres)

Alt. B 

(Acres)

Alt. C 

(Acres)

Alt. D 

(Acres)

PRMP 

(Acres)

Open 319,661 - - - - -

Limited 2,088,946 2,345,575 2,325,663 2,296,313 2,320,987 2,322,820

Closed 63,539 128,757 148,551 178,001 153,305 156,036

None of the action alternatives or the Proposed RMP would designate any areas as open to public 

motorized access. The BLM would designate the 319,661 acres designated as open under the No Action 

alternative as limited or closed under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP (Table 3-218). The 

reduction in acres open to public motorized travel activities would not directly equate to a concurrent 

decrease in public motorized travel opportunities across the decision area, because most of the areas that 

designated as open under the No Action alternative are located on steep, densely forested terrain, which is 

not conducive to cross-country motorized travel, regardless of designation. The BLM classifies only 7 

percent of the area designated as open under the No Action alternative as non-forest habitat. The forested 

conditions on the remaining acreage generally confines public motorized travel activities to existing roads 

and trails, despite their current open designations. Nevertheless, eliminating the areas designated as open 

would result in some site-specific and localized loss of public motorized recreation opportunities, while 

improving non-motorized recreational experiences in these areas. 

A limited designation would reduce cross-country public motorized travel activities in an area but would 

not eliminate it from existing or designated routes. Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the 

BLM would designate the majority of the decision area as limited for public motorized access (Table 3-

218). Alternative A would have the largest area designated as limited, followed by Alternative B, the 

Proposed RMP, Alternative D, and Alternative C. All action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would 

designate more acres as limited than the No Action alternative. In areas designated as limited to existing 

routes, the BLM would make changes in public travel opportunities (including non-motorized travel) 

consistent with 43 CFR 8342.1 – Designation Criteria, primarily through subsequent implementationlevel travel management plans, which would designate specific roads and trails available for public travel 

and make specific restrictions. The BLM would improve or expand designated routes to enhance visitor 

experiences or to meet increasing demand subsequent to implementation-level travel management plans. 

In addition, through implementation-level travel management planning, the BLM would also prohibit or 

restrict public travel on routes that are not designed or suitable for travel activities or that are only 

compatible for certain types of travel in order to reduce visitor conflicts and improve public safety. 

A closed designation would completely prohibit public motorized travel activities in the designated area. 

All action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would increase the acreage designated as closed to public 

motorized access compared to the No Action alternative (Table 3-218). The total acres closed to public 

motorized access would vary by action alternative and the Proposed RMP, largely due to variation in the 

acreage of RMAs, ACECs, and District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics, from 128,757 acres under Alternative A to 178,001 acres under Alternative C (Table 3-

218 and Table 3-3). The BLM would designate some RMAs as closed to public motorized travel 

activities under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, to provide for Primitive recreation 

opportunities. The increase in closed acres would result in some site-specific and localized loss of public 
782 | P a g e

motorized recreation opportunities, while improving non-motorized recreational experiences in these 

areas. 

Table 3-219 shows the acreage closed to public motorized access by land use allocation or designation by 

alternative and the Proposed RMP. 
783 | P a g e

Table 3-219. Areas closed to public motorized access by land use allocation or designation District/ Field Office (Area)

Land Use Allocation or Designation Alt. A 

(Acres)

Alt. B 

(Acres)

Alt. C 

(Acres)

Alt. D 

(Acres)

PRMP 

(Acres)

Coos Bay

Recreation Management Areas 102 101 101 1,234 -

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 5,183 5,183 5,183 5,183 5,183

District-Designated Reserve – Lands 

Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics

2,467 2,473 2,472 - 2,473

Eugene

Recreation Management Areas 52 294 2,893 3,955 2,598

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 6,899 6,899 6,548 6,975 6,975

Klamat

h

Falls

Recreation Management Areas 9 7,061 16,167 13,884 13,416

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - - - - -

Medford

Recreation Management Areas 17,096 30,045 26,320 35,754 12,816

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 11,302 11,302 11,302 11,302 11,302

District-Designated Reserve – Lands 

Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics

68,645 73,994 62,904 - 74,119

Wilderness 8,590 8,590 8,590 8,590 8,590

Roseburg

Recreation Management Areas 158 6,913 9,018 10,408 6,563

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 10,197 10,197 10,197 10,197 10,197

Salem

Recreation Management Areas 97 15,730 32,724 40,231 2,920

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 9,565 9,491 8,887 9,565 9,491

District-Designated Reserve – Lands 

Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics

2,533 58 1,516 - 2,515

Wilderness 5,703 5,703 5,703 5,703 5,703

Decision Area

Recreation Management Areas 17,514 60,144 87,223 105,466 38,313

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 34,650 34,515 33,893 34,905 43,148

District-Designated Reserve – Lands 

Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics

79,709 76,525 66,190 - 79,107

Wilderness 14,293 14,293 14,293 14,293 14,293

Grand Totals* 128,757 148,551 178,001 153,305 156,036

* Grand totals do not total the sum of acres within the alternatives due to overlap within the alternatives and Proposed RMP of 

RMAs, ACECs, and District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics. Additionally, some 

areas that are designated as closed are not within RMAs, ACECs, District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their 

Wilderness Characteristics, or Wilderness. Grand totals reflect total acres designated as closed for each alternative or the 

Proposed RMP after removing the duplication of acres. 
784 | P a g e

The No Action alternative would designate 13 percent of the decision area as open for public motorized 

access. Under the No Action alternative, most of the decision area (84 percent) would be designated as 

limited for public motorized access until the BLM would complete implementation-level travel 

management planning. This acreage designated as limited would be substantially lower than all action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The No Action alternative would maintain the designation of 3 

percent of the decision area as closed for public motorized access, substantially smaller than all action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Although the No Action alternative is the only action alternative that 

would maintain any areas as open and would maintain the fewest acres as closed, the No Action 

alternative would result in the eventual decrease of motorized recreation opportunities because of limited 

management of RMAs for motorized recreation. Over time, the absence of RMAs specifically managed 

for motorized recreation opportunities under the No Action alternative would result in increasing conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized visitors, resulting in lower quality recreation experiences for both 

non-motorized and motorized visitors. 

Under Alternative A, most of the decision area (95 percent) would be designated as limited for public 

motorized access until the BLM would complete implementation-level travel management planning. 

Alternative A would designate a smaller acreage as closed for public motorized access than the other 

action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. However, under Alternative A, the BLM would not establish 

any RMAs that emphasize public motorized travel activities. Compared to the No Action alternative, 

Alternative A would designate more areas as closed, and would designate more RMAs for non-motorized 

trail use (Appendix O). Although Alternative A would designate fewer total acres within RMAs as 

closed to public motorized access, it would designate a higher proportion of RMAs as closed for public 

motorized access (87 percent). Overall, even though Alternative A would designate fewer total acres as

closed than all other action alternatives or the Proposed RMP, Alternative A would result in the eventual 

decrease of motorized recreation opportunities due to the absence of RMAs for motorized recreation. 

Under Alternative B, most of the decision area (94 percent) would be designated as limited for public 

motorized access until the BLM would complete implementation-level travel management planning. 

Alternative B would designate more acres as closed than the No Action alternative, Alternative A and the 

Proposed RMP, but fewer acres than Alternatives C and D. Alternative B would designate more RMAs 

for both motorized and non-motorized trail uses compared to Alternative A. Alternative B would restrict 

fewer acres within RMAs as closed to public motorized access than Alternatives C and D, but more acres 

than Alternative A and the Proposed RMP. 

Under Alternative C, most of the decision area (93 percent) would be designated as limited for public 

motorized access until the BLM would complete implementation-level travel management planning. 

Alternative C would designate more total acres as closed than all other alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP. Alternative C would designate fewer RMA acres as closed than Alternative D, but more than 

Alternatives A and B and the Proposed RMP. Overall, even though Alternative C would designate more 

total acres as closed than any other alternative or the Proposed RMP, Alternative C would result in the 

eventual increase of motorized recreation opportunities due to the increase in acres designated as RMAs 

for motorized recreation. 

Under Alternative D, most of the decision area (94 percent) would be designated as limited for public 

motorized access until the BLM would complete implementation-level travel management planning. 

Alternative D would designate more total acres as closed than the No Action alternative, Alternatives A 

and B, and fewer acres than Alternative C and the Proposed RMP. Although Alternative D would 

designate more RMA acres as closed than any other action alternative or the Proposed RMP, Alternative 

D would not allocate any District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics, which would reduce the total acreage designated as closed. 
785 | P a g e

Under the Proposed RMP, most of the decision area (94 percent) would be designated as limited for 

public motorized access until the BLM would complete implementation-level travel management 

planning. The Proposed RMP would designate more total acres as closed than the No Action alternative, 

Alternatives A, B, and D, but fewer acres than Alternative C. The Proposed RMP would designate fewer 

RMA acres as closed than Alternatives B, C, and D, but more than Alternative A. The Proposed RMP 

would designate fewer ACEC acres as closed than all action alternatives. Overall, even though the 

Proposed RMP would designate the second-most total acres as closed, the Proposed RMP would result in 

the eventual increase of motorized recreation opportunities due to the increase in acres designated as 

RMAs for motorized recreation. 

Issue 2 

How will the alternatives affect the use, maintenance, and condition of the BLM’s transportation system?

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM used road ratios (feet/Mbf) from two sources to estimate miles of new road construction 

required for implementation of the No Action alternative and all the action alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP. These road ratios reflect different road requirements for different types of harvest. The BLM used 

ratios developed for the 2008 FEIS for the regeneration harvest and uneven-aged management harvest, 

and road ratios developed from 6 years (FY2007–FY2012) of harvest volume sold data and timber sale 

contract data for the commercial thinning harvest. The BLM is unable to use the harvest volume or timber 

sale contract data source for regeneration harvest or uneven-aged management harvest because the BLM 

has not implemented enough of these harvests in the recent past to provide new road construction data for 

either of these harvest types. 

Uneven-aged management and commercial thinning harvest typically require more new road construction 

than regeneration harvest. The average road ratios (feet/Mbf) across the decision area for uneven-age 

management harvest are 20 percent higher than the road ratios for regeneration harvest, and the road 

ratios for commercial thinning harvest are 70 percent higher than for regeneration harvest. The Medford 

District is an exception to the rule for commercial thinning harvest, as these ratios are actually 30 percent 

lower than for regeneration harvest. 

The BLM projected miles of road renovation and purchaser renovation value, miles of road improvement, 

and miles of road closure for each of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP using 6 years (FY2007–

FY2012) of harvest volume sold data and timber sale contract data. The BLM projected total miles of the 

road network utilized for each alternative and the Proposed RMP using 8 years (CY2005–CY2012) of 

BLM timber sale contract haul data. 

The BLM assumed that current trends in road closures would continue into the future, because road 

closure mileage is not be sensitive to harvest levels, given that most BLM-administered lands are 

encumbered by reciprocal right-of-way agreements. In other words, even if the harvest level would 

indicate an opportunity for road closure, the BLM would not be able to accomplish these closures in some 

locations due to the need to protect reciprocal right-of-way holders’ rights to use BLM-owned roads. 

In this analysis, the BLM evaluated the following: 

 Miles of permanent and temporary new road construction 

 Miles of permanent and long-term road closure 

 Road network mileage changes 

 Miles of road renovation and improvement 

 Miles of the existing road network utilized 
786 | P a g e

 Road maintenance fees collected as a percentage of annual maintenance need 

 Value of purchaser renovation as a percentage of the BLM’s deferred maintenance backlog

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 127–130). 

Affected Environment 

Road Network Description 

The following functional classifications describe the BLM’s western Oregon transportation system:

 Collector roads—Roads that primarily provide access to large blocks of public land, 

accommodate multiple uses, have BLM’s highest traffic volumes, and connect with state and 

county road systems 

 Local roads—Roads that normally serve smaller areas than collectors, accommodate fewer 

uses, have lower traffic volumes, and connect with collectors or State and County road systems 

 Resource roads—Roads that provide point access to public lands, typically exist for a single 

use, carry very low traffic volumes, and connect with local or collector roads 

These functional classifications indicate the character of service the roads provide and the appropriate 

road maintenance intensity levels from basic custodial care to annual scheduled and preventative 

maintenance programs. 

Table 3-220 shows the distribution of the functional classifications within the BLM’s western Oregon 

transportation system. Currently, slightly less than 5 percent of the transportation system falls into the 

collector classification, while about 21 percent of the system is local, and nearly 75 percent resource. 

Table 3-220. Miles of BLM-managed roads within the decision area by functional classification 

District/

Field Office

Collector Roads

(Miles)

Local Roads

(Miles)

Resource Roads

(Miles)

Total Roads

(Miles)

Coos Bay 186 408 1,302 1,896

Eugene 71 422 1,524 2,017

Klamath Falls 47 154 323 524

Medford 156 981 3,452 4,589

Roseburg 94 581 2,193 2,868

Salem 101 546 1,789 2,436

Totals 655 3,092 10,583 14,330

The total inventoried BLM transportation system mileage has remained relatively steady since 2007; there 

are currently 14,330 miles compared to 14,394 miles in 2007. Additionally, the BLM owns approximately 

600 miles of non-inventoried roads—typically short (< 500 feet) logging spurs—within the boundaries of 

the decision area. Eighty-one percent of the BLM transportation system has some form of surfacing 

(aggregate or bituminous surface treatment), with 97 percent built to a single lane width. 
787 | P a g e

Road Network Condition 

Table 3-221, Table 3-222, and Table 3-223 summarize western Oregon road, bridge, and major culvert 

condition data, respectively. 

Table 3-221. Road condition, mileage, replacement value, and deferred maintenance backlog 

District/

Field Office Road Condition Mileage Replacement Value(Dollars)

Deferred Maintenance

(Dollars)

Coos Bay

Fair/Poor 397 $314 million $20 million

Good 1,499 $1.216 billion $1 million

Totals 1,896 $1.530 billion $21 million

Eugene

Fair/Poor 537 $361 million $23 million

Good 1,480 $1.267 billion $2 million

Totals 2,017 $1.628 billion $25 million

Klamath Falls

Fair/Poor 66 $47 million $6 million

Good 458 $241 million $1 million

Totals 524 $288 million $7 million

Medford

Fair/Poor 1,540 $1.061 billion $123 million

Good 3,049 $2.016 billion $4 million

Totals 4,589 $3.077 billion $127 million

Roseburg

Fair/Poor 1,176 $730 million $85 million

Good 1,692 $934 million $5 million

Totals 2,868 $1.664 billion $90 million

Salem

Fair/Poor 575 $408 million $46 million

Good 1,861 $1.347 billion $1 million

Totals 2,436 $1.755 billion $47 million

Totals

Fair/Poor 4,291 $2.921 billion $303 million

Good 10,039 $7.021 billion $14 million

Grand Total 14,330 $9.942 billion $317 million

Table 3-222. Bridge condition, replacement value, and deferred maintenance backlog 

District/

Field Office Bridge Condition Count Replacement Value(Dollars)

Deferred Maintenance

(Dollars)

All Offices Fair/Poor 53 $34.5 Million $7.1 Million

Good 306 $249.9 Million $1.5 Million

Grand Total 359 $284.4 Million $8.6 Million

Table 3-223. Major culvert condition, replacement value, and deferred maintenance backlog 

District/

Field Office

Major Culvert

Condition Count Replacement Value(Dollars)

Deferred Maintenance

(Dollars)

All Offices Fair/Poor 18 $1.8 Million $1.2 Million

Good 526 $57.3 Million -

Grand Total 544 $59.1 Million $1.2 Million

The overall replacement value (the current cost to rebuild the network from scratch) of the BLM 

transportation system is about $9.9 billion. Approximately 30 percent of the road mileage is in fair or 

poor condition, primarily due to depleted surfacing aggregate and worn-out minor culverts. Currently the 
788 | P a g e

deferred maintenance backlog is about $317 million. However, 85 percent of bridges and 97 percent of 

major culverts (> 7 foot diameter) are in good condition. 

Road Maintenance 

The BLM is responsible for maintaining roads under the BLM’s ownership. Maintenance provides for 

resource protection, safe accommodation of users, and protection of the government’s investment. Road 

maintenance on BLM roads is primarily for timber management and extraction, recreation, and fire 

management activities. 

Each year, the districts identify and prioritize annual maintenance work. Currently the BLM maintains 

about 14 percent of the western Oregon transportation system each year. The miles of annual maintenance 

the BLM conducts has declined in recent years. From 2007 to 2013, the annual maintenance mileage 

declined about 47 percent, from 3,926 miles in 2007 to 2,064 miles in 2013. Annual maintenance work 

ranges from aggregate surface blading and roadside brush removal, to pothole repair and culvert 

replacement. The BLM funds annual maintenance of roads from a combination of appropriated funds and 

a collected account. Commercial timber haul, both BLM and private, generates funds paid into the 

collected account based on a maintenance fee for volume-hauled and mileage-used. 

Although BLM appropriated funding has remained flat over the last two decades, the BLM’s collected 

account has declined from $8 million to about $3 million annually over the past 25 years. This reduction 

is due entirely to BLM’s declining timber sale offerings, since private use of the network has remained 

constant over the last two decades. This BLM funding shortfall creates a gap between annual maintenance 

need and actual annual maintenance expenditure, resulting in a large and growing deferred maintenance 

backlog, currently about $317 million. 

Road Closure 

There are times when the BLM determines that a road closure or travel restriction may be warranted. The 

objectives of road closure are typically for safety or resource protection, such as to reduce sedimentation, 

restore hydrological processes, reduce total road maintenance cost, and reduce impacts to fish or wildlife 

habitat, botanical resources, or special areas. The BLM districts coordinate in advance with potentially 

affected reciprocal right-of-way permittees on decisions to close roads for the purpose of protecting 

permittee rights to use BLM-owned roads. Should permittees not concur on BLM-proposed long-term or 

permanent closures, these proposals must be dropped, thus limiting the BLM’s opportunities to reduce 

road densities. 

The BLM currently has about 900 miles (6 percent) of the transportation system in a long-term 

decommissioned status. These are resource roads that have been closed to vehicles and left in an erosionresistant condition; they may be re-opened in the future as needed. Slightly more than half of these miles 

have a natural surface type. 

Environmental Consequences 

New Road Construction 

Timber harvest operations would require construction of additional resource roads under each of the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. No new collector or local roads would be needed as this portion of 

the transportation network was fully built out decades ago. Table 3-224 summarizes the estimated new 

permanent and temporary road construction by surface type for the first decade. 
789 | P a g e

Table 3-224. First decade new road construction by road surfacing and status 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Temporary 

Rock

(Miles)

Temporary 

Natural

(Miles)

Permanent

Rock

(Miles)

Permanent 

Natural

(Miles)

Total

(Miles)

No Action 32 283 245 77 637

Alt. A 29 90 147 33 299

Alt. B 44 197 216 74 531

Alt. C 60 230 335 74 699

Alt. D 24 71 117 28 240

PRMP 35 170 173 59 437

In the first decade, total resource road new construction mileages would range from 240 miles for 

Alternative D to 699 miles for Alternative C, with the Proposed RMP requiring 437 miles. 

In the first decade, new construction of permanent resource roads would range from 145 miles for 

Alternative D to 409 miles for Alternative C, with the PRMP producing 232 miles. The Proposed RMP 

permanent mileage would represent 1.5 percent of the existing western Oregon road network. 

Approximately 75 percent of these new Proposed RMP permanent road miles would be surfaced with 

aggregate. All new construction would be single lane width. Table 3-225 contains a summary of the 

estimated new road construction by harvest type for the first decade. 

Table 3-225. First decade new road construction associated with harvest methods 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Regeneration Harvest 

(Miles)

Thinning Harvest 

(Miles)

Uneven-aged Harvest

(Miles)

Totals 

(Miles)

No Action 309 328 - 637

Alt. A 232 10 57 299

Alt. B 149 195 187 531

Alt. C 467 112 120 699

Alt. D 94 15 131 240

PRMP 137 129 171 437

The amount of new construction attributable to each harvest type would vary greatly among the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP; regeneration harvest would range from 28 percent (Alternative B) to 

78 percent (Alternative A), thinning harvest would range from 3 percent (Alternative A) to 51 percent 

(No Action), and uneven-age management harvest would range from 17 percent (Alternative C) to 55 

percent (Alternative D). New construction mileages under the Proposed RMP would be fairly evenly 

divided among the three harvest types. Table 3-226 to Table 3-231 contain a summary of the estimated 

new permanent and temporary road construction by office and surface type for the first decade.124

 

124 These estimates represent analytical results based on the assumptions described in the Summary of Analytical 

Methods above. The BLM has made these assumptions and estimations solely for analytical purposes. These 

mileages of new permanent and temporary road construction by office and surface type for the first decade do not 

represent management direction or restrictions on future road construction under any of the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. Road construction under each alternative and the Proposed RMP would be implemented consistent 

with the management direction consistent with project-level analysis and decision-making. 
790 | P a g e

Table 3-226. No Action first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status 

District/

Field Office

Temporary 

Rock

(Miles)

Temporary 

Natural

(Miles)

Permanent 

Rock

(Miles)

Permanent 

Natural

(Miles)

Totals 

(Miles)

Coos Bay 8 36 37 25 106

Eugene 1 64 80 - 145

Klamath Falls - - - 3 3

Medford 6 65 66 40 177

Roseburg 3 57 53 6 119

Salem 14 61 9 3 87

Totals 32 283 245 77 637

Table 3-227. Alternative A first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status 

District/

Field Office

Temporary 

Rock

(Miles)

Temporary 

Natural

(Miles)

Permanent 

Rock

(Miles)

Permanent 

Natural

(Miles)

Totals 

(Miles)

Coos Bay 10 15 25 3 53

Eugene 4 4 40 1 49

Klamath Falls - - - 1 1

Medford 9 26 42 23 100

Roseburg 1 16 25 - 42

Salem 5 29 15 5 54

Totals 29 90 147 33 299

Table 3-228. Alternative B first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status 

District/

Field Office

Temporary 

Rock

(Miles)

Temporary 

Natural

(Miles)

Permanent 

Rock

(Miles)

Permanent 

Natural

(Miles)

Totals 

(Miles)

Coos Bay 5 26 25 20 76

Eugene 3 36 65 1 105

Klamath Falls - - - 2 2

Medford 23 42 76 42 183

Roseburg 2 41 35 4 82

Salem 11 52 15 5 83

Totals 44 197 216 74 531
791 | P a g e

Table 3-229. Alternative C first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status 

District/

Field Office

Temporary 

Rock

(Miles)

Temporary 

Natural

(Miles)

Permanent 

Rock

(Miles)

Permanent 

Natural

(Miles)

Totals 

(Miles)

Coos Bay 18 38 53 14 123

Eugene 9 22 105 2 138

Klamath Falls - - - 3 3

Medford 17 49 76 43 185

Roseburg 3 55 73 3 134

Salem 13 66 28 9 116

Totals 60 230 335 74 699

Table 3-230. Alternative D first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status 

District/

Field Office

Temporary 

Rock

(Miles)

Temporary 

Natural

(Miles)

Permanent 

Rock

(Miles)

Permanent 

Natural

(Miles)

Totals 

(Miles)

Coos Bay 6 8 12 3 29

Eugene 4 3 37 - 44

Klamath Falls - - - 1 1

Medford 10 20 37 20 87

Roseburg - 16 21 - 37

Salem 4 24 10 4 42

Totals 24 71 117 28 240

Table 3-231. Proposed RMP first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status 

District/

Field Office

Temporary 

Rock

(Miles)

Temporary 

Natural

(Miles)

Permanent 

Rock

(Miles)

Permanent 

Natural

(Miles)

Totals 

(Miles)

Coos Bay 3 17 16 13 49

Eugene 3 28 56 1 88

Klamath Falls - 1 - 1 2

Medford 17 37 62 35 151

Roseburg 2 40 27 5 74

Salem 10 47 12 4 73

Totals 35 170 173 59 437

The Medford District would require more new permanent road construction than the other western 

Oregon offices for each of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. While the road ratios (feet/Mbf) for 

regeneration harvest and uneven-aged management harvest are about 2.5 times greater in the Medford 

District than the average of the other offices—due to the Medford District’s lower per acre harvest 

volumes—the road ratios for commercial thinning harvest is roughly equal across all the offices. The 

Medford District accounts for 35 percent of the new road miles for the Proposed RMP while producing 

only 18 percent of the total harvest volume. 
792 | P a g e

Road Closure

The BLM would accomplish both permanent and long-term road closures under each of the alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP. Table 3-232 and Table 3-233 summarize estimated permanent and long-term 

road closures by surface type for the first decade. The BLM has concluded that there is no reasonable 

basis to project a difference in road closure mileages among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Regardless of any changes in management of BLM-administered lands under the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP, the opportunities for the BLM to close roads would continue to be heavily influenced by 

the need to protect reciprocal right-of-way holders’ rights to use BLM-owned roads. 

Table 3-232. First decade permanent road closure 

District/

Field Office

Rock

(Miles)

Natural

(Miles)

Totals

(Miles)

Coos Bay 2 29 31

Eugene 4 38 42

Klamath Falls - - -

Medford 1 7 8

Roseburg - 10 10

Salem 1 1 2

Totals 8 85 93

Table 3-233. First decade long-term road closure 

District/

Field Office

Rock

(Miles)

Natural

(Miles)

Totals

(Miles)

Coos Bay 35 96 131

Eugene 49 4 53

Klamath Falls - 9 9

Medford - 10 10

Roseburg 7 75 82

Salem 27 61 88

Totals 118 255 373

Permanent road closures, aimed primarily at natural surface roads, would affect substantially less than 1 

percent of the western Oregon road network in the first decade. 

Long-term road closures, implemented at a 2:1 ratio of natural surface type to rock surface type, would 

increase the percentage of the BLM road network in a long-term closure status from its current 6 percent 

to 8 percent by the end of the first decade. 

In the first decade, net permanent road mileage changes would range from an increase of 52 miles for 

Alternative D to an increase of 316 miles for Alternative C. Net permanent road mileage would increase 

by 139 miles for the Proposed RMP, representing a 1 percent increase in the existing western Oregon road 

network. 

Road Renovation and Road Improvement 

The BLM will accomplish both renovation and improvement of existing roads needed for timber sale use 

under each of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP to support anticipated use, to provide for safety, and 
793 | P a g e

to protect adjacent lands and resources. Renovation consists of restoring a degraded road to its original 

design standard such as replacing worn out cross drain culverts and depleted rock surfacing. Improvement 

consists of upgrading the original design standard such as adding cross drain culverts and rock surfacing 

to an existing natural surface road. Table 3-234 summarizes the estimated existing road renovation and 

improvement for the first decade. 

Table 3-234. First decade existing road renovation and improvement 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Renovation

(Miles)

Improvement

(Miles)

No Action 6,667 311

Alt. A 3,669 223

Alt. B 5,098 287

Alt. C 7,495 526

Alt. D 2,685 161

PRMP 4,295 246

In the first decade, road renovation mileages would range from 2,685 miles for Alternative D to 7,495 

miles for Alternative C. The Proposed RMP would generate 4,295 miles of renovation, approximately 80 

percent of which would occur on rock surface roads. Renovation of some roads would occur more than 

once in the first decade. Renovation tasks typically include roadside brushing, ditch line and culvert 

cleaning, culvert replacement, rock surface replacement, and pothole patching on paved roads. 

In the first decade, road improvement mileages would range from 161 miles for Alternative D to 526 

miles for Alternative C. The Proposed RMP would generate 246 miles of improvement, virtually all of 

which would consist of rocking natural surfaced roads, thus increasing the percentage of surfaced roads 

by 2 percent from the current 81 percent. 

Road Utilization, Maintenance, and Condition 

The BLM performed a reference analysis of “Manage most commercial lands for maximizing timber 

production” in the 2008 FEIS (USDI BLM 2008, pp. 573–574) and that analysis is incorporated here by 

reference. This reference analysis evaluated the outcomes if all BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area capable of producing a long-term flow of commercial timber volume would be managed under 

intensive forest management, without regard for the requirements of other laws or the purpose and need 

for action. The BLM presents this reference analysis in the context of road utilization, maintenance, and 

condition as a benchmark in the presentation of the analysis for the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

See the Forest Management section of this chapter for further description of harvest levels from this 

reference analysis. 

Table 3-235 contains a summary of estimated road utilization by surface type for the first decade for each 

of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP and the 2008 reference analysis (BLM 2008, p. 484, Table 3-

60).
794 | P a g e

Table 3-235. First decade existing road utilization by surface type 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Paved

(Miles)

Paved

(Percent)

Rock

(Miles)

Rock

(Percent)

No Action 2,667 191% 4,115 40%

Alt. A 1,666 120% 2,561 25%

Alt. B 2,222 159% 3,416 33%

Alt. C 3,734 268% 5,741 56%

Alt. D 1,206 87% 1,854 18%

2008 FEIS 

Reference Analysis 8,047 577% 12,370 120%

PRMP 1,859 133% 2,858 28%

In the first decade, rocked road utilization percentages would range from 18 percent for Alternative D to 

56 percent under Alternative C. Similarly, the first decade paved road utilization percentages would range 

from 87 percent for Alternative D to 268 percent under Alternative C. The Proposed RMP utilization 

percentage would be 28 percent for rocked roads and 133 percent for paved roads. In comparison, the 

2008 “Manage most commercial lands for maximizing timber production” reference analysis rocked and 

paved utilization percentages would be120 percent and 577 percent (i.e., each paved road mile will be 

used 5.77 times) respectively. 

Table 3-236 and Table 3-237 summarize estimated road maintenance fee collections by surface type for 

the first decade for each of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP and the 2008 reference analysis. The 

BLM based these estimates on both road utilization ratios developed from 8 years (CY2005–FY2012) of 

BLM timber sale road use activity—at a western Oregon scale—and BLM’s current road maintenance fee 

rate schedule. Additionally, the tables compare maintenance fee collections to the annual maintenance 

need for roads as reported in the Facility Asset Management System (the BLM’s constructed asset 

inventory). 

Table 3-236. First decade paved road maintenance fee collections compared to annual maintenance (AM) 

need 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Road Use

(Mbf-Miles)

Maintenance

Fee/Mbf-Mile

(Dollars)

Maintenance

Fee Collected

(Dollars)

AM Need

(Dollars)

AM Need

(Percent)

No Action 11.9 M $0.71 $8.4 M $80 M 10%

Alt. A 7.4 M $0.71 $5.3 M $80 M 6%

Alt. B 9.9 M $0.71 $7.0 M $80 M 9%

Alt. C 16.6 M $0.71 $11.8 M $80 M 15%

Alt. D 5.4 M $0.71 $3.8 M $80 M 5%

2008 FEIS 

Reference Analysis 35.8 M $0.71 $25.4 M $80 M 32%

PRMP 8.3 M $0.71 $5.9 M $80 M 7%
795 | P a g e

Table 3-237. First decade rocked road maintenance fee collections compared to annual maintenance 

(AM) need 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Road Use

(Mbf-Miles)

Maintenance

Fee/Mbf-Mile

(Dollars)

Maintenance

Fee Collected

(Dollars)

AM Need

(Dollars)

AM Need

(Percent)

No Action 5.4 M $1.46 $7.9 M $88 M 9%

Alt. A 3.4 M $1.46 $4.9 M $88 M 6%

Alt. B 4.5 M $1.46 $6.6 M $88 M 7%

Alt. C 7.5 M $1.46 $11.0 M $88 M 12%

Alt. D 2.4 M $1.46 $3.6 M $88 M 4%

2008 FEIS 

Reference Analysis 16.2 M $1.46 $23.7 M $88 M 27%

PRMP 3.8 M $1.46 $5.5 M $88 M 6%

In the first decade, rocked road maintenance fee collection would range from 4 percent of annual 

maintenance need for Alternative D to 12 percent for Alternative C. Similarly, the first decade paved road 

maintenance fee collections range from 5 percent of annual maintenance need for Alternative D to 15 

percent for Alternative C. The Proposed RMP would generate maintenance fee collections of 6 percent of 

annual maintenance need for rocked roads and 7 percent of annual maintenance need for paved roads. In 

comparison, the 2008 “Manage most commercial lands for maximizing timber production” reference 

analysis rocked and paved road maintenance fee collection percentages would be27 percent and 32 

percent respectively. 

The BLM’s other sources of annual maintenance funding during the first decade would not vary by 

alternative and the Proposed RMP: (1) assumed annual maintenance appropriation of $63 million, and (2) 

private commercial timber haul maintenance fee collections of $25 million. When sources of funding are 

combined, the total amount available for annual maintenance expenditures for both rocked and paved 

roads would range from $95 million for Alternative D (57 percent of annual maintenance need) to $111 

million for Alternative C (66 percent of annual maintenance need). The Proposed RMP would generate 

total annual maintenance expenditures of $99 million (59 percent of the $168 million annual maintenance 

need). In comparison, the 2008 “Manage most commercial lands for maximizing timber production” 

reference analysis would generate total annual maintenance expenditures of $137 million (82 percent of 

annual maintenance need). 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the road utilization rates would be insufficient to close the 

gap between annual maintenance expenditure and annual maintenance need, with the shortfall largest for 

Alternative D and least for Alternative C. The road utilization rates for the 2008 “Manage most 

commercial lands for maximizing timber production” reference analysis would be insufficient to close the 

gap between annual maintenance expenditure and annual maintenance need. The BLM is likely to 

continue to accrue new deferred maintenance in the first decade under any of the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. Given the higher utilization rates for paved roads relative to rocked roads, new deferred 

maintenance would likely skew towards rocked roads. 

Table 3-238 contains a summary of the estimated value of timber sale purchaser renovation for the first 

decade for each of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP and the 2008 reference analysis. Additionally, 

the table compares renovation expenditures to the deferred maintenance backlog for roads as reported in 

the Facility Asset Management System (the BLM’s constructed asset inventory).
796 | P a g e

Table 3-238. First decade paved and rock-surfaced roads renovation expenditures compared to the 

deferred maintenance (DM) backlog 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Total 

Harvest 

Volume

(Mbf)

Renovation 

Expenditure/

Mbf

(Dollars)

Renovation 

Expenditure

(Dollars)

Current DM 

Backlog

(Dollars)

DM Backlog

(Percent)

No Action 3,995,556 $9.55 $38.2 M $317 M 12%

Alt. A 2,486,143 $9.55 $23.7 M $317 M 7%

Alt. B 3,316,594 $9.55 $31.7 M $317 M 10%

Alt. C 5,573,610 $9.55 $53.2 M $317 M 17%

Alt. D 1,800,457 $9.55 $17.2 M $317 M 5%

2008 FEIS 

Reference Analysis 12,010,000 $9.55 $114.7 M $317 M 36%

PRMP 2,775,140 $9.55 $26.5 M $317 M 8%

Renovation expenditures would reduce the BLM’s $317 million deferred maintenance backlog. In the 

first decade, renovation expenditures would range from 5 percent of the deferred maintenance backlog for 

Alternative D to 17 percent for Alternative C. The Proposed RMP would generate renovation 

expenditures of $26 million (8 percent of the deferred maintenance backlog). In comparison, the 2008 

“Manage most commercial lands for maximizing timber production” reference analysis would generate 

renovation expenditures of 36 percent. 

The only source of deferred maintenance funding other than timber sale purchaser renovations would be 

the BLM’s deferred maintenance program, which has assumed appropriation of $20 million and would 

not vary by alternative and the Proposed RMP. When both sources are combined, the total amount 

available for deferred maintenance expenditures on surfaced roads during the first decades would range 

from $37 million for Alternative D (12 percent of the deferred maintenance backlog) to $73 million for 

Alternative C (23 percent of the deferred maintenance backlog). The Proposed RMP would generate total 

deferred maintenance expenditures of $46 million (15 percent of the deferred maintenance backlog). In 

comparison, the 2008 “Manage most commercial lands for maximizing timber production” reference 

analysis would generate total deferred maintenance expenditures of $135 million (42 percent of the 

deferred maintenance backlog). 

Across all the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the net deferred maintenance backlog would continue 

to grow, since reductions in the deferred maintenance backlog due to timber sale purchaser renovation 

expenditures and deferred maintenance program spending would be less than the new deferred 

maintenance generated by the gap between annual maintenance need and actual annual maintenance 

expenditure. The 2008 “Manage most commercial lands for maximizing timber production” reference 

analysis would result in a decline of the net deferred maintenance backlog substantially in the first 

decade. 
797 | P a g e

References 

USDI BLM. 2011. Bureau of Land Management Travel and Transportation Manual–1626. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.38105.File.dat/16

26.pdf. 

---. 2012. Bureau of Land Management Travel and Transportation Handbook–8342. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.34786.File.dat/

8342.pdf. 

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/rmp-criteria.pdf. 

---. 2014. Review of Revised Bureau of Land Management Travel and Transportation Manual. WO IM 2015-032. December 18, 

2014. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2015/IM_2015-

032.html. 
798 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
799 | P a g e

Tribal Interests 

Key Points 

 An active and ongoing dialogue between BLM representatives and designated Tribal 

representatives and their leadership contributed to develop analyses. A summary of Tribal 

listening sessions is included as Appendix R and expands upon the issues in this section. 

 A large portion of the issues identified by the Tribes are covered under specific resource sections 

(e.g., Fisheries, Hydrology, Socioeconomics, Invasive Species, and Cultural Resources) though 

the effects specific to Tribal communities may differ due to the unique relationships that Tribes 

have with the landscape and its resources. The BLM summarizes these unique and often 

qualitative effects here whereas the specific resource sections contain the quantitative technical 

analyses. 

Summary of Notable Changes from Draft RMP/EIS 

This section includes updated information and expands discussions based upon requests received from 

Tribes during government-to-government consultation meetings held since the release of the Draft 

RMP/EIS. These updates reflect expansion and clarification of information and identification of special 

areas, resources, and issues the Tribes requested be addressed. Appendix R also contains elements of this 

nature. 

Issue 1 

How would land management actions affect sacred sites and places of traditional religious and cultural 

importance? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM described in the Planning Criteria how continued management of sacred sites and places of 

traditional religious and cultural importance of which the BLM is aware would continue through tribal 

consultation and implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) 

as well as Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771, 1996) and the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996 et seq.). 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, p. 167). 

Background 

The National Historic Preservation Act and the 36 CFR 800 – Protection of Historic Properties 

regulations use the term “properties of traditional religious and cultural importance” to describe 

geographic places prominent in a particular group’s cultural practices, beliefs, or values that: (1) are 

widely shared within the group, (2) have been passed down through generations, and (3) have served a 

recognized role in maintaining the group’s cultural identity for at least 50 years. Through NEPA, the 

National Historic Preservation Act, and the 36 CFR 800 regulations, Federal agencies are required to 

consult with potentially affected Tribes in order to identify and evaluate such places that Federal actions 

may affect. 
800 | P a g e

Executive Order 13007 defines sacred sites as “specific, discrete, narrowly delineated locations on 

Federal land that are identified by an Indian Tribe, or... authoritative representative of an Indian religion, 

as sacred by virtue of their established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion.” 

A Tribal understanding or definition of sacred sites or sacredness in general is in contrast to the Federal 

definition. Specifically, a narrowly delineated space does not capture the inherent sacredness of the 

natural phenomena surrounding it. 

Based on Federal definitions, sacred sites are religious or spiritual places and are not limited by age. 

Places of traditional and cultural importance can be either secular or religious but are limited to being 50 

years of age or older under this definition. Different regulations require the BLM to consider these two 

types of sites, but in both cases, the Federal government is not the entity that determines what sites are 

sacred or have traditional religious and cultural importance. Tribes (or individuals as described in 

Executive Order 13007) are the only entities able to identify what sites are important to them. Therefore, 

consultation with Tribes is necessary to identify and evaluate these sites as well as to help determine how 

actions may affect the sites and how to resolve adverse effects. 

The National Historic Preservation Act and Executive Order 13007 address identification and protection 

of these types of places. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act works in tandem with these 

directives to ensure Tribes retain access and the ability to use these places for religious purposes including 

the practice of ceremonies. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act states that “it shall be the policy 

of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to 

believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian..., including but not limited 

to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials 

and traditional rites.”

Affected Environment 

There are both sacred sites and places of traditional and cultural importance within and nearby the 

planning area. As described above, sacred sites and places of traditional and cultural importance are 

identified by Tribal entities and can be more broadly encompassing than narrowly delineated spaces on 

the ground. Sacred sites and places of traditional cultural importance not on BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area and on both BLM and non-BLM-administered lands within near distances of the 

planning area boundary have the potential to be possibly influenced by management on BLMadministered lands within the decision area. See also Issue 6 in this section for discussions on effects to 

tribally managed lands. 

One example of such a place is Little Pilot Butte, which is located within the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument.125 The site has sacred and religious importance to the Klamath Tribes. It has ceremonial 

significance to the Tribe that predates the establishment of the monument and continues to be used today. 

Tribes or individual Tribal members often keep the location of these sites private; therefore, the BLM 

does not have knowledge of all the sacred sites and places of traditional and cultural importance located 

within or in near-distances of the planning area. The BLM manages those sites of which the BLM is 

aware in consultation with Tribes. 

 

125 The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is located within the Medford District but is outside of the decision 

area. BLM-administered lands included within the Little Pilot Butte area are managed in conformance with the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument’s 2008 Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (USDI 2008), 

which will not be affected by this RMP revision. 
801 | P a g e

Environmental Consequences 

The BLM would continue to avoid or mitigate effects to those sacred sites and places of traditional 

cultural importance of which the BLM has knowledge to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not 

clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions by: (1) accommodating access and ceremonial use of 

Tribal sacred sites by Tribal religious practitioners; and (2) avoiding adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sacred sites. Any potential effects to these sites would warrant consultation and 

involvement from the Tribe on how to avoid or mitigate effects. Under all alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP, the BLM would consult with Tribes early in the project planning process in order to identify 

currently unknown sites or sensitive areas and thus subsequently mitigate effects as necessary. 

Issue 2 

How would land management actions affect tribal plant collection, management, and use? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In the absence of data on specific plants of cultural interest along with their locations on the landscape, a 

quantified analysis of the effects on plant collection, management, and use is not possible to be part of the 

RMP process. Further site-specific analysis would take place during implementation of the RMP as would 

early consultation with interested Tribes in the planning process. This is the best way to avoid or mitigate 

effects to tribal plant collection, management, and use. 

Two specific plant habitats were mentioned during consultation with Tribes: (1) upland areas including 

seasonal wet meadows and scab rock flats that exist primarily in the interior/south of the planning area; 

and (2) riparian areas primarily within the coastal/north part of the planning area. Multiple Tribes 

expressed a specific concern regarding the ability to manage for culturally important plants within 

riparian habitat areas. The Planning Criteria included the broader topic of tribal plant collection and 

effects to culturally important plants within riparian habitat areas as separate issues (USDI BLM 2014, p. 

169), but they are now combined here under the broader topic of tribal plant collection. 

While this analysis focuses primarily on riparian habitat areas with some emphasis on the upland areas, it 

is important to state that tribal plant collection, management, and use is not limited to these areas. 

Appendix R includes two lists of common plants with cultural uses. These lists are not exhaustive but 

provide a large sample of culturally significant plants found in the planning area. Without identifying 

locations of specific plants and associated types of management required, the analyses can only speak 

generally to how variation in riparian management across alternatives and the Proposed RMP would 

affect culturally important plants that live in those habitats. Given that the objective of the Riparian 

Reserve is to 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 riparian-associated species, treatments 

within riparian areas are restricted. 

For culturally important plants existing within the interior/south, the habitats, management, and threats to 

those plants may differ from those within riparian habitat areas of the coastal/north part of the planning 

area. A summary list of those plants identified as culturally important to the Klamath Tribes has been 

included at the end of Appendix R. Effects are determined through Tribal consultation on project 

activities. 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is hereby incorporated by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 166, 169). 
802 | P a g e

Affected Environment 

BLM-administered lands in western Oregon provide an abundant variety of plants that Tribal members 

collect and sometimes manage for traditional uses. Tribal members collect plant materials to make 

baskets, hats, regalia, tools, and other objects of Tribal culture, as well as use for food and medicine. 

Valued plants require active management in order for them to produce the desired material product. Two 

common treatments used for management of culturally important plants are conducting prescribed fire 

and thinning denser forested areas to promote the growth of shrubs and a diversity of other species. 

The Coos Bay District has agreements with the Coquille Indian Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians that allow collection of specific plants on designated BLMadministered lands. The BLM and other Tribes in western Oregon are currently working together to draft 

agreements for tribal plant collection. 

Environmental Consequences 

The primary impacts to culturally important plants found in the interior/south of the planning area are due 

to grazing, juniper cutting, piling and burning, invasive species, and herbicide use. Without more detailed 

information on specific locations of plants and planned actions, analysis is not feasible. Appendix R

contains a plant list provided by the Klamath Tribes that includes culturally important plants. 

Consultation with Tribes prior to planning and implementing project activities is the most effective way 

to analyze and potentially mitigate effects to culturally important plants.

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would permit prescribed fire within the Eastside 

Management Area – Riparian Reserve for vegetation management to the extent that it conforms to the 

management objectives and direction for the Riparian Reserve. Appendix B contains specific details on 

management in the Riparian Reserve.

Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve 

In all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the Riparian Reserve along perennial and fish-bearing 

streams would encompass 150 feet on each side of the stream channel in forested areas in the Klamath 

Falls Field Office east of Highway 97. Some specific management direction relative to management of 

culturally important plants includes—

 Thinning and other silvicultural treatments; and 

 No mechanical treatments within 60 feet of the stream channel under Alternatives A, B, C, and D; 

no vegetation treatments using ground-based machinery within 75 feet of the stream channel 

under the Proposed RMP. 

In all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve along 

non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, all lakes, all natural ponds, and wetlands > 1 acre would be 100 feet 

each side of the water feature. The Proposed RMP additionally establishes a 100-foot Eastside 

Management Area – Riparian Reserve around constructed water impoundments > 1 acre and constructed 

ponds > 1 acre. Some specific management direction relative to culturally important plants includes—

 Thinning and other treatments to support large tree development; 

 No mechanical treatments within 35 feet on either side of the water feature under Alternatives A, 

B, C, and D; and 

 No vegetation treatments using ground-based machinery within 50 feet of lakes, natural ponds, or 

wetlands under the Proposed RMP. 

In Alternatives A, B, C, and D, the Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve width along all 

constructed impoundments and ponds, and wetlands < 1 acre is the extent of riparian vegetation. Under 
803 | P a g e

the Proposed RMP, the Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve width is 25 feet on each side of 

the water feature around wetlands < 1 acre, constructed impoundments < 1 acre, and constructed ponds < 

1 acre. Some specific management direction relative to management of culturally important plants 

includes—

 Thinning and other treatments to speed the development of potential natural vegetation 

communities; 

 No mechanical treatments within 35 feet either side of the water feature under Alternatives A, B, 

C, and D; and 

 No vegetation treatments using ground-based machinery within 50 feet of wetlands under the 

Proposed RMP. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP for all water feature types, the following includes some 

specific management direction relative to management of culturally important plants: 

 Managing livestock grazing to levels that allow for maintenance and development of riparian 

plant communities 

 Removing conifers where they compete with the natural vegetation community 

Riparian Reserve 

In Alternative A, the Riparian Reserve along fish-bearing streams and perennial non-fish-bearing streams 

would have an inner zone of 0–120 feet; on non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, the inner zone is 0–50 

feet. The BLM would not conduct thinning within these inner zones. The outer zones for all fish-bearing 

and perennial non-fish-bearing streams would be 120 feet to one site-potential tree height and 50 feet to 

one site-potential tree height on non-fish-bearing intermittent streams. The BLM would conduct thinning 

in the outer zone for the purposes of providing wood to streams. Tree felling is limited to safety and 

stream restoration activities. The BLM would not conduct thinning for timber volume. 

In Alternative B, the Riparian Reserve along fish-bearing streams and perennial non-fish-bearing streams 

would have an inner zone of 0–60 feet; on non-fish-bearing intermittent streams the inner zone is 0–50 

feet. The BLM would not conduct thinning within these inner zones with the exception of safety, 

treatment of disease, or dry forest resiliency. The outer zones for all fish-bearing and perennial non-fishbearing streams would be 60 feet to one site-potential tree height and 50–100 feet on non-fish-bearing 

intermittent streams. The BLM would conduct thinning for development of understory plants; and to 

increase diversity of riparian species. 

In Alternative C, the Riparian Reserve along fish-bearing streams and perennial non-fish-bearing streams 

would have an inner zone of 0–60 feet; on non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, the inner zone would be 

0–50 feet. The BLM would not conduct thinning within these inner zones except for safety, treatment of 

disease, or dry forest resiliency. The outer zones for all fish-bearing and perennial non-fish-bearing 

streams would be 60–150 feet. The BLM would conduct thinning for development of understory plants; 

and to increase diversity of riparian species. 

In Alternative D, the Riparian Reserve along all streams would have an inner zone of 0–120 feet. The 

BLM would not conduct thinning within this inner zone except for safety, instream restoration, treatment 

of disease, or dry forest resiliency. The outer zone for all streams is 120 feet to one site-potential tree 

height. The BLM would conduct thinning in the outer zone to provide wood to streams and to reduce fuel 

in drier forests. 

The Proposed RMP manages the Riparian Reserve differently by watershed classes. In Class I 

subwatersheds, the Riparian Reserve along fish-bearing and perennial streams would have an inner zone 

of 0–120 feet; on non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, the inner zone would be 0–50 feet. The BLM 
804 | P a g e

would not conduct thinning within these inner zones except for sudden oak death treatments and 

individual tree cutting or tipping as described in the management direction. The middle zone for non-fishbearing streams is 50–120 feet. The BLM would conduct thinning within this zone for the purposes of 

providing wood to streams. Removal of cut trees would only be allowed for safety or operational reasons. 

The outer zone for fish-bearing and perennial streams and non-fish-bearing intermittent streams is 120 

feet to one site-potential tree height. The BLM would conduct thinning in the outer zone for the purpose 

of providing wood to streams. 

In Class II subwatersheds, the Riparian Reserve along fish-bearing and perennial streams would have an 

inner zone of 0–120 feet; on non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, the inner zone would be 0–50 feet. 

The BLM would not conduct thinning within these inner zones except for sudden oak death treatments 

and individual tree cutting or tipping as described in the management direction. The outer zone for fishbearing and perennial streams is 120 feet to one site-potential tree height; on non-fish-bearing intermittent 

streams, the outer zone would be 50 feet to one site-potential tree height. The BLM would conduct 

thinning in the outer zone for the development of understory plants; and to increase the diversity of 

riparian species. 

In Class III subwatersheds, the Riparian Reserve along fish-bearing and perennial streams would have an 

inner zone of 0–120 feet; on non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, the full Riparian Reserve width would 

be 0–50 feet. The BLM would not conduct thinning within these zones except for sudden oak death 

treatments and individual tree cutting or tipping as described in the management direction. The outer zone 

for fish-bearing and perennial streams is 120 feet to one site-potential tree height. The BLM would 

conduct thinning in the outer zone for the development of understory plants; and to increase the diversity 

of riparian species. 

In conclusion, Alternatives B and C, and the Proposed RMP would be most conducive to the type of 

management needed for culturally important plants in these areas because the management direction 

allows for the widest range of management practices. 

Early consultation with Tribes prior to project implementation would identify those plants that are 

important for traditional uses, and the BLM could reduce or eliminate effects to these resources. 

Identifying plant-gathering locations can also reduce or eliminate effects by project design or mitigation. 

Issue 3 

How would land management actions affect the visibility of the historic Siletz reservation boundary? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

For this analysis, the BLM compared the extent to which each alternative and the Proposed RMP would 

be able to maintain a visible boundary between the BLM-administered lands and the historic Siletz 

reservation boundary. To do this, the BLM calculated the total linear miles of BLM-administered lands 

touching the historic reservation boundary minus the total number of linear miles of those same BLMadministered lands that are in land use allocations with clear-cutting. This analysis is based on the 

assumption that tree retention would allow the BLM to maintain a visible boundary while harvest without 

tree retention would not. 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, p. 169). 
805 | P a g e

Background 

President Franklin Pierce signed an Executive Order on November 9, 1855 to create a permanent 

reservation for the Coast and Willamette Valley Tribes. The original Coast Reservation spanned from 

Cape Lookout in the north to the Siltcoos River in the south and the eastern edge of Range 9 West, 

covering 1.1 million acres. A series of Executive Orders and Congressional Acts in 1865, 1875, and 1894 

reduced the Coast Reservation. The historic reservation boundary spans approximately 155 miles along its 

northern, western, and southern boundaries. About 31 of those miles overlap BLM-administered lands. 

Affected Environment 

There is interest from Siletz Tribal members to be able to go to areas on the landscape and physically see 

the historic reservation boundary where feasible. The BLM does not currently have practices in place to 

maintain visibility along the 31 miles of the historic boundary that runs between the BLM and the historic 

Coast Reservation. However, there are patches of visibility that currently exist along this historic 

boundary. These patches occur in some areas where forested BLM-administered lands are adjacent to 

private timberlands. 

Environmental Consequences 

For Alternatives A and C, only one land use allocation, the High Intensity Timber Area, proposes clearcutting within the decision area. All other land use allocations have timber harvest methods that include 

the ability to retain ‘leave trees’ that could be used to mark a boundary. The High Intensity Timber Area 

land use allocation is not included within the No Action alternative, Alternatives B and D, or the 

Proposed RMP; therefore, all 31 miles of BLM-administered lands touching that boundary would have 

the ability to retain leave trees during harvest activities. 

In Alternatives A and C, some lands with High Intensity Timber Area land use allocation touch the 

historic Coast Reservation boundary. In Alternative A, 1.24 miles of High Intensity Timber Area lands 

touch this boundary leaving over 29 miles available for leave tree retention. In Alternative C, 10.12 miles 

of High Intensity Timber Area lands touch the historic boundary leaving almost 20 of the 31 miles 

available for leave tree retention. 

In conclusion, BLM-administered lands touch approximately 20 percent of the historic Coast Reservation 

boundary. The No Action alternative, Alternatives B and D, and the Proposed RMP would allow for leave 

tree retention on all of the boundary miles in order to have a visible boundary for the historic reservation. 

Alternative A would allow leave tree retention on 96 percent and Alternative C would allow leave tree 

retention on 67 percent of the boundary. 

Issue 4 

How would land management actions affect lamprey, fish, and fish passage? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Large wood, stream temperature, sediment, and water flow have the greatest influence on aquatic habitat 

to support fish populations. The BLM analysis of the effects to fish and their habitat are in the Fisheries 

section in this chapter. Additionally, BLM road construction may contribute sediment delivery to streams, 

and that analysis is covered in the Hydrology section of this chapter. 
806 | P a g e

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 49–55, 65–88, 166–167). 

Affected Environment 

Salmon, lampreys, and other fish are a traditional cultural food for Tribes with interests in the planning 

area, and their population decline is a concern for those Tribes. Data on lamprey within the planning area 

is largely unavailable, and while they are not an ESA-listed species, a number of professional fish 

biologists have noted a reduction in the population. 

Environmental Consequences 

The alternatives and the Proposed RMP have very similar potential effects to salmon and lamprey. The 

Fisheries and Hydrology sections of this chapter contain analyses of the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP for effects to fish and water, respectively. 

Implementation of any of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not affect fish passage within the 

decision area because 97 percent of the large, fish-passage culverts are in good condition. The majority of 

fish barriers within the planning area are on private lands.

Issue 5 

How would land management actions affect migrating mule deer and resident deer and elk populations? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM analyzed the effects to deer and elk based on the availability of high-quality forage habitat by 

alternative and the Proposed RMP. The Early Successional forest stage represents high-quality forage 

habitat for this analysis. Deer and elk populations rely on the shrubs and forbs available in this habitat 

type for survival and successful reproduction. 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 167, 201, and 202). 

Affected Environment 

Multiple Tribes expressed interest and concern over declining populations of migrating mule deer as well 

as resident deer and elk populations. Deer and elk are important to Tribes as a traditional food source for 

the traditional cultural practice of hunting, and for their place in the larger eco-system. Declining timber 

harvests on Federal land in western Oregon have reduced the amount of early successional forests that the 

deer and elk rely upon for high-quality forage. The Wildlife section in this chapter specific to deer and elk 

provides a more detailed description of the current picture of deer and elk populations within the planning 

area. 

Environmental Consequences 

Under the No Action Alternative, Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, higher-quality forage 

habitat would increase for deer and elk populations on BLM-administered lands in 50 years. This increase 

in habitat is correlated to the combination of size of the Harvest Land Base and the harvesting methods 
807 | P a g e

used in those alternatives and the Proposed RMP, thus creating more Early Successional habitat within 

the decision area. These four alternatives and the Proposed RMP would thus improve conditions for this 

tribally important resource. In Alternative D, the BLM contribution to higher-quality forage habitat would 

remain unchanged if not decrease slightly over time. The Wildlife section in this chapter contains analysis 

specific to deer and elk, which provides a more thorough description of effects. 

Issue 6 

How would land management actions affect historic trail routes? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM considers historic trail routes as a type of cultural resource. The Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources section in this chapter provides a description of the analytical methodology used to analyze 

effects to cultural resources and the results of that analysis. Historic trail routes also include, but are not 

limited to, those designated by Congress as National Historic Trails. The National Trails System section 

in this chapter provides a more detailed analysis of the Oregon National Historic Trail and the California 

National Historic Trail-Applegate Trail Routes, the two national historic trail routes within the decision 

area. 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 41–43 and 167–168). 

Affected Environment 

Federal agencies and others have identified, recorded, and evaluated a portion of the historic trail routes 

within the planning area. These sites are linear features on the landscape and exist in a variety of 

conditions. The General Land Office created some of the earliest documentation available for trails. Some 

Native American travel routes were later incorporated into European settler travel routes, trails, roads for 

the Forest Service and other Federal agencies, and railroad grades for hauling lumber, passengers, and 

freight. The National Register of Historic Places lists some prominent trails, such as the Oregon Trail. 

The Salem District has at least six recorded historic trail routes. In order to identify important historic trail 

routes, the BLM must consult with interested Tribes in addition to conducting research of historic records. 

Environmental Consequences 

Identification, recording, and evaluation of historic trail routes would help avoid or mitigate effects to 

historic trail routes. The BLM does not have all historic trail routes recorded and will need to consult with 

Tribes in order to identify trail routes important to them. The Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

section of this chapter provides a more detailed analysis of effects to cultural resources. 

Issue 7 

How would land management actions affect neighboring tribally managed lands? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

This issue touches upon many other issues analyzed in this chapter. Numerous land management actions 

could potentially affect neighboring tribally managed lands. 
808 | P a g e

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, p. 168). 

Affected Environment 

Tribally managed lands exist throughout the planning area. Multiple Tribes have lands adjacent to BLMadministered lands. Some management actions or inaction may result in effects to neighboring lands. 

Effects to neighboring lands can stem from—

 The spread of invasive species; 

 The occurrence of wildfire; and 

 Public access to tribally managed lands or places of importance to Tribes. 

Additionally, the Coquille Forest managed by the Coquille Tribe is “subject to the standards and 

guidelines of Federal forest plans on adjacent or nearby Federal lands, now and in the future” per Title V 

of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208). This means that the adopted 

BLM RMP that applies to the Coos Bay District will also apply to the Coquille Forest in that it will 

establish the suite of possible management approaches available for the Coquille Forest. However, the 

BLM RMP will not determine which specific land use allocations apply to which specific portions of the 

Coquille Forest or the rate or extent of timber harvest on the Coquille Forest. 

Environmental Consequences 

To the extent Tribal lands border BLM-administered lands, the effects previously listed could occur and 

are explained further here. BLM management actions comprise only a portion of the potential affects to 

tribally managed lands. The effects to neighboring tribally managed lands also depend on the type of 

management taking place on those lands. 

For invasive species, the BLM would continue to implement measures to prevent, detect, and control new 

invasive species infestations as well as use manual, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and biological 

treatments to manage invasive species infestations. The Invasive Species section of this chapter describes 

the analysis of BLM management considered for control and prevention of invasive plant species, 

invasive aquatic species, and sudden oak death. This analysis generally found Alternatives B and C to 

present the highest risk for spread of invasive plant species, invasive aquatic species, and sudden oak 

death. 

Concerning wildfire, the BLM would manage for fire-resilient landscapes and would continue to suppress 

wildfire where it threatens health and human safety. There is no accurate way to predict the exact location 

and timing of wildfires. However, management within dry forests would include treatments that reduce 

flame lengths and decrease the probability of crown fire potential, which would provide for more 

effective and safer fire suppression opportunities. All alternatives and the Proposed RMP include fuels 

reduction strategies to varying degrees in dry forests. 

In general, BLM land management actions would not affect access to tribally managed lands, although 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP with more roads may allow for more access opportunities, and those 

with fewer roads may limit access opportunities. The effects of the range of alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP on the BLM-managed transportation system are described in Issue 2 of the Trails and Travel 

Management section of this chapter, including analytical estimates of roadwork needs based upon 

management activities within the first decade (Table 3-239). The No Action alternative and Alternatives 

B and C would potentially provide the most opportunities for access whereas Alternatives A and D would 

provide the least opportunities for access. The Proposed RMP has the third lowest number of miles of 
809 | P a g e

new road construction. It would provide more access opportunities than Alternatives A and D but less 

than the No Action alternative and Alternatives C and D. 

Table 3-239. Mileage of new road construction and road renovation or improvement 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Total Estimated

New Road Construction

(Miles)

Total Estimated

Road Renovation

(Miles)

Total Estimated

Road Improvement

(Miles)

No Action 637 6,667 311

Alt. A 299 3,669 223

Alt. B 531 5,098 287

Alt. C 699 7,495 526

Alt. D 240 4,295 161

PRMP 437 4,295 246

It is important to note that Tribes have the ability to petition the Secretary of the Interior as authorized by 

Public Law 108-278 (also known as the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004) to conduct activities to 

achieve land management goals for Federal land. These activities must be on BLM-administered lands 

adjacent to Tribal forestland where BLM-administered lands pose the threat of fire or disease or is in need 

of restoration activities. Therefore, if BLM land management activities present a threat to neighboring 

tribally managed forestlands, the Tribes can request to take action to remedy the threat. 

As noted, the Coquille Tribe manages the Coquille Forest “subject to the standards and guidelines of 

Federal forest plans on adjacent or nearby Federal lands, now and in the future” per Title V of the Oregon 

Resource Conservation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-208). The analysis of effects to BLM-administered 

lands of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP generally reflects how these alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP would affect resources on the Coquille Forest. For example, if the Coquille Tribe elects to manage a 

portion of the Coquille Forest as Late-Successional Reserve, their Late-Successional Reserve 

management would have similar site-specific effects as Late-Successional Reserve management on BLMadministered lands because it would follow the same management direction. However, it is not possible 

for the BLM to identify specific effects of the BLM RMP on the Coquille Tribe stemming from the 

management of the Coquille Forest. As noted, the BLM RMP will not determine which specific land use 

allocations apply to which specific portions of the Coquille Forest or the rate or extent of timber harvest 

on the Coquille Forest. Absent such information, the BLM cannot ascribe any particular effect of the 

BLM RMP on the Coquille Tribe as a result of the BLM RMP establishing potential management 

approaches available for the Coquille Forest. 

Issue 8 

What are the social and economic effects of land management actions on Tribal communities? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The Socioeconomics section looks at the social and economic effects of the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP on communities within the planning area. Since Tribes are distinct communities that have Tribal 

members who live within the planning area, they also would be subject to these effects. Issue 2 of the 

Socioeconomics section looks at how the alternatives the Proposed RMP affect economic activity derived 

from BLM-administered lands. In addition, as part of the development of the affected environment 

portion of Issue 5 of the Socioeconomics section, the BLM collected data and interviewed community 
810 | P a g e

representatives throughout the planning area. While only two of the seven Tribes participated in the 

interviews, the information was broadly useful. 

The Planning Criteria provides detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods, and techniques, 

and the geographic and temporal scales for all five socioeconomic issues presented (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 

130–148). 

Affected Environment 

Federally recognized Tribes within the planning area represent distinct communities, and are subject to 

the economic conditions of the planning area. Issue 2 in the Socioeconomics section provides a detailed 

description of the current condition of employment, unemployment, and earnings in the planning area. 

Using employment as an example, since 2001 total employment in the planning area has grown by 7.2 

percent. However, since 2007, which was the peak of economic activity before the 2007–2009 recession, 

employment is down by 3.3 percent. Generally, throughout the planning area, district model areas show 

positive employment growth since 2001 ranging from 2.7 percent in the Coos Bay area to 9.8 percent in 

Salem-Portland. Klamath Falls (-2.7 percent) and Roseburg (-3.9 percent) are down from their 2001 

levels. All model areas are down from their peak in 2007, ranging from Roseburg (-10.7 percent) to 

Salem-Portland (-0.1 percent). 

Issue 5 of the Socioeconomics section also analyzes the effects of the alternatives the Proposed RMP on 

the capacity and resiliency of different types of communities in the planning area including Tribal 

communities. While this analysis included Tribal communities in the data used to evaluate effects, no 

community-specific conclusions were possible to be drawn at the scale of analysis conducted. As such, no 

specific conclusions to Tribal communities are made. Despite the lack of conclusions being made specific 

to Tribal communities’ capacity or resiliency, Tribal representatives have specifically expressed concerns 

with the data used (Census data) reflecting Tribal communities’ capacity and resiliency. The 

Socioeconomics section identifies that the data used is the best available but acknowledges and describes 

limitations to the data. The Cooperating Agency Advisory Group’s Tribal Working Group further 

developed the following statement to specifically identify Tribal concerns and clarify any potential 

inaccuracies to Tribal communities reflected by data limitations: 

There are varying acreages of O&C lands located within the ancestral homelands of the seven western 

Oregon Tribes. Management of these lands has a direct impact on the cultural interests, traditional 

lifeways, and economic wellbeing of Tribal members. 

As defined in the Socioeconomics section (Issue 5), capacity and resiliency from a social sciences 

perspective is a measure of a community’s or group of people’s ability to respond to certain events such 

as natural disasters, major economic change, external and internal stresses and to take advantage of 

opportunities to meet needs. However, it must be well communicated and understood that when 

applying a measure of capacity and resiliency to Tribes, that meaning may appropriately be interpreted 

differently. 

Census data and the developed metrics used in this analysis become problematic when assessing Tribal 

capacity and resiliency. Oregon Tribes which had their federal status terminated in the 1950s and then 

were restored to federal recognition in the 1980s do not have a single reservation where all Tribal 

members live. The Congressional Acts restoring these Tribes established multiple county service areas 

where the Tribes have historical and cultural interests and where many Tribal members reside. These 

county service areas also have legal meaning for Tribal members to receive governmental services. The 

census data and metrics when applied to counties and cities focuses on a specific geographic location 

and the population living in this area. Using this same approach for the identified Tribal reservations is 
811 | P a g e

inaccurate because the focus for Tribes is a distinct group of people with special legal status living in 

multiple county locations. Applying the developed metrics to only Tribal members living on the 

specified reservation and in the respective county location gives conclusions which most likely are not 

reflective of the total Tribal population. 

In respect to historic resiliency, Tribes have demonstrated perseverance and resiliency to the highest 

degree. Tribes have endured over two hundred years of devastation following the European occupation 

of native lands in North America. Tribes have also adapted to adverse actions, laws, and policies of the 

United States government. Tribal people are still here, and in many cases, thriving – preserving 

culture, raising families, executing government functions, and significantly contributing to native and 

non-native people and their communities. Given that, it becomes clear that resiliency takes on a unique 

meaning when applied to Tribes. 

For Tribes and their members there is also a culture dimension when determining capacity and 

resiliency. Those with strong ties to Tribal culture and active in traditional lifeways may have a very 

robust sense of capacity and resiliency, which is not reflected by the non-Tribal analytical model used 

in this analysis. 

Environmental Consequences 

The Socioeconomics section, particularly Issue 2, contains a full description of the socioeconomic effects 

of the alternatives the Proposed RMP. With respect to effects, all the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, 

except for Alternative D, would result in an increase in BLM-based jobs and earnings compared to what 

would have been generated in 2012 in the absence of Secure Rural Schools payments (i.e., if earnings and 

jobs were just based on jobs and earnings derived from the BLM’s actual management of the land in 

2012). 

Issue 9 

How would land management actions affect water quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The analysis of water quality is in the Hydrology section of this chapter. This analysis focuses primarily 

on sediment delivery and stream temperature. 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 65–89 and 168–169). 

Affected Environment 

Tribes have identified more than one issue surrounding water quality. Water quality is important as 

drinking water as well as for fish and other aquatic species and their habitats. 

Environmental Consequences 

The Hydrology analysis reveals that there is very little effect to water under the alternatives or the 

Proposed RMP and that there is a modest difference between potential changes in stream temperature 

between the alternatives the Proposed RMP. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 
812 | P a g e

regulates effects to drinking water, and the BLM would remain compliant with those regulations. Under 

all alternatives the Proposed RMP, the BLM would—

 Maintain water quality and stream flows within the range of natural variability, protect aquatic 

biodiversity, and provide quality water for contact recreation and drinking water sources; 

 Meet ODEQ water quality targets for 303(d) water bodies with approved Total Maximum Daily 

Loads; 

 Maintain high-quality water and contribute to the restoration of degraded water quality 

downstream of BLM-administered lands; and 

 Maintain high-quality waters within ODEQ designated source water protection watersheds. 

Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail 

How would land management actions affect tribal resource collection of obsidian, chert, and other rocks 

and minerals for noncommercial purposes? 

The decision area does not contain any identified locations for obsidian collection; therefore, analysis of 

effects is not possible. Chert and other non-modified rocks and minerals to include obsidian can be 

collected anywhere within the decision area, except developed recreation areas or where it is otherwise 

prohibited and posted per 43 CFR 8365.1–5. In the absence of specific locations identified for collection, 

an analysis of effects is not possible. 

References 

USDI BLM. 2008. Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land 

Management, Medford District Office, Medford, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/CSNM%20ROD%20and%20RMP_8-15-08.pdf. 

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/rmp-criteria.pdf. 
813 | P a g e

Visual Resources Management 

Key Points 

 Alternative D would manage the largest number of acres under objectives that would maintain 

inventoried visual values within the decision area. 

 Alternatives B and C would manage the least number of acres under objectives that would 

maintain inventoried visual values within the decision area. 

 The Proposed RMP would manage a larger number of acres under objectives that would maintain 

inventoried visual values within the decision area when compared to Alternatives B and C, and 

less acres when compared with the No Action alternative and Alternatives A and D. 

Summary of Notable Changes from Draft RMP/EIS 

Refinements to the GIS data identified errors to acres of Wild and Scenic Rivers tentatively classified as 

Wild that had been incorrectly categorized as VRM Class II. Changes for the action alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP in VRM Classes I and II contained in Table 3-242 reflect these acre corrections. 

Issue 1 

How would visual resource management and varying types and intensities of forestry management affect 

visual resource values on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon? 

Background 

Public lands have a variety of visual values. These different values warrant different levels of 

management. Because it is neither desirable nor practical to provide the same level of management for all 

visual resources, it is necessary to systematically identify and evaluate these values to determine the 

appropriate level of management. 

The Visual Resource Management (VRM) System is the inventory and planning actions taken by the 

BLM to identify visual values and establish objectives for managing those values. The BLM’s VRM 

System consists of two distinct components: 

 Visual resource inventory (VRI) classes (VRI Class I through VRI Class IV): identify the visual 

values 

 Visual resource management (VRM) classes (VRM Class I through VRM Class IV): establish the 

objectives for managing visual values 

The inventory consists of a scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and a delineation of 

distance zones. Based on these three factors, the BLM places BLM-administered lands into one of four 

visual resource inventory classes. These inventory classes represent the relative value of the visual 

resources; Inventory Classes I and II being the most valued, Class III representing a moderate value, and 

Class IV being of least value. 

Inventory classes are informational in nature and provide the basis for considering visual values in the 

RMP process. Visual resource inventory data for the planning area is stored and maintained at the Oregon 

State Office’s Geospatial Information Systems department. Inventory classes do not establish 

management direction and the BLM does not use them as a basis for constraining or limiting surfacedisturbing activities, except for VRI Class I: 
814 | P a g e

 VRI Class I—The BLM assigns this class to areas where the management goal is to preserve a 

natural landscape. Unlike other VRI classes, VRI Class I is assigned based on a pre-existing 

preservation management objective rather than on the existing condition of the visual resources. 

This includes areas such as Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and other congressionally 

and administratively designated areas where preservation of the existing landscape is the 

objective of the designation.

 VRI Class II, Class III, and Class IV—The BLM assigns these classes based on an overlay of 

existing scenic qualities, sensitivity levels, and distance zones as documented through the 

inventory process. Areas inventoried at a Class II have higher existing visual resource value than 

do areas inventoried at VRI Classes III or IV. Areas inventoried at VRI Class IV have the lowest 

existing visual resource value.

The BLM designates VRM classes through a resource management plan. Unlike VRI classes, which, with 

the exception of VRI Class I, represent an area’s existing visual value, VRM classes establish objectives, 

which prescribe the amount of change allowed through BLM management actions in the characteristic of 

the landscape. The allowance for noticeable change under VRM classes increases as the VRM class 

number increases: 

 VRM Class I—The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape would be very low and must not attract 

attention. 

 VRM Class II—The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape would be low. Management activities may be 

seen, but would not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

 VRM Class III—The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape would be moderate. Management 

activities may attract attention but would not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

 VRM Class IV—The objective of this class is to provide for management activities, which 

require major modifications of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be 

the major focus of viewer attention. 

Visual values identified through the visual resource inventory are considered with other resource values in 

the resource management planning process. The assignment of VRM classes can vary from the VRI class 

placement except for VRM Class I, which is automatically assigned to VRI Class I areas. For example, 

the BLM is not precluded from establishing a VRM class of IV on an area that inventoried as a VRI class 

of II or III. Outside of VRI Class I areas, the BLM is not required to generate land use allocations or other 

resource designations considered during planning based on the inventoried VRI class. For example, the 

BLM is not precluded from establishing the Harvest Land Base on an area that inventoried as a VRI class 

of II. The BLM establishes visual management objectives through the designation of VRM classes in 

conformance with the objectives of the designated land use allocations and other resource designations 

(e.g., Wild and Scenic Rivers, Special Recreation Management Areas, and Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern) considered during planning. Appendix B contains details of the management 

objectives and the assignment of VRM classes. 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

As part of this plan revision process, the BLM performed an updated visual resource inventory within 

western Oregon and established updated VRI classes. The BLM evaluated the loss or protection of visual 

values (scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and distance zones) by each alternative and the Proposed RMP 

from those identified during VRI classifications. 
815 | P a g e

The BLM evaluated, by each alternative and the Proposed RMP, acres proposed for management under 

each VRM class, and analyzed how this management would affect existing visual resource values. 

Specifically, the BLM evaluated the effects to visual resource values by considering how management 

under the VRM class would likely change the existing character of the landscapes in a manner that could 

change the current acres in each VRI class over time. The identification of VRI classes is a calculation 

resulting from the combined rankings attributed to scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and distance zones. 

Of these three visual quality elements, land use planning decisions under consideration for this RMP 

revision would bear little influence decreasing sensitivity levels or changing distance zones. As such, the 

BLM focused this analysis on actions that could influence the third of these visual quality factors, scenic 

quality. The BLM assumed visual values to be potentially negatively influenced on acres assigned to be 

managed under a less protective VRM class than the identified VRI class, since the less protective the 

VRM class, the higher the level of permissible visible change. For example, BLM-administered lands 

inventoried as VRI Class III are considered to have moderate visual values; management of these lands 

under VRM Class IV, which allows for high levels of visible change, could adversely influence the 

inventoried characteristics of the natural landscape. The BLM concluded that the alternative or the 

Proposed RMP with the least acres managed under a less protective VRM class than their assigned VRI 

class would have the least potential effect to the inventoried visual values, and the alternative or the 

Proposed RMP with the most acres managed under a less protective VRM class than their assigned VRI 

class would have the largest potential effect change to the inventoried visual values. 

Analysis Assumptions 

For the purposes of this analysis, the BLM used VRI classes as a proxy to evaluate potential effects of 

forest management activities on scenic quality values and overall inventory scores. The BLM assumed 

that the following forest management activities would not degrade the inventoried visual value or scenic 

quality scores to an extent that would change the inventoried class: 

 VRI Class II—Thinning could take place within VRI Class II areas without degrading their 

visual resource values to an extent that would change their VRI class. Regeneration harvest could 

not take place in VRI Class II areas without degrading visual resource values to an extent that 

would change their VRI class. 

 VRI Class III—Thinning and regeneration harvest with retention could take place within VRI 

Class III areas without degrading their visual resource values to an extent that would change their 

VRI class. Clearcut harvests could not take place in VRI Class III areas without degrading visual 

resource values to an extent that would change their VRI class. 

 VRI Class IV—All harvest types could take place within VRI Class IV areas without degrading 

their visual resource values. 

The BLM acknowledges that this assumption likely overestimates the potential acres on which BLM 

forest management activities could possibly affect VRI classes. Since VRI classes are a calculation of 

three visual values, BLM-administered lands within the planning area could be inventoried as VRI Class 

II or III where scenic qualities are rated as being of moderate or low but sensitivity levels and distance 

zones are rated high. 

The BLM assumes that no management actions would degrade lands identified as VRI Class I, as all acres 

identified an VRI Class I would be assigned to VRM Class I, and thus managed for very low to no visual 

contrast. 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods, and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 123–124). 
816 | P a g e

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

All surface-disturbing activities, regardless of the alternative or management action, would be subject to 

the management objectives of the underlying land use allocation. The visual resource contrast rating 

system analyzes the potential site-specific impacts of surface-disturbance and the facility design and 

placement on an area’s visual components. The BLM would design surface-disturbing activities and 

facilities to mitigate visual effects and conform to the area’s assigned VRM class objective. 

Degradation of scenic qualities would potentially occur from surface-disturbing activities, such as those 

associated with regeneration timber harvest occurring within the Harvest Land Base or with construction 

of roads. Effects on visual resource values would also result from some actions proposed to manage other 

resources and uses (e.g., reciprocal rights-of-way and utility corridors). The BLM deemed that programs 

not addressed in this section have no, or negligible, potential to impact visual resource values under any 

of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 

Table 3-240 shows the VRI class acreage and Figure 3-143 shows the VRI class distribution in the 

decision area. 

Table 3-240. Visual Resource Inventory class distribution in the decision area†

District/

Field Office

VRI Class I

(Acres)*

VRI Class II

(Acres)

VRI Class III

(Acres)

VRI Class IV

(Acres)

Coos Bay 579 16,382 61,070 246,829

Eugene 0 60,556 123,517 126,977

Klamath Falls 337 6,584 14,992 192,496

Medford 20,078 293,850 210,068 301,954

Roseburg 0 71,759 102,000 249,805

Salem 7,239 103,920 66,769 227,666

Totals 28,233 553,052 578,415 1,345,726

* The BLM assigns this class to areas where the management goal is to preserve a natural landscape. Unlike other VRI classes, 

VRI Class I is assigned based on a pre-existing preservation management objective rather than on the existing condition of the 

visual resources. 

† See footnotes in Table 3-241
817 | P a g e

Figure 3-143. Visual Resource Inventory class distribution for the Proposed RMP† within the decision 

area 

* The BLM assigns this class to areas where the management goal is to preserve a natural landscape. Unlike other VRI classes, 

VRI Class I is assigned based on a pre-existing preservation management objective rather than on the existing condition of the 

visual resources. 

† See footnotes in Table 3-241

Effects from VRM Designation 

Table 3-241 shows the acres assigned to each VRM class under each alternative and the Proposed RMP. 

Areas designated as VRM Class III or IV would allow more surface- and forest-disturbing effects and 

potentially have greater adverse effects on the visual resource’s scenic quality than those areas designated 

as VRM Class I or II. The current visual values would potentially degrade to a moderate level if the BLM 

manages inventoried areas under a VRM Class III, and the visual values would be more severely reduced 

if managed under a VRM Class IV. 

Table 3-241. Acres of Visual Resource Management classes in the decision area 

28,233 

553,052 578,415 

1,345,726 

0

300,000

600,000

900,000

1,200,000

1,500,000

Class I* Class II Class III Class IV

Visual Resource Inventory (Acres) 

Visual Resource Inventory Class 

VRM Class No Action

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Class I 22,165* 27,628 27,628 27,628 27,628 28,233†

Class II 125,220 129,372 93,252 93,293 51,900 127,974

Class III 633,537 30,137 34,339 34,246 1,048,902 68,113

Class IV 1,691,128 2,283,679 2,315,571 2,315,623 1,342,361 2,254,535

Unknown‡6,812 8,046 8,072 8,072 8,071 7

Totals 2,478,862 2,478,862 2,478,862 2,478,862 2,478,862 2,478,862

* Discrepancies exist in the current datasets for acres managed as VRM I within the Medford District under the 1995 RMPs. 

† Calculations from GIS present the appearance of an additional 608 acres of VRM Class I under the Proposed RMP as compared 

to the action alternatives. However, there are no additional units proposed for management under VRM Class I under the 

Proposed RMP. 

‡ Unknown acres result from GIS analysis resulting in small portions of slivering 
818 | P a g e

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, there would likely be a general decrease in visual values in 

the decision area over time, as the BLM would manage a substantial acreage of BLM-administered lands 

under a less protective VRM class than the assigned VRI class (Table 3-241). Compared to the other 

alternatives, Alternative D would likely have the least decrease in visual value, as it would have the 

fewest acres where the BLM would manage for a less protective VRM Class than the assigned VRI class. 

Alternative A and the Proposed RMP would have the largest acreages in the most protective management 

classes (VRM Class I and II), while Alternative B and C would have the largest acreages assigned to the 

least protective management class (VRM Class IV), which would allow for the most visual contrast and 

change to the visual landscape. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the VRM classes set under the 1995 RMPs would remain. Under this 

continued management, there would be virtually no change to the characteristics of the landscapes 

designated VRM I. There would be limited change to the visual values of the landscape in VRM Class II 

areas, which only allow for low levels of contrast from management actions. Ongoing resource use and 

development in areas managed as VRM Class III or IV would have the potential to degrade visual 

resources. 

The No Action alternative would result in a general decrease in visual values in the decision area, as 

management allowing for moderate or high levels of change (VRM Classes III and IV) on inventoried 

lands of high and moderate values (VRI Classes II and III) would likely occur (Table 3-242). However, 

this decrease in visual values would be slightly less in the No Action alternative compared with 

Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, all of which would manage more acres allowing for 

moderate or high levels of change than the No Action on lands with high and moderate inventoried values 

as compared to the No Action. This decrease would be slightly more than what would occur under 

Alternative D. 
819 | P a g e

Table 3-242. Visual Resource Inventory class designations by Management class 

Alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP

VRM Management 

Class Designations

VRI Class I 

(Acres)

VRI Class II 

(Acres)

VRI Class III 

(Acres)

VRI Class IV 

(Acres)

VRI Unknown 

(Acres)

No Action Acres Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

VRM I 22,165 22,165 100% - - - - - - - -

VRM II 125,221 - - 67,506 12% 17,872 7% 39,743 3% 100 7%

VRM III 683,537 - - 186,340 34% 218,511 80% 277,592 20% 1,094 78%

VRM IV 1,391,127 - - 285,702 52% 33,010 12% 1,072,258 76% 157 11%

Unknown 6,812 - - 2,091 > 1% 1,296 > 1% 3,381 > 1% 44 3%

Totals 2,228,862 22,165 100% 541,639 100% 270,689 100% 1,392,974 100% 1,395 100%

Total acres managed under a less protective VRM Class than assigned VRI Class 513,215 23%

Alt. A Acres

VRM I 27,628 27,628 100% - - - - - - - -

VRM II 129,372 - - 92,457 17% 30,438 5% 6,462 > 1% 15 1%

VRM III 30,137 - - 5,079 1% 25,038 4% 17 > 1% 3 > 1%

VRM IV 2,283,679 - - 439,335 81% 508,426 89% 1,335,838 99% 80 5%

Unknown 8,046 - - 1,864 > 1% 1,158 > 1% 3,385 > 1% 1,639 93%

Totals 2,478,862 27,628 100% 538,735 100% 565,060 100% 1,345,702 100% 1,737 100%

Total acres managed under a less protective VRM Class than assigned VRI Class 960,984 39%

Alt. B Acres

VRM I 27,628 27,628 100% - - - - - - - -

VRM II 93,252 - - 76,533 14% 16,713 3% 1 >1% 5 >1%

VRM III 34,339 - - 5,079 1% 29,241 5% 17 >1% 2 >1%

VRM IV 2,315,571 - - 455,244 84% 517,946 91% 1,342,298 99% 83 5%

Unknown 8,072 - - 1,880 >1% 1,160 >1% 3,385 >1% 1,647 94%

Totals 2,478,862 27,628 100% 538,736 100% 565,060 100% 1,345,701 100% 1,737 100%

Total acres managed under a less protective VRM Classthan assigned VRI Class 986,431 40%

Alt. C Acres

VRM I 27,628 27,628 100% - - - - - - - -

VRM II 93,293 - - 76,574 14% 16,714 3% 1 > 1% 4 > 1%

VRM III 34,246 - - 5,079 1% 29,147 5% 16 > 1% 4 > 1%

VRM IV 2,315,623 - - 455,203 83% 518,039 91% 1,342,299 99% 82 5%

Unknown 8,072 - - 1,880 > 1% 1,160 > 1% 3,385 > 1% 1,647 94%

Totals 2,478,862 27,628 100% 538,736 100% 565,060 100% 1,345,701 100% 1,737 100%

Total acres managed under a less protective VRM Class than assigned VRI Class 986,483 40%

Alt. D Acres

VRM I 27,628 27,628 100% - - - - - - - -

VRM II 51,900 - - 51,816 10% 75 > 1% 3 > 1% 6 > 1%

VRM III 1,048,902 - - 484,953 89% 563,201 99% 702 > 1% 46 3%

VRM IV 1,342,361 - - 86 > 1% 624 > 1% 1,341,612 99% 39 2%

Unknown 8,071 - - 1,880 > 1% 1,161 > 1% 3,385 > 1% 1,645 94%

Totals 2,478,862 27,628 100% 538,735 100% 565,061 100% 1,345,702 100% 1,736 100%

Total acres managed under a less protective VRM Class than assigned VRI Class 493,825 20%

PRMP Acres

VRM I 28,233 28,233 100% - - - - - - - -

VRM II 127,974 - - 81,585 15% 35,351 6% 10,690 1% 348 20%

VRM III 68,113 - - 34,015 6% 12,114 2% 21,894 2% 90 5%

VRM IV 2,254,535 - - 423,148 79% 517,700 92% 1,312,394 98% 1,293 74%

Unknown 7 - - 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 > 1%

Totals 2,478,862 28,233 100% 538,748 100% 565,165 100% 1,344,978 100% 1,736 100%

Total acres managed under a less protective VRM Class than assigned VRI Class 976,601 39%

* Dark shaded boxes denote acres managed at equal or more protective VRM Class than the assigned VRI Class and would be 

managed with commensurate or lower levels of change permitted. 
820 | P a g e

Alternatives A, B, and C 

In Alternatives A, B, and C, the BLM would manage visual resources on congressionally reserved lands 

where decisions have been made to preserve a natural landscape (e.g., designated Wilderness Areas and 

Wild and Scenic Rivers) as VRM I, and designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern according to 

their assigned inventory class. The BLM would manage the following as VRM II: designated and 

recommended Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as Scenic; National Trail management 

corridors; District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics; and Special 

Recreation Management Areas that fall within the Primitive and Backcountry settings. The BLM would 

manage the following as VRM III: designated and recommended Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers 

classified as Recreational; and Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas that fall within the 

Middle Country setting. The BLM would manage all other lands as VRM Class IV, which would allow 

management activities that result in major modifications to the existing character of the landscape. 

Alternatives A, B, and C would result in a general decrease in visual values in the planning area as the 

management allowing for moderate or high levels of change (VRM Classes III and IV) on inventoried 

lands of high and moderate values (VRI Classes II and III) would occur (Table 3-242). Under 

Alternatives A, B, and C, the BLM would manage 960,984 acres (Alternative A), 986,431 acres 

(Alternative B), and 986,483 acres (Alternative C) allowing for moderate or high levels of change on 

lands with high and moderate inventoried values. 

Alternative D 

In Alternative D, the BLM would manage visual resources on congressionally reserved lands where 

decisions have been made to preserve a natural landscape (e.g., designated Wilderness Areas and Wild 

and Scenic Rivers) under VRM I, and designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern according to 

their assigned inventory class. The BLM would manage the following as VRM Class II: designated and 

recommended Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as Scenic; National Trail management 

corridors; and Special Recreation Management Areas that fall within the primitive and backcountry 

setting. The BLM would manage the following as VRM Class III: designated and recommended Suitable 

Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as Recreational; and Special and Extensive Recreation Management 

Areas that fall within the middle country setting. The BLM would manage all other lands according to 

their VRI Class, except that in the Harvest Land Base, the BLM would manage lands inventoried as VRI 

Class II as VRM Class III. 

While overall visual resource value is likely to decline over time under Alternative D, the decline would 

be less than under the other alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Under Alternative D only 493,825 acres 

would be managed allowing for moderate or high levels of change (VRM Class III or IV) on lands with 

high and moderate inventoried values (VRI Class II or III). 

Proposed RMP 

In the Proposed RMP, the BLM would manage visual resources on congressionally reserved lands where 

decisions have been made to preserve a natural landscape (e.g., designated Wilderness Areas and Wild 

and Scenic Rivers) under VRM I, and designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern according to 

their assigned inventory class except that the BLM would manage designated Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern within the harvest land base that are VRI Class II as VRM Class III. The BLM 

would manage the following as VRM Class II: designated and recommended Suitable Wild and Scenic 

Rivers classified as Scenic; National Trail management corridors; District-Designated Reserve – Lands 

Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics; and Special Recreation Management Areas that fall within 

the Primitive and Backcountry settings. The BLM would manage the following as VRM Class III: 
821 | P a g e

designated and recommended suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as Recreational126; and Special 

and Extensive Recreation Management Areas that fall within the Middle Country setting. The BLM 

would manage all other lands as VRM Class IV, which would allow management activities that result in 

major modifications to the existing character of the landscape. 

The Proposed RMP would decrease the visual resource values within the decision area as management 

allowing moderate or high levels of change (VRM Classes III and IV) on inventoried lands of high and 

moderate values (VRI Classes II and III) would occur (Table 3-242). Under the Proposed RMP, the BLM 

would manage 976,601 acres allowing for moderate or high levels of change on lands with high and 

moderate inventoried values. 

While visual resource value is likely to decline over time under the Proposed RMP, the decline would be 

less than under Alternatives B and C but greater than under Alternatives A and D and the No Action 

alternative. 

Effects to Visual Resources from Forest Management 

Certain sustained-yield timber management regimes are more or less compatible with the range of VRM 

class objectives. Table 3-243 displays the level of compatibility for each VRM class compared to the 

management regimes for the High Intensity Timber Area (HITA), Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

(MITA), Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA), Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA), Owl Habitat Timber 

Area (OHTA), and the No Action alternative. 

Table 3-243. Compatibility of sustained yield management regimes with VRM classifications 

Classification

HITA

(Even-aged

Management)

LITA/MITA/No Action

(Two-aged

Management)

OHTA/UTA

(Uneven-aged 

Management)

VRM I

VRM II

VRM III

VRM IV

Notes: 

Dark grey boxes indicate that the management regime would generally be incompatible. 

Cross-hatched boxes indicate that the management regime may be compatible. 

Light grey boxes indicate that the management regime would generally be compatible. 

Areas inventoried as VRI Class II or III represent higher and moderate relative values of visual resources 

than the lowest represented by VRI Class IV. Table 3-244 presents the acres of each VRI class that are in 

the Harvest Land Base under each alternative and the Proposed RMP. Regeneration timber harvest would 

not diminish the existing visual values of areas that are VRI Class IV. Management under the High 

Intensity Timber Area would diminish the visual resource values of VRI Class II and III areas, but 

 

126 All designated and recommended suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers would be allocated to the Congressionally 

Reserved Lands and the National Landscape Conservation System land use allocation, in which the BLM would 

manage for the protection of river segments’ classifications, outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs), water quality, 

and free-flowing condition. Within designated and recommended suitable Recreational segments, a designation of 

VRM Class III would require that changes on the landscape be moderate and not dominate the view of the casual 

observer. The management direction for the Congressionally Reserved Lands and the National Landscape 

Conservation System would require the BLM to protect all identified ORVs, including scenery ORVs, regardless of 

VRM class designation, and the BLM would manage visual resources in designated and recommended suitable river 

segments with scenery ORVs consistent with both the land use allocation management direction and VRM class 

designation. 
822 | P a g e

regeneration harvest with retention under the Low Intensity Timber Area, Moderate Intensity Timber 

Area, and No Action would only diminish the visual resource values of VRI Class II areas. It is worth 

noting that under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the largest designated VRI class of the Harvest 

Land Base would be VRI Class IV; timber harvest would not degrade the overall visual values of these 

areas. No acres of VRM Class I occur within the Harvest Land Base, and as such, discussions below 

exclude this VRM Class. 

Thinning under the Owl Habitat Timber Area and Uneven-aged Timber Area would not diminish the 

visual resource quality of VRM Classes II, III, or IV. The acres reflected below include all lands within 

the harvest Land Base and do not separate the acres associated with these compatible sub-allocations from 

the total sum. As such, the below acres are an overestimation of the possible acres on which incompatible 

timber harvest management would be possible to occur. 

Table 3-244. The Harvest Land Base within each Visual Resource Inventory class 

Visual Resource

Inventory Class

No Action

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Class II 174,030 69,785 116,425 141,535 133,680 100,410

Class III 209,996 82,103 117,755 154,676 168,159 102,647

Class IV 381,717 191,595 321,557 444,543 348,026 290,808

Unknown VRI 208 418 599 580 518 525

Totals 765,951 343,901 556,336 741,334 650,383 493,865

Alternatives A and C include High Intensity Timber Area and Uneven-aged Timber Area forest 

management within the Harvest Land Base. Forest management within the High Intensity Timber Area 

would include clear-cutting which would be potentially incompatible with the largest number of VRM 

Classes as it is incompatible with all but VRM Class IV. Uneven-aged Timber Area forest management 

would be compatible with all VRM Classes. Management under Alternatives C and A would result in the 

highest number of acres (Alternative C, 296,211 acres) and the fourth-highest number of acres 

(Alternative A, 151,888 acres) of all alternatives and the Proposed RMP where adverse effects from forest 

management practices could potentially occur. The large difference in sizes of the Harvest Land Base 

accounts for the differences in acres. 

Alternative B and the Proposed RMP include Moderate Intensity Timber Area, Low Intensity Timber 

Area, and Uneven-aged Timber Area forest management within the Harvest Land Base. Forest 

management within the Moderate Intensity Timber Area and Low Intensity Timber Area would include 

regeneration harvest with some level of retention, which would be potentially incompatible with only 

VRM Class II lands. Uneven-aged Timber Area forest management would be compatible with all VRM 

Classes. Management under this alternative and the Proposed RMP would result in the second-highest 

number of acres (Proposed RMP, 203,057 acres) and the lowest number of acres (Alternative B, 116,425 

acres) of all alternatives and the Proposed RMP where adverse effects from forest management practices 

could potentially occur. 

In the No Action alternative, effects to visual resources from sustained-yield timber management—all of 

which would include some level of retention—would occur on 174,030 acres. This would potentially 

degrade the visual resource quality of 174,030 acres of VRI Class II lands. Timber harvest activities under 

the No Action alternative would potentially affect visual resource quality on the third-most acreage 

compared to other alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 
823 | P a g e

Alternative D includes Moderate Intensity Timber Area, Owl Habitat Timber Area, and Uneven-aged 

Timber Area forest management within the Harvest Land Base. Forest management within the Moderate 

Intensity Timber Area would include regeneration harvest with some level of retention, which would be 

potentially incompatible with only VRM Class II lands. Owl Habitat Timber Area and Uneven-aged 

Timber Area forest management would be compatible with all VRM Classes. Management under 

Alternative D would result in the second-lowest number of acres (133,680 acres) of all alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP where adverse effects from forest management practices could potentially occur. 

References 

USDI BLM. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/rmp-criteria.pdf. 
824 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
825 | P a g e

Wildlife 

Bald Eagle 

Key Points 

 All action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would lead to an increase in bald eagle nesting 

habitat in 50 years. 

 All action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would have a slight loss of bald eagle habitat in the 

first decade or two, but additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would 

eventually surpass current conditions. 

Background 

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest in large diameter trees within 2 miles of large, permanent 

water bodies (Isaacs and Anthony 2011). 

There are 149 bald eagle nest trees amongst 89 breeding territories in the decision area (USDI BLM 

2008). The number of occupied bald eagle breeding territories in Oregon increased from 65 in 1978, to 

496 in 2007, and to 636 in 2010 (Isaacs 2011, Isaacs and Anthony 2011). Isaacs and Anthony (2011) 

suggest that the bald eagle population could double or triple before population growth stabilizes. 

The bald eagle population in Oregon and along the lower Columbia River grew by 7.3 percent per year 

from 1978–2007 (Isaacs and Anthony 2011). Annual population growth from 2008 to 2010 was 3.5 

percent per year (Isaacs 2011). The reduction in the rate of population growth may be an artifact of 

reduced monitoring efforts between the two time periods since statewide monitoring ended in 2007 (i.e., 

96 percent of breeding areas were surveyed in the 1978–2007 period, whereas 67 percent were surveyed 

in the 2008–2010 period). 

Under the 1995 RMPs, there are 176 Bald Eagle Management Areas designated in the decision area 

totaling 17,945 acres (Table 3-245), and they vary in size from 3 to 962 acres each. The 1995 RMPs 

included designations of Bald Eagle Management Areas to protect existing nest sites, winter and 

communal roosting areas, and potential nesting habitat. 

Table 3-245. Bald Eagle Management Areas within the decision area 

District/

Field Office

Bald Eagle

Management Areas

(Number)

Bald Eagle

Management Areas

(Acres)

Coos Bay 26 765

Eugene 73 8,254

Klamath Falls 21 1,921

Medford 20 1,057

Roseburg 25 3,731

Salem 11 2,217

Totals 176 17,945
826 | P a g e

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed bald eagles as an endangered species under the Endangered 

Species Act on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), reclassified them as a threatened species July 12, 1995 (60 

FR 36000), and delisted them due to recovery on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37346). Currently, bald eagles are 

protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In response 

to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the BLM issued policy guidance directing analysis of 

effects to bald eagles. The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon 

provides more information on the obligations of the BLM for bald eagles under these acts, which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2013, p. 144). 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the bald eagle would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered nesting habitat for bald eagle to be Mature Multi-layered Canopy 

and Structurally-complex stands within 2 miles of large water bodies (reservoirs or lakes greater than 10 

acres or streams larger than 7th order). The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on 

analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 195–196). 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative and Proposed RMP 

implementation on bald eagle habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on 

bald eagle habitat of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including land management 

activities on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The BLM 

modeled habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 2012 GNN structural 

condition. The discussion of analytical methods for the marbled murrelet describes GNN. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are 247,393 acres of nesting habitat for bald eagles on BLM-administered lands (Figure 3-144). Of

the forested lands capable of providing nesting habitat, 36 percent is currently nesting habitat in the 

decision area. 
827 | P a g e

Figure 3-144. Bald eagle habitat in the decision area–current condition and in 50 years 

There are 1,146,532 acres of nesting habitat for bald eagles across all land-ownerships in the planning 

area (Figure 3-145). Of the forestlands capable of providing nesting habitat, 20 percent is currently 

nesting habitat in the planning area. BLM-administered lands currently provide 22 percent of the 

available nesting habitat for bald eagles. 

247,393

300,862 322,298 325,246

288,660

338,378

319,828

345,936

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Bald Eagle Habitat (Acres)

Figure 3-145. Bald eagle habitat in the planning area–current condition and in 50 years 

899,139 

1,396,881 1,396,881 1,396,881 1,396,881 1,396,881 1,396,881 1,396,881 

247,393 

300,862 322,298 325,246 288,660 338,378 319,828 345,936 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Bald Eagle Habitat (Acres) 

Other Lands BLM-administered Lands
828 | P a g e

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, there would be 345,936 acres of bald eagle nesting 

habitat in 50 years in the decision area (Figure 3-145). Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the 

amount of bald eagle habitat on BLM-administered lands would increase between 17 and 37 percent. 

Habitat development under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would be 83–98 percent of the 

habitat development as under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. Of the action alternatives, 

Alternative D would provide the most bald eagle habitat development and Alternative C would provide 

the least development. The No Action alternative would produce 87 percent as much habitat as under No 

Timber Harvest. The Proposed RMP would provide 92 percent as much habitat as under No Timber 

Harvest. The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would have a 1–4 percent loss of bald eagle 

habitat in the first decade (the first two decades for Alternative C and the No Action alternative), but 

additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would surpass current conditions (Appendix 

S). In addition, under the Proposed RMP, the BLM would retain large trees that were established prior to 

1850 in the Harvest Land Base (Appendix B). These trees would serve as potential bald eagle nest trees 

where they occur within 2 miles of large bodies of water. The retention of these large trees is consistent 

with conservation actions recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Oregon 

Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 324). 

At the planning area scale, the No Timber Harvest reference analysis would lead to 1,742,817 acres of 

bald eagle nesting habitat in 50 years (Figure 3-145). Bald eagle habitat would increase by 47–50 percent 

under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP in 50 years in the planning area. Differences in habitat 

development among Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP would be indistinguishable, since 

they are within 1 percent of the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. Alternative C and the No Action 

alternative would yield less bald eagle habitat at the planning area scale, but the difference is insubstantial 

(3 percent less than the No Timber Harvest reference analysis). The action alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP would decrease bald eagle habitat by less than 1 percent in the first decade (the first 2 decades for 

Alternative C and the No Action alternative), but additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades 

that would surpass current conditions (Appendix S).

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would restrict activities near bald eagle nests that 

would disrupt nesting during the breeding season. Therefore, the BLM assumed that there would not be 

any disruption effects to nesting bald eagles under any of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 

Overall, the BLM concludes that bald eagle populations in the decision area and planning area would 

continue to grow under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Habitat availability for bald eagles would 

increase under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, and there is no newly identified threat that the 

BLM expects to curtail the observed trend in population growth of bald eagles. There would be little 

differentiation in effects among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, since habitat development would 

vary by no more than 3 percent, and seasonal restrictions would avoid disruption of nesting. 

Appendix S contains additional information and supporting data on bald eagles. 
829 | P a g e

References 

Isaacs, F. B. 2011. Summary of reports on bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nesting in Oregon and along the lower 

Columbia River, 2008–2010. Oregon Eagle Foundation, Inc., Klamath Falls, OR. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/inventories/inv-rpt-bi-hale-oregon-2008-2010-2011-07.pdf.

Isaacs, F. B., and R. G. Anthony. 2011. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nesting in Oregon and along the lower Columbia 

River, 1978–2007. Final Report, March 18, 2011. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of 

Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/inventories/inv-rpt-bi-hale-oregon-1978-2007-2011-03.pdf. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem, OR. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.asp. 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. BLM, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php. 

---. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-western-oregon.pdf. 

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/rmp-criteria.pdf. 
830 | P a g e

Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, Survey and Manage 

Species, and Landbird Focal Species 

Key Points 

 All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would lead to an increase in habitat for a majority of 

Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, Survey and Manage wildlife species, and landbird focal 

species in 50 years. 

 Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the distribution of structural stages in the decision 

area in 50 years would be within the range of the average historic conditions, increasing the 

habitat availability for many Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and Survey and Manage species. 

 The lack of green tree retention or snag and down woody material retention under Alternatives A 

and C would lead to the least amount of habitat for species associated with legacy structures in 

younger stands in 50 years. 

 Although none of the action alternatives or the Proposed RMP would include the Survey and 

Manage standards and guidelines, there would be sufficient habitat to support stable populations 

for most of the Survey and Manage wildlife species. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM revised the Bureau Sensitive and Bureau Strategic wildlife species considered in this analysis 

based on the updated State Director’s Special Status Species List (July 13, 2015). The BLM also included 

additional analysis and discussion of Survey and Manage species. The BLM reorganized the supporting 

appendix tables by species status (Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, Survey and Manage, and landbird 

focal species). 

Background 

Within the planning area, there are 71 Bureau Sensitive wildlife species and 61 Bureau Strategic wildlife 

species suspected or documented to occur on BLM-administered lands. There are 43 Survey and Manage 

wildlife species (December 2003 list (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2011)), but only 13 are suspected or 

documented to occur on BLM-administered lands within the planning area. Some, but not all, of the 43 

Survey and Manage wildlife species are among the 71 Bureau Sensitive wildlife species and 61 Bureau 

Strategic wildlife species (Appendix S). There are 34 focal species of landbirds considered in this 

analysis (Appendix S).

Based on BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management (USDI BLM 2008), the BLM will 

address Bureau Sensitive species and their habitats in land use plans and will implement measures to 

conserve these species and their habitats, to promote their conservation, and reduce the likelihood and 

need for these species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. Bureau Strategic species are not 

‘special status’ for management purposes (IM-OR-2015-028). The only requirement for this group of 

species is that information for species sites located during any survey efforts will be entered into the BLM 

corporate database (GeoBOB). This analysis includes discussion of Bureau Strategic species to provide a 

more comprehensive analysis of wildlife species in the decision area; effects to these species are typically 

not analyzed in project-level analyses. 

The BLM has the authority to update, amend, modify, change, or eliminate policies it uses to manage 

species within the Special Status Species program (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004). The BLM updates 

its Special Status Species list on a regular schedule, when state heritage programs publish new rankings or 

when other information indicates a need. 
831 | P a g e

The BLM conducts evaluations of the distribution, abundance, population trends, current threats, or 

habitat for Bureau Sensitive species using available information in regards to actions the BLM proposes

to undertake, consistent with the BLM Special Status Species Management manual. The BLM may or 

may not conduct field surveys as part of these evaluations for Bureau Sensitive wildlife species.

The Survey and Manage measures are a feature of the No Action alternative. The Northwest Forest Plan 

adopted the Survey and Manage measures as a set of protections for species associated with latesuccessional and old-growth forests. The 2000 Final Supplemental EIS for Amendment to the Survey and 

Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines and the 2004 Final 

Supplemental EIS to Remove of Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and 

Guidelines discussed the origin and implementation of the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines 

(USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000, pp. 3–10, 16–24; USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004, pp. 3–9, 15–21), 

and those discussions are incorporated here by reference. 

Those two supplemental EISs also described the Survey and Manage species and their habitat, 

distribution, and occurrence (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000, pp. 213–394; USDA FS and USDI BLM 

2004, pp. 141–208), and those descriptions are incorporated here by reference. 

The 2012 Resource Management Plan Evaluation Report (USDI BLM 2012) summarized the history of 

proposed changes to the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines: 

“The 1995 RMPs were amended by the January 2001, Record of Decision and Standards and 

Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation 

Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents within the Range of the northern spotted owl. 

In March 2004, the BLM completed a supplemental environmental impact statement and issued a 

record of decision to remove the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. The U.S. District Court 

for the Western District of Washington found the Record of Decision invalid since it relied on a 

supplemental environmental impact statement that the Court found deficient. In 2006, the Court 

issued an order of relief which allowed the BLM to eliminate the Survey and Manage requirement 

for four types of activities, commonly called the ‘Pechman Exemptions.’

Another interagency supplemental environmental impact statement was prepared to address 

deficiencies in the 2004 supplemental environmental impact statement. The BLM issued a record 

of decision in July, 2007 to amend the plans within the Northwest Forest Plan area to remove the 

Survey and Manage mitigation measure. 

In January 2008, a lawsuit was filed, and in December 2009, the presiding judge issued an Order 

granting Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. The judge found that the SEIS violated 

NEPA due to a lack of a true No Action alternative; lack of new information warranting 

elimination of Survey and Manage; and lack of high-quality information and accurate scientific 

data related to fire and fuels treatments, costs, and species data. 

A settlement agreement between the parties was approved by the court on July 6, 2011. The 

agreement stipulates that projects within the range of the northern spotted owl are subject to the 

survey and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 Record of Decision without 

subsequent 2001–2003 Annual Species Reviews as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. 

The Settlement Agreement modifies the 2001 Survey and Manage species list; establishes a 

transition period for application of the species lists; acknowledges existing exemption categories 
832 | P a g e

(2006 Pechman Exemptions); and, establishes exemptions from surveys for certain activities. The 

settlement agreement is in effect until the BLM conducts further analysis and decision making 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and issues a record of decision to supersede 

the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. 

The 2008 RMP revision did not include management objectives or direction for Survey and 

Manage Species. A plan revision would provide an opportunity to determine whether to retain, 

modify, or eliminate the Survey and Manage mitigation measure.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on April 25, 2013, that reversed the District Court for 

the Western District of Washington’s approval of the 2011 Survey and Manage Settlement Agreement. On 

February 18, 2014, the District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a remedy order in the 

case of Conservation Northwest et al. v. Bonnie et al., No. 08-1067- JCC (W.D. Wash.)/No.11-35729 (9th

Cir.). This was the latest step in the ongoing litigation challenging the 2007 Record of Decision (ROD) to 

modify the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. 

The remedy order contained two components. The order—

 Vacated the 2007 ROD to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measures 

Standards and Guidelines; and 

 Allowed for continued project planning and implementation for projects that relied on the 2011 

Consent Decree that were being developed or implemented, on or before April 25, 2013 (the date 

of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling invalidating the 2011 Consent Decree). 

The No Action alternative, as analyzed in this Proposed RMP/Final EIS and described in Chapter 2, 

includes the Survey and Manage measures, consistent with—

 The January 2001, Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the 

Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and 

Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the 

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl; 

 The 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Review modifications to the Survey and Manage 

species list, except for the changes made for the red tree vole; and 

 The Pechman exemptions. 

Direction in the Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

promote the conservation of migratory birds (BLM MOU WO-230-2010-04) states that the BLM shall 

address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, or 

revising management plans for BLM-administered lands. 

Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight, the American Bird Conservancy, and the Klamath Bird 

Observatory have prepared a series of conservation plans for landbirds intended to inform planning efforts 

and habitat management actions (Altman and Alexander 2012). The strategy for achieving functioning 

ecosystems for landbirds is described through the habitat requirements of ‘focal species.’ By managing 

for a suite of species representative of important habitat attributes in functioning ecosystems, many other 

species and elements of biodiversity could also be conserved. Inclusion of these focal species in the 

analysis could help inform what the differences in effects amongst the alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

are for landbirds, as well as the habitat attributes and forest stages and ecosystems they represent. 
833 | P a g e

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat would be available under each alternative for Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, 

or Survey and Manage wildlife species, and landbird focal species? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that the structural stages used in the vegetation modeling represent 

habitat conditions for Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, or Survey and Manage wildlife species and 

landbird focal species; this modeling is based on structural stage output from the vegetation model and 

using the analytical assumptions of habitat relationships described in Appendix S. Based on existing data, 

the BLM delineated a range for each species based on county boundaries and occurrences within the 

planning area. The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, 

methods and techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference 

(USDI BLM 2014, pp. 193–195). 

The BLM combined the issues of habitat availability for Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, or Survey 

and Manage wildlife species, and landbird focal species into one issue, because the analytical procedures 

used were similar and the discussion of results would be similar for species with similar habitat 

associations (e.g., Early Successional habitat development under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

is the same, irrespective of a species’ status). However, the Proposed RMP/Final EIS reorganized the 

supporting tables in Appendix S by species status rather than by structural group.

In this analysis, the BLM assessed the number of known sites by land use allocation for Survey and

Manage species but not for Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic or landbird focal species. The BLM made 

this change from the analytical methodology described in the Planning Criteria (USDI BLM 2014, p. 

194), because there is great disparity in survey efforts available among species, districts, and land use 

allocations. That is, survey efforts for these species have been biased in their location based on proposed 

land management projects, as is evident with the Survey and Manage species under the No Action 

alternative.

The BLM tabulated the amount of Early Successional, Stand Establishment, Young, Mature, and 

Structurally-complex structural stages that would be available in 50 years under the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. Appendix S contains species-specific information regarding the effects of forest habitat, 

as tabulated by the BLM. The BLM also generalized habitat associations for the species considered into 

one of seven broad categories: Early Successional or Stand Establishment habitat associate (early), Young 

habitat associate (mid), Mature or Structurally-complex habitat associate (late), non-forest associate (NF), 

oak woodland associate (oak), wetland associate (wet), and stream or near-stream associate with riparian 

(RR). 

Early Successional stands vary in their structural complexity. A complex Early Successional stand has 

abundant large trees, large snags, and large down woody material that originated during the development 

of a previous stand (i.e., prior to the event that triggered reforestation of the stand into an Early 

Successional stage; DellaSala et al. 2014, pp. 313–314; Swanson et al. 2011). Complex Early 

Successional stands also have high vegetative diversity (in both the understory and overstory) and long 

development times for Early Successional vegetation. In contrast, simple Early Successional stands have 

fewer (if any) residual large trees, large snags, and large down woody material. Complex Early 

Successional stands are typically produced following natural disturbances events (e.g., mixed-severity 

wildfire), while simple Early Successional stands are typically produced following intensive timber 

harvest (e.g., clear-cutting; Swanson et al. 2011). Simple Early Successional stands that originate from 

timber harvest typically are rapidly replanted in order to reclaim the site for future production of crop 

trees. As a result, simple Early Successional stands typically do not have the vegetative diversity of 
834 | P a g e

complex Early Successional stands (DellaSala et al. 2014, Swanson et al. 2011). In addition, the use of 

herbicides to limit competition with desired crop species further reduces the vegetative diversity in simple 

Early Successional stands (Swanson et al. 2011). 

The structural stages used throughout the analyses in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS have two categories of 

Early Successional stands: Early Successional with Structural Legacies (1.1) and Early Successional 

without Structural Legacies (1.2). The BLM regards the Early Successional with Structural Legacies 

structural stage as comparable to complex early successional stands as described by DellaSala et al.

(2014) and Swanson et al. (2011). The BLM regards Early Successional without Structural Legacies as 

comparable to simple early successional habitat. The BLM carried the presence (or absence) of structural 

legacies throughout the structural stage classification and vegetation modeling. In the wildlife analysis, 

the effects and development of complex early successional stand development are discussed under Snags 

and Down Woody Material (e.g., effect to species associated with snags and down woody material in 

younger stands). See Appendix C for additional details on the Forest Structural Stage Classification. 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative and Proposed RMP 

implementation on habitat for Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, or Survey and Manage wildlife species 

and landbird focal species in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on habitat for 

Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, or Survey and Manage wildlife species and landbird focal species of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land management on BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

The BLM modeled BLM-administered non-forested lands using the 2012 GNN ecological systems 

description (LEMMA 2014). The BLM assumed that non-forested lands would remain constant over time 

under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, because there is no management direction that would 

substantively alter the structural characteristics of this habitat. 

The BLM calculated the average number of snags (trees per acre) and amount of down woody material 

(percent cover) per structural stage and structural group using data from BLM’s current vegetation survey 

(CVS) plots. Appendix S contains snags and down woody debris values. The BLM did not model future 

snag or down woody material abundance on a per acre basis. However, the BLM assumed that Early 

Successional, Stand Establishment, and Young structural stages ‘with Structural Legacies’ would provide 

greater amounts of snags and down woody material than those stages ‘without Structural Legacies’ on 

BLM-administered lands. The BLM also assumed that Mature and Structurally-complex structural stages 

would provide snag and down woody material as habitat components for wildlife but did not distinguish 

among them for modeling purposes. 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that the effects of BLM management on special habitats, and the 

Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, Survey and Manage, or landbird species that use them would not 

differ amongst the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. This is because the BLM would manage naturally 

occurring special habitats—seeps, springs, wetlands, natural ponds, streams, natural meadows, rock 

outcrops, caves, cliffs, talus slopes, mineral licks, oak savannah/woodlands, sand dunes, and marine 

habitats—to maintain their ecological function. The BLM would manage human-made special habitats—

bridges, buildings, quarries, pump chances/heliponds, abandoned mines, and reservoirs—as special 

habitats when compatible with their engineered function. The Planning Criteria provides more detailed 

information on the wildlife species that are associated with special habitats, which is incorporated here by 

reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 198–199, 213–225). 

Survey and Manage species are, by definition, species that are closely associated with late-successional or 

old-growth forest (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994a, p. 3&4-115; USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004, p. 3).

The BLM assumes in this analysis that the Mature and Structurally-complex forest structural stages are 
835 | P a g e

representative of the late-successional or old-growth forest with which Survey and Manage species are 

closely associated. 

It is not possible for the BLM to analyze quantitatively the effect of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP 

on populations of Survey and Manage species. There is incomplete and unavailable information about the 

current populations of these species, life history requirements of these species, and the relationship 

between habitat and population for these species. With such information, the BLM would have been able 

to project future populations of Survey and Manage species under each alternative and the Proposed 

RMP, quantitatively comparing the efficacy of the largely habitat-based management approaches of the 

action alternatives and Proposed RMP to the species-specific and site-specific approach of the Survey and 

Manage measures in the No Action alternative. However, the BLM has only partial information on the 

current populations of Survey and Manage species, largely based on survey results over the past two 

decades. Many of these species were included on the Survey and Manage list specifically because of a 

lack of scientific information about their habitat, distribution, and population (USDA FS and USDI BLM 

2000, pp. 180–182). While the survey results over the past two decades have increased the information on 

these species (and the BLM uses these survey results in this analysis), the survey efforts for these species 

have been biased in their location based on proposed land management projects. The current information 

remains inadequate to project current population size for Survey and Manage species. Furthermore, there 

are no quantified scientific relationships developed between habitat and population for these species. For 

some species, there are non-habitat factors affecting species’ populations. Finally, it is not possible to 

forecast the extent to which increased habitat availability would result in an increase in population 

numbers, since some species have limited ranges or low mobility and may not be able to quickly expand 

into newly developed habitat. 

The 2000 Final Supplemental EIS for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and 

other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines and the 2004 Final Supplemental EIS to Remove of 

Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines described the existing 

credible scientific information on Survey and Manage species and their habitat, distribution, and 

occurrence (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000, pp. 213–394; USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004, pp. 141–

208), and those descriptions are incorporated here by reference. 

In this Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM quantitatively analyzes the effects of the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP on Survey and Manage species by evaluating the amount of habitat for these species, 

assuming habitat relationships based on the structural stages used in the vegetation modeling. 

The analytical methodology in this Proposed RMP/Final EIS is not the same as the methodology in the 

analysis for the Northwest Forest Plan. The Final Supplemental EIS for the Northwest Forest Plan 

evaluated effects of the alternatives on Survey and Manage species by a species-specific assessment of 

generalized judgments of habitat sufficiency by a panel of experts (USDA FS and USDI FS 1994a, pp. 

3&4-116 – 3&4-121). The Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan explicitly stated that this 

analytical methodology was not the only appropriate methodology for evaluating effects on these species, 

even in the context of the U.S. Forest Service viability regulation: 

“The fish-and-wildlife-resource regulation does not require species-specific assessments. Rather, 

in accord with the theme of ecosystem management, a decisionmaker may place reasonable 

reliance upon assessments of (1) species with habitat needs that are roughly the same; (2) a 

group of species generally thought to perform the same or similar ecosystem functions; and/or 

(3) the continued integrity and function of ecosystem(s) in which a species is found. Flexibility in 

selecting methodology is especially appropriate in this context, given the expertise and 

knowledge of local forest officials concerning the lands they manage, the variety of complex 

issues involved, and the often-limited resources available. For example, the Assessment Team’s 
836 | P a g e

approach to evaluating the alternatives, while sound, is not a controlling precedent for how such 

assessments need to be conducted in the future” (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994b, p. 45).

In this Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM is analyzing effects on Survey and Manage species by 

grouping species with habitat needs that are roughly the same and evaluating the amount of habitat in 

which these species are found. Given the incomplete and unavailable information about the current 

populations of these species, life history requirements of these species, and relationship between habitat 

and population for these species, it is appropriate for the BLM to analyze the effects of the alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP on Survey and Manage species by evaluating the amount of habitat for these 

species. 

It is similarly not possible for the BLM to analyze quantitatively the effect of the alternatives or the 

Proposed RMP on populations of Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and the suite of landbird focal 

species because of the incomplete and unavailable information about the current populations of these 

species, life history requirements of these species, and relationship between habitat and population for 

these species. The BLM is analyzing effects on Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and the suite of focal 

landbird species by grouping species with habitat needs that are roughly the same and evaluating the 

amount of habitat in which these species are found. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Of BLM-administered lands, 96 percent is forested. Young forest habitat is the most prevalent type (28 

percent), with slightly smaller acreages of Structurally-complex and Mature forest habitat. Stand 

Establishment habitat is less abundant (17 percent), and Early Successional habitat is the least abundant (2 

percent) on BLM-administered lands. Table 3-246 displays the acreages of non-forested lands, Early 

Successional, Stand Establishment, Young, Mature, and Structurally-complex forest habitat in the 

decision and planning areas. 

Table 3-246. Current condition in 2013 of habitat expressed by structural stage 

Structural Stage BLM-administered Lands All Ownerships

(Acres) (Percentage) (Acres) (Percentage)

Non-forested lands 91,752 4% 4,342,361 20%

Early Successional 53,459 2% 1,119,904 5%

Stand Establishment 387,247 17% 2,471,784 11%

Young 619,631 27% 9,803,753 45%

Mature 517,893 23% 2,434,278 11%

Structurally-complex 583,459 26% 1,573,394 7%

Totals 2,253,442 100% 21,745,475 100%

For all ownerships, Young forest is the predominant habitat stage comprising 45 percent of the planning 

area. Early Successional forest is the least abundant habitat stage at 5 percent, and 18 percent is currently 

Mature or Structurally-complex forest. 

The 2008 FEIS summarized the average historical conditions of forest structural stages in Western 

Oregon from two sources Nonaka and Spies (2005) and Wimberly (2002), which are incorporated here by 

reference (USDI BLM 2008, pp. 211–212). The summarization of average historical conditions from the 

2008 FEIS combined the Stand Establishment and Early Successional stages described in this Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS into a single stage of ‘Stand Establishment.’ This characterization of average historical 

conditions correlates to 5 percent Stand Establishment, 15 percent Young, 25 percent Mature, and 55 
837 | P a g e

percent Structurally-complex, and is displayed in Figure 3-146 and Figure 3-147. In comparison, the 

average historic conditions adapted from Wimberly (2002) correlate to approximately 17 percent Stand 

Establishment, 21 percent Young, 16 percent Mature, and 42 percent Structurally-complex (BLM 2008, p. 

211). 
838 | P a g e

Figure 3-146. Structural stage development in the decision area compared with average historic condition 

2% 5% 4% 5% 6%

2% 3%

1%

18%

6%

5%

1%

8%

3%

5% 1%

5%

29%

17%

16% 17%

18%

15%

17%

14% 15%

24%

42%

41% 42%

37%

45%

42%

48%

25%

27% 30%

35% 34% 31%

35% 34% 36%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current

Condition

2013

No

Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Average

Historic

Condition

Decision Area Forest Habitat (Percent)

Early Successional Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally-complex
839 | P a g e

Figure 3-147. Structural stage development in the planning area compared with average historic 

condition 

6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%

14% 12% 12% 11% 11% 12% 12% 11%

5%

56%

48% 48% 48% 51%

47% 48% 47%

15%

14%

21% 21% 21%

19%

21% 21% 21%

25%

9%

14% 14% 14% 13% 14% 14% 14%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current

Condition

2013

No

Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Average

Historic

Condition

Planning Area Forest Habitat (Percent)

Early Successional Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally-complex
840 | P a g e

Compared against the average historic conditions, the current combined amount of Mature and 

Structurally-complex forest in the decision area (51 percent) is less than the average historical condition 

(58–80 percent) (Figure 3-146). The prevalence of Stand Establishment and Young stands is greater in 

the decision area than average historic conditions. Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the 

combined amount of Mature and Structurally-complex forest habitat in the decision area in 50 years (68–

80 percent) would be within the range of the average historic conditions, as would the amount of Stand 

Establishment and Young forests. In 50 years, the amount of Mature and Structurally-complex forest in 

the decision area under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis (84 percent) would exceed the average 

historic condition. 

At the planning area scale, the amount of Mature and Structurally-complex habitat currently (23 percent) 

is substantially less than the average historical condition (58–80 percent) (Figure 3-147). There is a 

preponderance of Young habitat (56 percent) that is well above the average historic condition (15–21 

percent). However, the amount of Stand Establishment habitat in the planning area currently (21 percent) 

is currently near average historic condition (5–17 percent). In 50 years, all alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP would move the distribution of structural stages towards the average historic conditions, but there 

would still be considerable disparity. 

At the planning area scale, there would be little difference (less than 1 percent) in the distribution of 

structural stages in 50 years among the alternatives, the Proposed RMP, or the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis (Figure 3-147). Currently within the planning area, 6 percent is Early Successional, 14 

percent is Stand Establishment, 56 percent is Young, 14 percent is Mature, and 9 percent is Structurallycomplex. In 50 years under the Proposed RMP within the planning area, there would be 6 percent Early 

Successional, 12 percent Stand Establishment, 48 percent Young, 21 percent Mature, and 14 percent 

Structurally-complex. The proportion of structural stages would vary by 3 percent or less among any of 

the alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 

Overall, Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP would lead to the development of the largest 

amount of Mature and Structurally-complex habitat, and Alternative C would lead to the largest amount 

of Early Successional, Stand Establishment, and Young stands (Figure 3-146 and Figure 3-147). 

Appendix S provides more detailed information on the development of structural stages in the decision 

and planning areas, by decade through 2063. 

Early Successional and Stand Establishment Habitats 

Early Successional habitat in the decision area would decrease from 2 to 1 percent of the 2,161,690 

habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis in 50 years (Figure 3-146). Under 

all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the amount of Early Successional habitat would increase in 

abundance in 50 years. Alternative D would result in the smallest increase of Early Successional habitat 

in 50 years (2 percent of habitat-capable acres), and Alternative C would result in the largest development 

of Early Successional forest habitat (6 percent of habitat-capable acres). The No Action alternative, 

Alternatives A and B, and the Proposed RMP would result in 5, 4, 5, and 3 percent, respectively, of 

habitat-capable acres in an Early Successional condition in 50 years. Of the available Early Successional 

habitat in the planning area, 4 percent is currently on BLM-administered lands, and that proportion would 

increase to 4–12 percent under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, from regeneration timber harvest 

on BLM-administered lands. 

Stand Establishment forest habitat in the decision area would decrease from 18 percent to 1 percent of the 

2,161,690 habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis in 50 years (Figure 3-

146). Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the amount of Stand Establishment habitat would 

decrease from 18 percent of habitat-capable currently to 1–8 percent of habitat-capable acres in 50 years. 
841 | P a g e

Alternative C would result in the least reduction of Young habitat in 50 years (8 percent of habitatcapable acres), while Alternative B would result in the largest reduction in 50 years (1 percent of habitatcapable acres). Of the available Stand Establishment habitat in the planning area, 16 percent is currently 

on BLM-administered lands, and that proportion would decrease to 1–8 percent under the alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP, as BLM-administered lands continue to develop and mature. 

Under the No Action alternative, Alternative B, and the Proposed RMP, 69–73 percent of species 

associated with Early Successional habitats would have an increase in habitat availability. Under 

Alternative D, 31 percent of Early Successional associates would have an increase in habitat availability. 

Alternatives A and C would provide an increase in habitat for approximately half of Early Successionalassociated species. For comparison, only 8 percent of Early Successional-associated species would have 

an increase in habitat availability under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis (Table 3-248).

Young Forest Habitat 

Young forest habitat in the decision area would decrease from 29 percent to 14 percent of the 2,161,690 

habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis in 50 years (Figure 3-146). Under 

all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, there would be little difference in the loss of Young habitat, as it 

would decrease from 29 percent to 15–18 percent of habitat-capable acres in 50 years. Alternative C 

would result in the least reduction of Young habitat in 50 years (18 percent of habitat-capable acres) but 

would still represent a decrease below current conditions (29 percent of habitat-capable acres). The 

Proposed RMP would result in a decrease of Young forest habitat to 17 percent of habitat-capable acres in 

50 years. Of the available Young habitat in the planning area, 6 percent is currently on BLM-administered 

lands and that proportion would decrease slightly to 4–5 percent under the alternatives (including the No 

Action alternative) and the Proposed RMP as BLM-administered lands continue to develop and mature. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, 92 percent of wildlife species that BLM modeled as using 

Young habitat would have increased availability of that habitat as compared to current conditions. The No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis would provide an increase in Young habitat for slightly fewer wildlife 

species (85 percent; Table 3-248).

Mature and Structurally-complex Habitats 

Mature forest habitat in the decision area would increase from 24 percent to 48 percent of the 2,161,690 

habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis in 50 years (Figure 3-146). Under 

the No Action alternative, and Alternatives A, B, and D, there would be little difference in the 

development of Mature habitat, as it would increase from 24 percent of habitat-capable to 42, 41, 42, and 

45 percent of habitat-capable acres, respectively, in 50 years. Alternative C would result in the least 

amount of Mature habitat in 50 years (37 percent of habitat-capable acres) but would still represent an 

increase over current conditions. The Proposed RMP would result in an increase of Mature forest habitat 

to 42 percent of habitat-capable acres in 50 years. Of the available Mature habitat in the planning area, 21 

percent is currently on BLM-administered lands and that proportion would increase to 23–27 percent 

under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP as additional non-BLM-administered lands mature. 

Structurally-complex forest habitat in the decision area would increase from 27 percent to 36 percent of 

the 2,161,690 habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis in 50 years (Figure 

3-146). Under Alternatives A, B, and D, there would be little difference in the development of 

Structurally-complex habitat, as it would increase from 27 percent of habitat-capable currently to 35, 34, 

and 35 percent of habitat-capable, respectively, in 50 years. The No Action alternative and Alternative C 

would result in the least amount of Structurally-complex habitat in 50 years (30 and 31 percent of habitatcapable acres, respectively) but would still represent an increase over current conditions. The Proposed 
842 | P a g e

RMP would result in an increase of Structurally-complex forest habitat to 34 percent of habitat-capable 

acres in 50 years. Of the current Structurally-complex forest in the planning area, 37 percent is on BLMadministered lands. In 50 years, the contribution of BLM-administered lands to Structurally-complex 

habitat in the planning area would increase to 27–31 percent under the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP, as additional non-BLM-administered lands, especially reserves on U.S. Forest Service lands, 

develop into Structurally-complex habitat. 

Olson et al. (2012) identify that late-seral forests would function as refugia for forest-dwelling species 

from ongoing climate change due to their structural complexity, vegetative-species diversity, and ability 

to retain moisture. The Mature and Structurally-complex habitat modeled in this Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

are comparable to the late-seral forests referred to by Olson et al. (2012), and therefore they would also 

serve as refugia for wildlife species during climate change events. These refugia would increase in 

abundance under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Under the action alternatives, the amount of existing Mature or Structurally-complex habitat within the 

reserves would increase (from 65 percent under the No Action Alternative to at least 72 percent). The 

Proposed RMP would reserve 83 percent of existing Mature or Structurally-complex habitat, while only 

65 percent is reserved under the No Action Alternative (Table 3-247). Therefore, despite the absence of 

Survey and Manage measures, more habitat for species associated with older forests would be reserved 

and protected under the Proposed RMP than under the No Action alternative. 

Table 3-247. Land use allocations of existing (2013) Mature or Structurally-complex habitat in the 

decision area 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Reserves Harvest Land Base Total

(Acres) (Percent) (Acres) (Percent) (Acres)

No Action 721,072 65% 382,690 35% 1,103,758

Alt. A 991,318 90% 112,440 10% 1,103,758

Alt. B 894,932 81% 208,830 19% 1,103,758

Alt. C 789,988 72% 313,771 18% 1,103,758

Alt. D 834,528 76% 269,230 24% 1,103,758

PRMP 912,541 83% 188,816 17% 1,101,357*

* Includes loss from fires in 2013–2014 

Under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the proportion of wildlife species that the BLM 

modeled as using Mature and Structurally-complex habitat would have increased availability compared to 

the No Action alternative. The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in an increase in 

Mature or Structurally-complex habitat for at least 97 percent of the species, while under the No Action 

alternative 94 percent of species would have increased habitat availability (Table 3-248).
843 | P a g e

Table 3-248. Number of species* that would have an increase in habitat by 2063 by structural stage 

association†(percent of species in group)

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Early

(n=26)

(Percent)

Mid

(n=13)

(Percent)

Late

(n=34)

(Percent)

Riparian 

Reserves

(n=43)

(Percent)

Totals

(n=116)

(Percent)

No Action 19 (73%) 12 (92%) 32 (94%) 43 (100%) 106 (91%)

Alt. A 13 (50%) 12 (92%) 34 (100%) 43 (100%) 102 (88%)

Alt. B 18 (69%) 12 (92%) 33 (97%) 43 (100%) 106 (91%)

Alt. C 12 (46%) 12 (92%) 33 (97%) 43 (100%) 100 (86%)

Alt. D 8 (31%) 12 (92%) 34 (100%) 43 (100%) 97 (84%)

PRMP 18 (69%) 12 (92%) 33 (97%) 43 (100%) 106 (91%)

No Timber Harvest 2 (8%) 11 (85%) 34 (100%) 43 (100%) 90 (78%)

* Appendix S contains information on species-specific effects.

† Structural stage associations include Early (Early Successional and Stand Establishment), Mid (Young), and Late (Mature and 

Structurally-complex).

Snags and Down Woody Material

Current snag density is greater in Mature and Structurally-complex stands (28.1 and 19.8 snags per acre, 

respectively) than in Early Successional, Stand Establishment, and Young stands (15.7, 7.8, and 18.1 

snags per acre, respectively; Appendix S). Similarly, the amount of down woody material in Mature and 

Structurally-complex stands (5.0 and 4.9 percent cover, respectively) is greater than in Early 

Successional, Stand Establishment, and Young stands (3.8, 4.1, and 3.6 percent, respectively). The 

abundance of snags and down wood also is greater in the coastal/north (22.0 snags per acre and 5.2 

percent cover in the Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem Districts) than in the interior/south (16.1 snags per 

acre and 3.7 percent cover in the Klamath Falls Field Office and the Medford and Roseburg Districts). 

The more frequent wildfire return interval and greater wildfire intensity in the interior/south likely is 

responsible for this observed trend, as more dead woody material is consumed.

Habitat for species associated with snags and down woody material in younger stands,

127 would increase 

under the No Action alternative, Alternatives B, and D, and the Proposed RMP. The retention and 

creation of down woody material and snags in these alternatives and the Proposed RMP would be 

consistent with actions recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Oregon 

Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 13). There would be loss of habitat for species associated with 

snags and down woody material in younger stands under Alternatives A and C, and the No Timber 

Harvest reference analysis (Figure 3-148). The lack of green tree retention or snag and down woody 

material retention in Alternative A and C would result in the least amount of habitat for species associated 

with legacy structure in younger stands, because legacy structure would not be retained. Under the No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis, there would be a reduction of snags and down woody material in 

younger stands, because there would be relatively fewer acres of younger stands.

 

127 For this discussion, species associated with ‘younger stands’ refers to those that use some combination of the 

Early Successional, Stand Establishment, or Young structural stages but do not typically use Mature or Structurallycomplex stages.
844 | P a g e

Figure 3-148. Early Successional, Stand Establishment, and Young stands with Structural Legacies in the 

decision area

Habitat for species associated with legacy structures in older stands128 would have an increase in habitat 

under all alternatives, the Proposed RMP, and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis (Figure 3-149).

This trend is due to larger reserves resulting increased development of Mature and Structurally-complex 

habitat that contain snag and down woody material legacy structures.

Figure 3-149. Mature and Structurally-complex stands with Structural Legacies within the decision area

 

128 For this discussion, species associated with ‘older stands’ refers to those that use Young, Mature, or Structurallycomplex structural stages but do not typically use the Early Successional or Stand Establishment stages.

225,291

367,349

123,248

265,647

124,348

226,262

284,114

128,372

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

ES, SE, and Young Stand Habitat 

with Structural Legacies (Acres)

860,528

961,980

1,058,410 1,087,349

962,201

1,141,298

1,072,105

1,136,633

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Mature and Structrually-complex 

Habitat with Structural Legacies (Acres)
845 | P a g e

Wildlife Associated with Riparian or Wetland Habitats

The alternatives and the Proposed RMP would have similar effects on wildlife species associated with 

stream or riparian habitats, as they would for fish species and would increase the potential large wood and 

small functional wood contribution to streams over time. Sediment production from road construction and 

use would increase by less than 1 percent under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, and the effects 

would not differ meaningfully. Under the No Action alternative, Alternatives A and D, and the Proposed 

RMP, less than 0.5 percent of all perennial and fish-bearing reaches in the decision area would currently 

be susceptible to shade reductions that could affect stream temperature if the BLM applies thinning in the 

outer zone of the Riparian Reserve. Under Alternatives B and C, approximately 5 percent of all perennial 

and fish-bearing reaches in the decision area would currently be susceptible to shade reductions that could 

affect stream temperature if the BLM applies thinning in the outer zone of the Riparian Reserve (see the 

Fisheries and Hydrology sections in this chapter).

Under all alternatives, the Proposed RMP, and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, all species 

associated with stream or riparian habitats would have an increase in habitat quality (Table 3-248). 

Availability of wetland habitat (non-flowing water habitats) would remain unchanged over the 50-year 

analysis period, because the BLM would include such habitats within the Riparian Reserve, thereby 

protecting the wetlands.

Bureau Sensitive Species

All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would lead to an increase in habitat in 50 years for roughly half of 

the 66 Bureau Sensitive species for whom habitat was modeled (Table 3-249). The No Action alternative 

would provide the most species (35) with increased habitat abundance in 50 years, while Alternative C 

would provide increased habitat abundance for the fewest species (31). The Proposed RMP would 

provide increased habitat availability for 34 of the species modeled. Approximately 45 percent of Bureau 

Sensitive species would have no change in habitat availability, because they are associated with special 

habitats (e.g., coastal dunes and oak woodlands) that would be protected under all alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP.

Table 3-249. Number of species* that would have an increase in habitat by 2063 (percent of species in 

group)

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Bureau

Sensitive Species

(n=66)

(Percent)

Bureau

Strategic Species

(n=51)

(Percent)

Survey and Manage

Species

(n=13)

(Percent)

Landbird Focal

Species

(n=34)

(Percent)

No Action 35 (53%) 34 (67%) 13 (100%) 26 (76%)

Alt. A 33 (50%) 34 (67%) 13 (100%) 23 (68%)

Alt. B 34 (52%) 34 (67%) 13 (100%) 27 (79%)

Alt. C 31 (47%) 34 (67%) 13 (100%) 23 (68%)

Alt. D 33 (50%) 34 (67%) 12 (92%) 18 (53%)

PRMP 34 (52%) 34 (67%) 13 (100%) 26 (76%)

No Timber Harvest 32 (48%) 34 (67%) 12 (92%) 13 (38%)

* Appendix S contains information on species-specific effects.

Bureau Strategic Species

All alternatives and the proposed RMP would lead to an increase in habitat in 50 years for 67 percent of 

the 51 Bureau Strategic species for which habitat was modeled (Table 3-249). Approximately one-third 
846 | P a g e

of Bureau Sensitive species (17) would have no change in habitat availability, because they are associated 

with special habitats (e.g., coastal dunes and oak woodlands) that would be protected under all

alternatives and the proposed RMP.

Survey and Manage Species

Of the 43 wildlife species on the current Survey and Manage species list (USDA, USDI 2011), 13 occur 

within the decision area; the other 30 species are found in Washington, California, or portions of Oregon 

east of the decision area. All of the 13 species for which habitat was modeled in this analysis would have 

an increase in Mature or Structurally-complex habitat available under the No Action alternative, 

Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP. Under Alternative D, 12 of the 13 Survey and Manage 

species would have an increase in habitat availability (Table 3-249).

There is incomplete and unavailable information relevant to the effects of the action alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP on Survey and Manage species. With complete and species-specific survey information on 

the location of habitat and species sites for all Survey and Manage species, the BLM would be able to 

analyze the effects of all alternatives and the Proposed RMP on Survey and Manage species and compare 

the effects to the No Action alternative, which would continue to implement the Survey and Manage 

measures. However, the BLM lacks complete and species-specific survey information for most Survey 

and Manage species. It would be exorbitantly expensive and time-consuming to conduct random surveys 

across the decision area for all Survey and Manage species. Consistent with Council on Environmental 

NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 1502.22, this analysis summarizes the information that is currently available 

on the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on Survey and Manage species. The 2004 Final 

SEIS to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

(USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004, pp. 141–183) and the 2007 Final Supplement to the 2004 SEIS (USDA 

FS and USDI BLM 2007, pp. 162–244) analyzed the removal of Survey and Manage measures for known 

site management and pre-disturbance surveys. The species descriptions and discussions of known site

management and pre-disturbance surveys from those analyses are incorporated here by reference. The 

U.S. District Court in Conservation Northwest et al. v. Rey et al. (Case No. C08-1067- JCC) found that 

the analysis of effects to species in the 2004 Final SEIS and the 2007 Final SEIS was insufficient to 

support the conclusion that the Survey and Manage measure was no longer necessary to meet the goals of 

the Northwest Forest Plan. The discussions of the 2004 SEIS and 2007 SEIS are incorporated by 

reference here only to the extent those portions of the analyses were not found invalid by the court.

Nevertheless, the information in the 2004 SEIS and 2007 SEIS does present analysis based on the 

incomplete survey information available that concludes that most Survey and Manage species would have 

sufficient habitat to support stable populations under the No Action alternative without the Survey and

Manage measures.

The 13 Survey and Manage wildlife species modeled in this analysis were also considered in the 2007 

Final Supplement to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the 

Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (June 2007). The 2007 Supplement 

analyzed the effects of removing Survey and Manage measures. The 2007 Supplement concluded that, 

without Survey and Manage measures, nine of these taxa would have sufficient habitat to support stable 

populations rangewide129 and five taxa—the Larch Mountain salamander, Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander, great gray owl, North Oregon Distinct Population Segment of the red tree vole, and Chace 

sideband—would be likely to have sufficient habitat rangewide but insufficient habitat in a portion of 

their range (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2007).

 

129 Red tree vole (outside of the North Oregon Coast DPS), Puget Oregonian, evening fieldslug, Klamath Rim 

pebblesnail, Fredenberg pebblesnail, warty jumping-slug, Malone jumping-slug, Columbia duskysnail, and Crater 

Lake tightcoil (Appendix S)
847 | P a g e

It is not possible to compare directly the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP to the outcomes 

described in the 2007 SEIS. The determinations about species outcomes in the 2007 SEIS were based on 

the evaluation of experts and were more qualitative than quantitative in nature. These qualitative expert 

opinions were based on assumptions of continuing application of the land use allocations of the 

Northwest Forest Plan, and are therefore only directly applicable to the No Action alternative. Finally, the 

conclusion in the 2007 SEIS of “insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the 

Northwest Forest Plan area” did not specify the areas of “insufficient habitat” beyond broad geographic 

areas. Thus, these general and qualitative conclusions are difficult to re-evaluate in light of these 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, which would alter only management on BLM-administered lands in 

Oregon (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2007, pp. 118–119). 

Furthermore, the threshold determination of whether there is sufficient habitat to support stable 

populations of the Survey and Manage species is not necessary to provide a “hard look” in this Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS at the environmental effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The determination 

related to stable populations is tied to the species viability goal of the Northwest Forest Plan, which is not 

part of the purpose for this RMP revision. The Survey and Manage measures were identified in the Final 

Supplemental EIS for the Northwest Forest Plan as a potential mitigation measure to increase the 

likelihood of achieving “viable populations, well-distributed across their current range, of species known 

(or reasonably expected) to be associated with old-growth forest conditions” (USDA FS and USDI BLM, 

1994a, p. 3&4-129) – a goal which was founded on a U.S. Forest Service planning regulation which, as 

explained above, did not and does not apply to the BLM. Finally, to the extent that the Survey and 

Manage measures were intended to prevent disruptions to sustained-yield timber production that would 

result from future listing of species under the ESA, the Survey and Manage measures are unnecessary 

under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP (see the Relationship of the RMPs to Other Plans and 

Programs section of Chapter 1).

There are no known sites or observations of the Larch Mountain salamander on BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area based on GeoBOB (2015). In addition, the Larch Mountain salamander is not 

documented or suspected on BLM-administered lands within the planning area based on the updated State 

Director’s Special Status Species List (IM-OR-2015-028). Given that the species is not documented or 

suspected on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, there is no meaningful or measureable effect 

from the alternatives or the Proposed RMP on the Larch Mountain salamander or its habitat.

Since the 2007 supplement, the BLM has entered into a conservation agreement for the Siskiyou 

salamander with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service (August 2007), under which 

the BLM would manage high-priority sites for the benefit of the salamanders and their habitat. Effects of 

the alternatives and the Proposed RMP to Siskiyou salamander are discussed further in the Issues 

Considered but not Analyzed in Detail section.

The 2007 supplement identified that the great gray owl would be likely to have sufficient habitat 

rangewide, but insufficient habitat in a portion of its range, because it would not be included on the BLM 

or U.S. Forest Service sensitive species lists and protection of known nest sites was uncertain based on 

‘inconsistent’ protections in individual management plans (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2007, pp. 285–

286). Although it is not possible to compare directly the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP

on great gray owl to the outcomes described in the 2007 SEIS as explained above, it is possible to 

evaluate where known sites occur and how habitat would change over time under the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. Under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, more BLM-administered lands

would be allocated to reserves than under the No Action alternative, and therefore more great gray owl 

observations (and presumably more nest sites) would occur within reserves (discussed in more detail 

below). Out of a total of 1,228 great gray owl observations in the decision area, 247 observations were in 

locations that would lie within reserves under the No Action alternative, 726–1,014 observations were in 
848 | P a g e

locations that would lie within reserves under the action alternatives, and 800 observations were in 

locations that would lie within reserves under the Proposed RMP (Appendix S). The No Action 

alternative, Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, would result in an increase in habitat for the 

great gray owl over current conditions in 50 years. Alternative D would result in a decrease in great gray 

owl habitat over 50 years. 

The effects to the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the red tree vole are discussed later 

in Chapter 3 as a separate issue. 

The 2007 supplement identified that the Chace sideband would be likely to have sufficient habitat 

rangewide but insufficient habitat in a portion of its range, because it would not be included on the BLM 

or U.S. Forest Service sensitive species lists throughout its range (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2007, p. 

261). Currently, the Chace sideband is a Bureau Strategic species. As identified in the 2007 supplement, 

loss of sites would reduce population interaction, connectivity, and could result in habitat (including 

known sites) insufficient to support stable populations in a portion of the species range (USDA FS and 

USDI BLM 2007, pp. 261–262). Although it is not possible to compare directly the effects of the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP on Chace sideband to the outcomes described in the 2007 SEIS as 

explained above, it is possible to evaluate where known sites occur and how habitat would change over 

time under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, 

there would be more BLM-administered lands, and therefore more Chace sideband sites, protected within 

reserves (discussed in more detail below). Out of a total of 114 Chace sideband sites in the decision area, 

26 sites would lie within reserves under the No Action alternative, 62–95 sites would lie within reserves 

under the action alternatives, and 91 sites would lie within reserves under the Proposed RMP (Appendix 

S).130 The No Action alternative, action alternatives, and the Proposed RMP would result in an increase in 

habitat for the Chace sideband over current conditions in 50 years. 

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, there would be no timber harvest of older and more 

structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests, which is the forest condition that the BLM assumes 

provides high-quality habitat for Survey and Manage species (see Analytical Methods above). Although 

each action alternative and the Proposed RMP uses a different definition to identify older and more 

structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests, all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would 

protect much of what was considered late-successional forest and essentially all of what was considered 

old growth in the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT 1993, p. IX-32; USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994a, 

Glossary-11). Therefore, all of the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, in contrast to the No Action 

alternative, would protect from timber harvest the forest conditions with which the Survey and Manage 

species are most closely associated. 

In addition to reserving existing older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests, the 

acreage of Mature and Structurally-complex forest (which is a broader category than older and more 

structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests) in the decision area would increase over time under all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP (Figure 3-150). Therefore, the amount of habitat for Survey and 

Manage wildlife species would also increase under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Development 

of Mature and Structurally-complex habitat under Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP 

would exceed that under the No Action alternative in each decade. Alternative C would result in less 

increase in Mature and Structurally-complex habitat development than the No Action alternative for the 

first four decades, but exceed it in the fifth decade (Figure 3-150).

 

130 Under the No Action alternative, sites not in reserve allocations would be protected consistent with the Survey 

and Manage measure. To the extent that the percentage of sites in reserve allocations indicates the extent of habitat 

for this species in reserve allocations, the No Action alternative would provide less habitat within reserve allocations 

than the action alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 
849 | P a g e

Figure 3-150. Mature and Structurally-complex habitat development in the decision area 

Under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, 64–80 percent of BLM-administered lands would be 

included in the reserves (Table 3-250; see Chapter 2 for additional detail). The action alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP would remove the Survey and Manage measures that require pre-disturbance surveys and 

protection of known sites, but even in the absence of such measures, habitat and sites of Survey and 

Manage species that fall within the reserves would generally be protected by the management direction of 

the reserve land use allocations, which would generally protect existing and foster the development of 

Mature and Structurally-complex habitat. Not all sites within reserve land use allocation would 

necessarily be protected by buffers comparable to the No Action alternative. However, management 

actions in reserves could occur within these sites, but there would be a minimal effect to the species based 

on the type and intensity of allowable treatments. Under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, 

management direction in reserves would largely limit stand treatments to thinning to improve habitat 

conditions and fuels treatments to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, and would generally 

preclude stand treatments that would remove or degrade Mature and Structurally-complex habitat 

(Appendix B). Under the No Action alternative, 36 percent of known sites of Survey and Manage 

wildlife species would fall within the reserves. Under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the 

proportion of sites that would fall within the reserves would increase substantially: 86 percent under 

Alternative A, 68 percent under Alternative B, 66 percent under Alternative C, 70 percent under 

Alternative D, and 73 percent under the Proposed RMP (Appendix S). 

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Mature and Structurally-complex Habitat (Acres)

Year

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

No Timber Harvest

No Action

No Timber Harvest

Alt. C

Alt. A

Alt. B

Alt. D

PRMP
850 | P a g e

Table 3-250. Size of the reserves within the decision area 

Alternative/

Proposed 

RMP

LSR Riparian Reserve Other Reserves Total Reserves

(Acres) (Percent)* (Acres) (Percent)* (Acres) (Percent)* (Acres) (Percent)*

No Action 478,860†19%†927,721 38% 233,410 9% 1,639,991 66%

Alt. A 1,147,527 46% 676,917 27% 170,540 7% 1,994,984 80%

Alt. B 1,127,320 46% 382,805 15% 260,510 11% 1,770,635 72%

Alt. C 949,279 38% 372,739 15% 267,678 11% 1,589,696 64%

Alt. D 714,292 29% 714,629 29% 250,523 10% 1,679,444 68%

PRMP 948,466 38% 647,555 26% 263,647 11% 1,859,668 75%

* Percent of total BLM-administered lands in the planning area (2,478,853 acres) that are within the reserves 

† Under the No Action alternative, the acreage of the Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) allocation is 879,031 acres (36 percent). 

However, the Northwest Forest Plan land use allocation hierarchy includes the Riparian Reserve as LSR. For direct comparison 

with action alternatives, the No Action alternative Riparian Reserve acreage within LSR was separated from the LSR and the 

resultant amount of LSR is displayed in the table. 

Under the No Action alternative, the BLM would continue to implement the Survey and Manage 

measures to conduct pre-disturbance surveys and protect known sites for the Survey and Manage species. 

Therefore, the No Action alternative would provide habitat and known sites sufficient to support stable 

populations on most wildlife species in patterns similar to the their historic reference distributions, with 

varying levels of certainty (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000). In addition, Mature and Structurallycomplex habitats for Survey and Manage wildlife species would increase under the No Action alternative 

in the decision area (Figure 3-146) and in the planning area (Figure 3-147).

In summary, all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would remove the Survey and Manage

measures that require pre-disturbance surveys and protection of known sites. There is incomplete and 

unavailable information relevant to the effects of the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP on Survey 

and Manage species. The 2004 FSEIS provides an incomplete analysis, but supports the conclusion that 

most Survey and Manage species would have sufficient habitat to support stable populations under the No 

Action alternative without the Survey and Manage measures. All action alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP allocate more acres to the Late-Successional Reserve than the No Action alternative, protect older 

and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests, and would result in an increase in Mature 

and Structurally-complex habitat over time. In addition, all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

would continue to provide management for many of the Survey and Manage species as Bureau Sensitive

species. As a result, in light of the incomplete information available to the BLM, all action alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP would protect most of the existing habitat for Survey and Manage species and 

would result in an increase in the total amount of habitat for Survey and Manage species over time.

Landbird Focal Species 

All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would lead to an increase in habitat in 50 years for a majority of 

the 34 landbird focal species for whom habitat was modeled (Table 3-249). Alternative B would provide 

the most species (27) with increased habitat abundance in 50 years, while Alternative D would provide 

increased habitat abundance for the fewest species (18). For comparison, the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis would result in increased habitat availability for 13 landbird focal species. There are 

many focal landbird species that are associated with Early Successional habitat; this habitat would 

become less abundant under Alternative D and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. 

The landbird focal species have a broad range of habitat associations, including many species associated 

with Early Successional habitats, which decrease in abundance under the No Timber Harvest reference 
851 | P a g e

analysis. Thus, landbird focal species and the total species with increased habitat abundance would be 

lowest under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. The BLM would manage landbird species under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and following guidance provided by WO IB 2010-110, the Memorandum 

of Understanding between the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of 

migratory birds (August 31, 2010). The BLM would follow migratory bird conservation measures as 

appropriate and consistent with agency missions. The BLM anticipates that these measures, which 

are currently under development by the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would contain 

information and recommendations regarding how to avoid disturbing raptors and other migratory 

birds and how to avoid negatively affecting their populations. At the project level, the BLM would 

implement measures to lessen ‘take’ of migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act focusing 

on species of concern as identified by the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Appendix S contains additional information and supporting data on Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, 

Survey and Manage wildlife species, and landbird focal species.
852 | P a g e

References

Altman, B., and J. D. Alexander. 2012. Habitat conservation for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and 

Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. http://www.orwapif.org.

DellaSala, D. A., M. L. Bond, C. T. Hanson, R. L. Hutto, and D. C. Odion. 2014. Complex early seral forests of the Sierra 

Nevada: what are they and how can they be managed for ecological integrity? Natural Areas Journal 34(3): 310–324.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/043.034.0317.

Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping and Analysis (LEMMA). 2014. GNN Structure (species-size) maps. 

http://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/structure-maps. Accessed August 05, 2014.

Nonaka, E., and T. A. Spies. 2005. Historical range of variability in landscape structure: a simulation study in Oregon, USA.

Ecological Applications 15(5): 1727–1746. http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub4035.pdf.

Olson, D., D. A. DellaSala, R. F. Noss, J. R. Strittholt, J. Kass, M. E. Koopman, and T. F. Allnutt. 2012. Climate change refugia 

for biodiversity in the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. Natural Areas Journal 32(1): 65–74. 

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3375/043.032.0108.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem, OR. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.asp.

Swanson, M. E., J. F. Franklin, R. L. Beschta, C. M. Crisafulli, D. A. DellaSala, R. L. Hutto, D. B. Lindenmayer, and B. David

and F.J. Swanson. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Biological 

Sciences Faculty Publications. Paper 278. http://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs/278.

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 1994a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for LateSuccessional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/nwfpnepa/FSEIS-1994/FSEIS-1994-I.pdf.

---. 1994b. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within 

the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and 

Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR. 

http://www.reo.gov/documents/reports/newroda.pdf.

---. 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, 

and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR. 568 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/10-2001_fseis_v1_ch1-4.pdf.

---. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards 

and Guidelines. Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR. 359 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/07-

2004_fseis_v1_ch1-4.pdf.

---. 2011. List of Survey and Manage species, Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Area – September 29, 2011. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/otherresources/related.php.

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php.

---. 2008. Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.43545.File.dat/68

40.pdf.

---. 2012. Resource Management Plan Evaluation Report: Western Oregon Districts. BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

266 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/files/RMPEvaluation.pdf.

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php.

Wimberly, M. C. 2002. Spatial simulation of historical landscape patterns in coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest. Canadian 

Journal Forestry Research 32: 1316–1328. http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub2859.pdf.
853 | P a g e

Columbian White-tailed Deer

Key Points

 The No Action alternative and Alternatives A, B, and C would increase the amount of highquality forage habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer on BLM-administered lands in 50 years.

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS

The BLM updated the analytical range of the Lower Columbia River population based on information 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the analytical range of the Douglas County population based 

on information from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Background

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus 

leucurus) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on March 10, 1967 (32 FR 4001). 

There are two distinct population segments131 of Columbian white-tailed deer in the planning area: the 

Lower Columbia River population, which occurs in Clatsop and Columbia counties, and the Douglas 

County population (USFWS 2013a). Historically, the Columbian white-tailed deer’s range included 

23,170 square miles from Grants Pass, Oregon north to the Cowlitz River in Washington (USFWS 

2013b). Currently, the range of the Lower Columbia River DPS is reduced to approximately 93 square 

miles and includes portions of Clatsop and Columbia counties in Oregon but given their mobility, deer 

can periodically occur outside of these areas. In addition, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center data 

indicate that since 1990 Columbian white-tailed deer have been observed in Clatsop, Columbia, 

Multnomah, and Douglas counties (ORBIC 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the 

Douglas County distinct population segment on July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43647); the Lower Columbia River 

distinct population segment remains ESA-listed as endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

not designated critical habitat for the Columbian white-tailed deer.

At the time of listing, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the total number of deer remaining to 

be less than 1,000, but the Douglas County population segment has now increased to over 5,000 animals 

(USFWS 2013a). In 1996, the Lower Columbia River DPS suffered heavy losses due to extensive 

flooding of its habitat. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expect this population segment to 

recover to pre-flood numbers within a few years. The total deer population in the Lower Columbia River 

DPS has been at least 400 animals since 1984, and the total population was 603 deer in 2011 (USFWS 

2013b).

The Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Plan recommends four recovery actions:

 Annually assess the viability of each extant subpopulation

 Ensure the viability of extant populations

 Establish necessary new populations in existing habitat

 Encourage public support for the Columbian white-tailed deer restoration program (USDI FWS 

1983, pp. 31–33).

Habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer in the Lower Columbia River DPS includes pastures of reed 

canary grass, tall fescue, and mixed deciduous and Sitka spruce forest (USFWS 2013b). Habitat for 

Columbian white-tailed deer in the Douglas County DPS includes predominantly oak-madrone woodland 

 

131 A distinct population segment (DPS) is a discrete population of a species and the smallest portion of a vertebrate 

species that can be protected under the Endangered Species Act.
854 | P a g e

and riparian cover types. Columbian white-tailed deer concentrate their habitat use near streams or rivers 

(within 650 feet). The distance to streams is more important than the vegetative condition in determining 

habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer. However, Columbian white-tailed deer evolved in association 

with prairie edge and woodland habitats and were not historically limited to riparian and lowland habitats 

as the species now exhibits. Urban development and agricultural areas now limit the Columbian whitetailed deer to lower lying and wetter habitat than the species would have been historically associated. 

Currently, the BLM has not documented Columbian white-tailed deer on BLM-administered lands within 

the Salem District (R. Price, BLM, Salem District Wildlife Biologist, personal communication, June 17, 

2015). 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife associates differences in the quality of habitat with forage 

quality and forest structural stage for other related deer species (e.g., black-tailed deer). Early 

Successional forests provide more diverse, abundant, and nutritious forage through the forbs and shrubs 

that grow for 10–15 years following a clearcut or stand-replacing natural disturbance (ODFW 2014, 

ODFW 2008). These high-quality forage conditions persist until the canopy from regenerating conifer 

seedlings restricts sunlight to the low-lying forbs and shrubs (ODFW 2014). 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the Columbian white-tailed deer would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that the range of the Lower Columbia River population is all lands 

within 17 miles of the Columbia River downstream from the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia 

River (Figure 3-151). In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM considered future 

occupation of the BLM-administered lands in the Salem District west of Sauvie Island (the ‘Scappoose 

Block’) to be reasonably certain. Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service started relocating animals to 

the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, the deer have expanded across the river to Sauvie Island, which 

is across Highway 30 from the Scappoose Block of BLM-administered lands. The past two years have 

been exceptional for Columbian white-tailed deer reproduction, and it is reasonable to assume that the 

deer will successfully expand their population across the river into this area (B. White, USFWS Oregon 

State Office, Consultation Branch Manager, personal communication, July 14, 2015). The Scappoose 

Block parcels are up to 17 miles from the Columbia River. 

In this analysis, the BLM used the range for the Douglas County population delineated by the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (J. Kern, ODFW, Wildlife GIS Analyst, personal communication, May 

2015) (Figure 3-151).
855 | Page

Figure 3-151. Range of the Columbian white-tailed deer 

In this analysis, the BLM also assumed that Early Successional habitat represents high-quality forage 

habitat for deer. Given the similarity in habitat needs and the life history of black-tailed deer and 

Columbian white-tailed deer, the BLM assumed that Early Successional habitat would similarly provide 

high-quality forage habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer. Rowland et al. (2013) developed a model to 

evaluate elk nutrition and habitat use in landscape settings. The BLM ran the nutrition model on two 

watersheds (Upper Alsea River and Rock Creek) to test if using the Early Successional structural stage as 

a surrogate for high-quality forage habitat is a reasonable assumption. In the Upper Alsea River 

watershed, the mean dietary digestible energy class was slightly higher in the Early Successional stage 

(low-marginal forage quality) than in the other structural stages (poor forage quality) although the median 

class was indistinguishable from the others (low-marginal forage quality). In the Rock Creek watershed, 

the mean and median dietary digestible energy classes were slightly higher in the Early Successional 

stages than in the other structural stages. Based on these results from the sample watersheds, the absolute 

difference in forage quality between Early Successional and the other structural stages is not dramatically 

different, but the Early Successional stage does appear to provide slightly better forage quality relative to 
856 | P a g e

the other stages. Therefore, the BLM regards Early Successional structural stages as a reasonable measure 

of ‘high-quality forage habitat’ for deer and elk species. BLM did not use the habitat-use component in 

the Rowland et al. (2013) model in this analysis, because that model requires information on locations of 

open and closed roads across ownerships, which the BLM cannot reasonably predict across ownerships 

through time. 

In addition, the BLM assumed in this analysis that oak woodland would provide higher-quality forage 

habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer than Early Successional forest habitat. BLM calculated the 

amount of oak woodland from a separate data layer used by the RMP interdisciplinary team to map forest 

site moisture conditions that included potential vegetation data. The oak woodland data overlaps the 

vegetation modeling output used for Early Successional structural stage. Therefore, while the acreage of 

oak woodland is informative of relative conditions of deer forage habitat, it is not wholly additive with the 

Early Successional stage acreage. 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative and Proposed RMP 

implementation on Columbia white-tailed deer habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the 

cumulative effects on Columbia white-tailed deer habitat of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, including land management activities on BLM-administered lands and non-BLMadministered lands in the planning area. The BLM modeled habitat on non-BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area using the 2012 GNN structural condition. 

The BLM did not model changes in the white-tailed deer population since there are other factors that 

influence populations outside the scope of BLM land management decisions, such as harvest levels of 

deer authorized by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and mortality from predators or vehicle 

collisions. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM management direction for the Columbian whitetailed deer includes continued implementation of the Record of Decision for the North Bank Habitat 

Management Area (USDI BLM 2015, p. 936). Continued management of the North Bank Habitat 

Management Area for white-tailed deer habitat is consistent with conservation actions recommended by 

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 320). 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are 459 acres of high-quality Early Successional forage habitat (Figure 3-152) for the Lower 

Columbia River population of Columbian white-tailed deer on BLM-administered lands, which is 3 

percent of the 17,158 habitat-capable acres. As noted above, the BLM has not documented Columbian 

white-tailed deer on BLM-administered lands within the Salem District. There are 55,952 acres of highquality Early Successional forage habitat (Figure 3-153) for the Lower Columbia River population across 

all land ownerships, which is 9 percent of the 623,624 habitat-capable acres. The current BLM 

contribution to high-quality Early Successional forage habitat for the Lower Columbia River population is 

1 percent of the available high-quality Early Successional forage habitat available across all land 

ownerships. There are no additional acres of oak woodlands available for the Lower Columbia River 

population. 
857 | P a g e

Figure 3-152. Columbian white-tailed deer high-quality Early Successional forage habitat for the Lower 

Columbia River population on BLM-administered lands

Figure 3-153. Columbian white-tailed deer high-quality Early Successional forage habitat for the Lower 

Columbia River population across all land ownerships

459

987

3,220

3,779

5,316

1,688

1,488

0

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Lower Columbia River White-tailed Deer 

Habitat (Acres)

55,493 55,406 55,406 55,405 55,405 55,406 55,405 55,405

459 987

3,220 3,779 5,316 1,688 1,488

0

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Lower Columbia River White-tailed Deer 

Habitat (Acres)

Other Lands BLM-administered Lands
858 | P a g e

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, high-quality forage habitat would increase substantially for 

the Lower Columbia River population on BLM-administered lands in 50 years (Figure 3-152). 

Alternatives A, B, and C would provide from 7 to 12 times as much high-quality forage habitat in 50 

years than there is currently. Alternative D, the No Action alternative, and the Proposed RMP would 

provide from 2 to 4 times the amount of high-quality forage habitat than there is currently. In contrast, the 

No Timber Harvest reference analysis would decrease the amount of habitat provided, dropping to zero in 

50 years.

The alternatives and the Proposed RMP would increase in high-quality, Early Successional forage habitat 

across all ownerships for the Lower Columbia River population; Alternative C would provide the largest

increase (9 percent) and the No Action alternative would provide the least increase (1 percent) over 

current conditions (Figure 3-153). Under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, the amount of highquality Early Successional forage habitat for the Lower Columbia River population would decrease by 1 

percent. In 50 years, the BLM-administered lands would contribute between 2–9 percent of the available 

high-quality forage habitat for the Lower Columbia River population in the planning area with Alternative 

C the most and the No Action alternative the least.

There are 767 acres of high-quality Early Successional forage habitat (Figure 3-154) for the Douglas 

County population of Columbian white-tailed deer on BLM-administered lands, which is 6 percent of the 

13,308 habitat-capable acres. There are 19,439 acres of high-quality Early Successional forage habitat 

(Figure 3-155) for the Douglas County population across all ownerships, which is 9 percent of the 

205,266 habitat-capable acres. The current BLM contribution to high-quality forage habitat for the 

Douglas County population is 4 percent of the available high-quality forage habitat available across all 

ownerships. There are 1,545 additional acres of oak woodlands available on BLM-administered lands as 

high-quality forage habitat for the Douglas County population. There are 52,548 acres of oak woodlands 

available currently across all ownerships for the Douglas County population.
859 | P a g e

Figure 3-154. Columbian white-tailed deer high-quality Early Successional forage habitat for the 

Douglas County population on BLM-administered lands

Figure 3-155. Columbian white-tailed deer high-quality Early Successional forage habitat for the 

Douglas County population across all ownerships

767

295

712 747

589

426

577

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Douglas Country Columbian White-tailed 

Deer Habitat (Acres)

18,671 18,671 18,671 18,671 18,671 18,672 18,671 18,671

767 295 712 747 589 426 577 0

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

18,000

21,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Douglas County Columbian White-tailed Deer 

Habitat (Acres)

Other Lands BLM-administered Lands
860 | P a g e

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, high-quality Early Successional forage habitat would decrease slightly 

(by less than 200 acres) for the Douglas County population on BLM-administered lands in 50 years 

(Figure 3-154). Alternative D, the Proposed RMP, and the No Action alternative would provide 

approximately half the amount of high-quality Early Successional forage habitat as there is currently. 

However, the BLM assumed that the amount of oak woodlands high-quality forage habitat would remain 

approximately the same in 50 years. For the Douglas County population, oak woodlands would provide 

approximately twice the abundance of high-quality forage habitat (1,545 acres) for white-tailed deer as 

forage habitat from Early Successional coniferous stands.

Across all ownerships for the Douglas County population, high-quality Early Successional forage habitat

would remain essentially unchanged (2 percent decrease or less) from current conditions under the all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP over 50 years (Figure 3-155). In 50 years, the BLM-administered 

lands would contribute between 2–4 percent of the available high-quality Early Successional forage 

habitat for the Douglas County population. As on BLM-administered lands, oak woodlands would offer 

roughly twice the abundance of high-quality forage habitat (52,458 acres) for white-tailed deer as forage 

habitat from Early Successional coniferous forests across all ownerships under all alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. In 50 years, the No Timber Harvest reference analysis would result in no Early

Successional forage habitat on BLM-administered lands, and oak woodlands would gradually be lost to 

coniferous encroachment in the absence of management to maintain or restore these woodlands.

Within the Lower Columbia River DPS, flooding is a threat to Columbian white-tailed deer habitat when 

inundated for prolonged periods of time (USFWS 2013b). The risk of prolonged flooding could increase 

with the effects of climate change but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not expect that increased 

flooding would put the Lower Columbia River DPS at risk of extinction. Increased flooding could force 

deer to move into more human-developed areas.

Overall, for the Lower Columbia River population, while the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP

would increase the amount of high-quality forage habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer on BLMadministered lands in 50 years, there would be marked differences (approximately 3,800 acres). Among 

the action alternatives, Alternative C would increase high-quality forage habitat the most for the Lower 

Columbia River population while the Proposed RMP would provide the least amount of forage habitat 

increase (Figure 3-152). Greater availability of high-quality forage would improve ungulate survival and 

reproduction (e.g., pregnancy rates, fetal survival, neonatal survival, juvenile growth rates, vulnerability 

to overwinter starvation, and age at first breeding) (Cook et al. 2013, p. 37). In contrast, for the Douglas 

County population, there would be little to no decrease (2 percent or less) under the action alternatives 

and little meaningful difference among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP (less than 350 acres 

difference). Therefore, there would be little to no change in survival and reproduction as a result of 

changes in forage habitat for the Douglas County population. As noted above under Analytical Methods, 

it is not possible in this analysis to equate changes in forage habitat to changes in populations in either the 

Columbia River or the Douglas County populations, because there are other factors that influence

Columbian white-tailed deer populations outside the scope of BLM land management decisions.

Appendix S contains additional information and supporting data on Columbian white-tailed deer.
861 | P a g e

References

Cook, R. C., J. G. Cook, D. J. Vales, B. K. Johnson, S. M. McCorquodale, L. A. Shipley, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, S. L. Murphie, 

B. L. Murphie, K. A. Schoenecker, F. Geyer, P. Briggs Hall, R. D. Spencer, D. A., Immell, D. H. Jackson, B. L. Tiller, P. J. 

Miller, and L. Schmitz. 2013. Regional and seasonal patterns of nutritional conditions and reproduction in elk. Wildlife 

Monographs 184(1): 1–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1008.

Kern, J. 2015. Personal communication. May 21, 2015 email re: Col. White-tail deer range polygons? Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Salem, OR.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2014. ORBIC_ISSSSP_20130912_ssc. http://orbic.pdx.edu/data.html.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.asp.

---. 2008. Oregon Black-tailed Deer Management Plan. Salem, OR. 69 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/docs/Oregon_Black-Tailed_Deer_Management_Plan.pdf.

---. 2014a. Oregon black-tailed deer management plan implementation. Salem, OR. 83 pp.

Price, R. 2015. Personal communication. June 17, 2015 email Fwd: Observations of Columbian White-tailed Deer near Salem 

BLM lands. U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Salem, OR.

Rowland, M. M., J. M. Hafer, B. J. Naylor, P. K. Coe, M. J. Wisdom, J. G. Cook, R. C. Cook, R. M. Nielson, and B. K. Johnson.

2013. User guidelines for the application, summary, and interpretation of Westside elk nutrition and habitat use models. 

Draft Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 67 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/elk/data/WestsideElkModelInstructions_31Jan2013_v2.pdf.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2013a. Species Fact Sheet: Columbian white-tailed deer. Last updated: November 26,

2013. http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/ColumbianWhiteTailedDeer/.

---. 2013b. Columbia River distinct population segment of the Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) 5-

year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,. Lacey, WA. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A002.

White, B. 2015. Personal communication. July 14, 2015 email re: CWTD Range? USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, 

OR.
862 | P a g e

Deer and Elk

Key Points

 The No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP would increase the 

amount of high-quality forage habitat for deer and elk on BLM-administered lands in 50 years, 

but there would be an overall decrease in forage habitat in the planning area.

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS

The BLM expanded this analysis to consider all deer and elk species in the planning area, not just blacktailed deer and Roosevelt elk. The BLM also updated deer and elk population estimates using 2014 data 

from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Finally, the BLM added discussion pertaining to predation 

of deer and elk by gray wolves.

Background

There are three species of deer in the planning area: black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), mule deer 

(O. hemionus hemionus), and Columbian white-tailed deer (O. virginianus). The Columbian white-tailed 

deer is discussed separately in the previous pages. There is also one species of elk (Cervus elaphus) in the 

planning area, which occurs in two subspecies: Roosevelt elk west of the Cascades Mountains and Rocky 

Mountain elk east of the Cascade Mountains (ODFW 2015a). In this analysis, ‘deer and elk’ will refer to 

this assemblage of black-tailed deer, mule deer, Roosevelt elk, and Rocky Mountain elk.

Populations of black-tailed deer in western Oregon have been declining since the 1980s (ODFW 2014a). 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates that the black-tailed deer population in Oregon 

declined from 452,000 animals in 1979 to 320,000 animals in 2004 (ODFW 2014a, p. 10). Declines in the 

population of black-tailed deer are likely due to reductions in the quantity and quality of habitat, disease, 

and increased predation. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates that the population of 

mule deer in 2014 was 231,241 animals within eastern Oregon (ODFW 2015b). Based on these figures, 

there were approximately 550,000 deer in Oregon in 2014.

In the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

assumed that gray wolves would consume 23.4 deer per wolf per year (ODFW 2010, p. 100). Based on 

the population of 7 gray wolves in the planning area and 77 gray wolves in the State, as of 2014 (see the 

gray wolf section for details), the BLM assumes that wolves would consume 164 deer in planning area 

(< 0.1 percent of the deer population) and 1,802 deer in the State (0.3 percent of the deer population) 

annually. For context, regulated hunting harvested 22,371 deer in the planning area (7.0 percent of the 

deer population) and 46,057 deer in the State (8.4 percent of the deer population) in 2014 (ODFW 2015c).

The 2014 estimate of elk populations was 58,504 elk in the planning area and 131,296 elk in the State. 

Elk populations are below the management objectives established by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife in 18 of 20 wildlife management units in the planning area and in 31 of 53 wildlife management 

units (ODFW 2015d and 2015e).

In the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

assumed that gray wolves would consume 7.8 elk per wolf per year (ODFW 2010, p. 100). Based on the 

population of 7 gray wolves in the planning area (Figure 3-165) and 77 gray wolves in the State, as of 

2014, the BLM assumes that wolves would consume 55 elk in the planning area (0.1 percent of the elk 

population) and 601 elk in the State (0.5 percent of the elk population) annually. For context, regulated 
863 | P a g e

hunting harvested 5,998 elk in the planning area (10.3 percent of the elk population) and 18,777 elk in the 

State (14.3 percent of the elk population) in 2014 (ODFW 2015f).

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife associates differences in habitat quality for black-tailed deer 

and elk with differences in forage quality and forest structural stages. The Early Successional forest stage

provides more diverse, abundant, and nutritious forage through the forbs and shrubs that grow for 10–15 

years following a clearcut or stand-replacing natural disturbance (ODFW 2008, 2014a). Black-tailed deer 

densities are higher in Early Successional forests. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identifies 

availability of Early Successional forest stages as a potential limiting factor for black-tailed deer (ODFW 

2014a). These high-quality forage conditions persist until the canopy from regenerating conifer seedlings 

restricts sunlight to the low-lying forbs and shrubs. 

Similarly, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identified that Federal forestlands in western 

Oregon are lacking in adequate forage conditions for elk due to drastic reductions in timber harvest under 

the Northwest Forest Plan (ODFW 2003). Summarizing results from the elk nutrition model by Rowland 

et al. (2013), White (2015) found that with lower canopy closure and higher elevations, the abundance of 

high-quality forage for elk increases. Forage nutrition for elk in the Coast Range and many areas of the 

Cascades is relatively poor; even in Early Successional structural stages (e.g., clearcuts) the nutritional 

value of the forage is below maintenance levels for lactating elk. However, Early Successional habitat

provides much better nutritional benefits to elk than large areas of closed-canopy forest. Elk benefit from 

forest management activities that reduce forest cover, but usage of the additional forage that develops 

depends on nearby cover and human disturbance.

Use of high-quality foraging habitat by elk depends on the management of human disturbance, 

particularly along roads. Road management (e.g., seasonal road closures) can improve habitat quality for 

elk (White 2015). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identified that open road density is a 

contributing factor to illegal poaching, and open roads may limit use of forest habitats by black-tailed 

deer (ODFW 2014a, pp. 38, 64). However, the effect of human disturbance (including open roads) on 

black-tailed deer is not well-understood (ODFW2014a, p. 64). Unregulated roads cause an increase in elk 

vulnerability during hunting seasons, increases the potential for poaching, provides opportunities for other 

disturbances during critical calving periods and winter, and causes elk to move away from available 

forage (BLM 2008, p. 329).

Issue 1

What levels of habitat for deer and elk would be available under each alternative?

Summary of Analytical Methods

In this analysis, the BLM considered that all forested lands provide habitat for deer and elk within the 

planning area. The BLM assumed that Early Successional stage forest represents high-quality forage 

habitat for deer and elk in this analysis. The BLM tested this assumption against the elk nutrition model 

by Rowland et al. (2013) and found that using the Early Successional structural stage as high-quality

forage habitat was reasonable.

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative and Proposed RMP 

implementation on deer and elk habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on 

deer and elk habitat of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including land 

management activities on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area. The BLM modeled habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 2012 

GNN structural condition.
864 | P a g e

The BLM did not model changes in the deer or elk populations, because there are other factors that 

influence populations outside the scope of BLM land management decisions, such as regulated harvest 

levels of deer and elk authorized by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and mortality from 

predators or vehicle collisions.

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

There are 53,459 acres of high-quality forage habitat for deer and elk in the decision area (Figure 3-156), 

which is 2 percent of the 2,161,690 habitat-capable acres. There are 1,119,906 acres of high-quality 

forage habitat for deer and elk in the planning area (Figure 3-157), which is 6 percent of the 17,403,114 

habitat-capable acres. The BLM-administered lands contribute 5 percent of the available high-quality 

forage habitat available in the planning area.
865 | P a g e

Figure 3-156. Deer and elk high-quality forage habitat in the decision area

Figure 3-157. Deer and elk high-quality forage habitat in the planning area

Under the No Action alternative and Alternatives A, B, and C, high-quality forage habitat would increase 

substantially for deer and elk populations on BLM-administered lands in 50 years (Figure 3-156). The 

No Action alternative and Alternatives B and C, and would provide two to three times as much highquality forage habitat in 50 years. Alternative A would increase the amount of high-quality forage habitat 

in 50 years by 50 percent. The amount of foraging habitat would increase (by 22 percent) under the 

Proposed RMP but would decrease by 14 percent under Alternative D in 50 years. The No Timber 

53,459

110,566

80,089

118,311

131,001

46,001

65,418

14,418

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Deer and Elk Forage Habitat (Acres)

1,066,447

986,912 986,912 986,912 986,912 986,912 986,912 986,912

53,459 110,566 80,089 118,311 131,001

46,001 65,418

14,418

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Deer and Elk Forage Habitat (Acres)

Other Lands BLM-administered Lands
866 | P a g e

Harvest reference analysis would decrease the amount of habitat; in 50 years, there would be 27 percent 

of the current amount of high-quality forage habitat available.

At the planning area scale, Alternative C would maintain the amount of high-quality forage habitat for 

deer and elk. The other alternatives would lead to a 1–8 percent decrease in high-quality forage habitat 

(Figure 3-157), while the No Timber Harvest reference analysis would decrease by 11 percent. The 

reduction in high-quality forage habitat across all ownerships would be a result of the loss of Early

Successional forest from the reserve land use allocations in Federal ownership, as these stands develop 

and mature. In 50 years, BLM-administered lands under the Proposed RMP would contribute 6 percent of 

the available high-quality forage habitat in the planning area, while the No Action alternative and 

Alternatives A and B would result in contributions of 10, 8, and 11 percent, respectively. Alternative D (4 

percent) and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis (1 percent) would result in smaller contributions 

from BLM-administered lands to high-quality forage habitat in the planning area in 50 years.

The No Action alternative and Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP would increase the 

amount of high-quality forage habitat for deer and elk on BLM-administered lands in 50 years, but there 

would be an overall decrease in forage habitat in the planning area due to stand development in the 

reserve land use allocations on BLM-administered and U.S. Forest Service lands. Alternative D would 

maintain current amounts of high-quality forage habitat available in 50 years on BLM-administered lands. 

Greater availability of high-quality forage would improve ungulate survival and reproduction (e.g., 

pregnancy rates, fetal survival, neonatal survival, juvenile growth rates, vulnerability to overwinter 

starvation, and age at first breeding).

Under Alternative D, livestock grazing would be eliminated from BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area. Gray wolves are known to prey upon livestock in the State and, in the absence of livestock 

on BLM-administered lands, wolves would presumably compensate for the loss of domesticated prey by 

preying more heavily on deer and elk. However, the confirmed kill rates of livestock by wolves in Oregon 

are 0.7 livestock per wolf per year (see the Gray Wolf section in this chapter). Given the current gray wolf 

population in the planning area of seven wolves, the BLM assumes that wolves would consume

approximately five livestock annually. Therefore, under Alternative D, wolves would presumably 

consume an additional five deer or elk to compensate for the loss of potential livestock prey in the 

planning area. Given the background levels of loss of deer and elk from consumption by wolves (BLM 

estimates 164 deer and 55 elk annually) and from regulated harvest (22,371 deer and 5,998 elk in 2014) in 

the planning area, compensatory predation of 5 additional deer and elk would represent such a minor 

increase in the loss of deer and elk that it would have no discernible effect on deer and elk populations.

Under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, there would be 202,196 acres of deer habitat 

management areas in the Klamath Falls Field Office and in the Medford District (Table 3-251, Figure 3-

158) and 129,051 acres of elk management areas in the Medford and Salem Districts (Table 3-252, 

Figure 3-158). Under the Proposed RMP, motor vehicle use within deer or elk management areas would 

be regulated with seasonal road closures as specified in the management direction (Appendix B). In 

addition, the Proposed RMP would improve forage habitat for deer and elk by planting native forage 

species in disturbed areas, creating forage plots where forage is limited, and removing encroaching 

junipers.

As noted above under Analytical Methods, it is not possible in this analysis to equate changes in forage 

habitat to changes in populations, because there are other factors that influence deer and elk populations 

outside the scope of BLM land management decisions, such as regulated harvest levels of deer and elk 

authorized by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and mortality from predators or vehicle collisions.
867 | P a g e

Table 3-251. Deer management areas on BLM-administered lands 

District/

Field Office

Deer Management Area

(Name)

BLM-administered

Lands

(Acres)

Klamath Falls

Bly 4,526

Bly Mt. 6,310

Hogback 2,309

Horton Windy 8,198

Keno Worden 1,370

Lorella 4,069

South Bryant 2,719

South Gerber 30,047

Stukel 1,813

Swan Lake 6,547

Topsy Pokegama 13,721

Klamath Falls Subtotal 81,629

Medford

Little Applegate 11,083

Little Butte Creek South 25,545

Elk Creek 18,814

Salt Creek 17,487

Shady Cove West 7,670

Camel Hump 8,876

Williams 29,161

Monument 159

Burnt Peak 1,773

Medford Subtotal 120,567

Totals 202,196

Table 3-252. Elk management areas on BLM-administered lands

District Elk Management Areas 

(Name)

BLM-administered 

Lands

(Acres)

Medford

Burnt Peak 1,773

Camel Hump 8,876

Elk Creek 18,814

Salt Creek 17,479

Shady Cove West 7,670

Glendale Mule Creek 19,404

Far-Out 8,868

Peavine 26,315

Elk Valley 14,239

Medford Subtotal 123,437

Salem Bummer Ridge 3,638

Luckiamute 1,975

Salem Subtotal 5,614

Totals 129,051
868 | Page

Figure 3-158. Deer and elk management areas 

Appendix S contains additional information and supporting data on black-tailed deer and elk. 
869 | P a g e

References

Cook, R. C., J. G. Cook, D. J. Vales, B. K. Johnson, S. M. McCorquodale, L. A. Shipley, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, S. L. Murphie, 

B. L. Murphie, K. A. Schoenecker, F. Geyer, P. Briggs Hall, R. D. Spencer, D. A., Immell, D. H. Jackson, B. L. Tiller, P. J. 

Miller, and L. Schmitz. 2013. Regional and seasonal patterns of nutritional conditions and reproduction in elk. Wildlife 

Monographs 184(1):1–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1008.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan. Portland, OR. 63 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/management_plans/docs/ElkPlanfinal.pdf.

---. 2008. Oregon Black-tailed Deer Management Plan. Salem, OR. 69 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/docs/Oregon_Black-Tailed_Deer_Management_Plan.pdf.

---. 2010. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. 194 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Oregon_Wolf_Conservation_and_Management_Plan_2010.pdf.

---. 2014a. Oregon black-tailed deer management plan implementation. Salem, OR. 83 pp.

---. 2014b. Northwest archery review. 16 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/archery/docs/Presentations/Northwest_archery_review_Jan_25_2014.pdf. 

Accessed February 04, 2015.

---. 2015a. Hoofed mammals. ODFW website: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/species/mammals/hoofed_mammals.asp. Accessed 

May 05, 2015.

---. 2015b. Mule deer population trend in Oregon by Wildlife Management Unit 2010–2015. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/controlled_hunts/reports/. Accessed August 07, 2015.

---. 2015c. Estimated 2014 deer harvest by hunt and Wildlife Management Unit based on mandatory harvest survey reports.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/controlled_hunts/reports/. Accessed August 07, 2015.

---. 2015d. Rocky Mountain elk population size, bull ratio, and calf ratio by WMU [11–30] in Oregon, 2010–2015.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/controlled_hunts/reports/. Accessed August 07, 2015.

---. 2015e. Rocky Mountain elk population size, bull ratio, and calf ratio by WMU [35–74] in Oregon, 2010–2015.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/controlled_hunts/reports/. Accessed August 07, 2015.

---. 2015f. Estimated 2014 elk harvest by season and Wildlife Management Unit based on mandatory harvest survey reports.pdf. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/controlled_hunts/reports/. Accessed August 07, 2015.

Rowland, M. M., J. M. Hafer, B. J. Naylor, P. K. Coe, M. J. Wisdom, J. G. Cook, R. C. Cook, R. M. Nielson, B. K. Johnson. 

2013. User guidelines for the application, summary, and interpretation of Westside elk nutrition and habitat use models. 

Draft Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 67 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/elk/data/WestsideElkModelInstructions_31Jan2013_v2.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. BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php.

White. R. 2015. Elk habitat selection in western Oregon and Washington: models for a new century. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/elk/westside/WestsideElkModelingFinalSummary.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2015.
870 | P a g e

Fisher

Key Points

 The No Action alternative would lead to a continual loss of fisher habitat over 50 years.

 All action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would have a slight loss of fisher habitat in the first 

two decades, but additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would eventually 

surpass current conditions.

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS

The BLM added analysis of the fisher population in the planning area under the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP.

Background

Historically, fishers (Pekania pennanti) occurred in Oregon throughout the Coastal and Cascade 

mountains (USDI FWS 2013). Currently, remaining populations of fishers are restricted to two separate 

and genetically isolated populations in southwestern Oregon: one in the northern Siskiyou Mountains and 

one in the southern Cascade Range (USDI FWS 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to 

list the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of fisher, referred to as ‘fisher’ henceforth, as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419).

Reliable fisher observations occur in 10 subbasins in the planning area including: Applegate, Chetco, 

Illinois, Middle Rogue, Upper Klamath, Upper Klamath Lake, Upper Rogue, North Umpqua, South 

Umpqua, and Williamson (GeoBOB 2013, ORBIC 2014).

Fisher habitat is comprised of denning habitat, resting habitat, and foraging habitat. Denning habitat is 

habitat that fishers use for reproduction, denning, and rearing of young. Cavities in live or dead trees are a 

key characteristic of denning habitat. Resting habitat is habitat that fishers use for thermal regulation and 

security, in proximity to prey. High canopy cover, an abundance of large trees, and incidence of mistletoe 

or rust brooms are characteristic of resting habitat. Fishers use foraging habitat to locate and capture prey

(Lofroth et al. 2010).

Throughout their range, fishers are obligate users of tree or snag cavities for denning, and they select 

resting sites with characteristics of late-successional forests (79 FR 60427). There is little evidence that 

individual den sites are reused over time, limiting the value of protecting past den sites (69 FR 18782). 

Fishers rest every day, but reuse of rest sites is infrequent (Lofroth et al. 2010, p. 119).

Vegetation management that removes important habitat elements (such as den sites and canopy cover) has 

a greater effect on fishers than activities that maintain these elements (79 FR 60430). Canopy cover is 

critical to fishers; the most consistent predictor of fisher occurrence at large spatial scales is moderate to 

high amounts of contiguous canopy cover. Several studies reported that females used sites for denning 

that had relatively high amounts of overhead canopy cover. Mean overhead canopy cover at 373 random 

points was only 67 percent compared to 80 percent at natal sites and 88 percent at maternal den sites 

(Lofroth et al. 2011).

The main threats to fisher are habitat loss and fragmentation due to wildfire, vegetation management, 

toxicants (i.e., anti-coagulant rodenticides), and the synergistic effects of these and other factors (e.g.,

fisher mortality from vehicle collisions) on small populations (USDI FWS 2013, Aubry and Lewis 2003, 

79 FR 60420). Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides more 
871 | P a g e

information on the historic range, habitat, and known populations, which is incorporated here by 

reference (USDI BLM 2013, p. 145).

Surveys detected fisher more often in areas with fewer disjunct core areas and more contiguous patches of 

habitat. Core habitat is habitat located more than 328 feet from a habitat edge. Fisher are detected more in 

habitat that has a greater amount of Douglas-fir, a greater amount of 51–75 percent canopy cover, less 

barren areas, a higher density of low use roads (closed to public or seasonal use only), and fewer disjunct 

core habitat (Lofroth et al. 2011).

The mean male home range size is 20.8 square miles (13,329 acres), and the mean female home range is 

7.3 square miles (4,692 acres). Dispersing juvenile fisher are capable of moving long distances (up to 84 

miles) and navigating across or around various landscape features including rivers, highways, and rural 

communities. In the Cascade Range in southern Oregon, juvenile males dispersed an average of 18.0 

miles and juvenile females dispersed an average of 3.7 miles. During the breeding season, male fishers 

may move up to 18.6 miles from their territory in the search for a mate (Lofroth et al. 2010).

Issue 1

What levels of habitat for the fisher would be available under each alternative?

Summary of Analytical Methods

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that total habitat for the fisher is comprised of Young, Mature, or 

Structurally-complex stands within the 11 subbasins that represent the current range of the species 

(Figure 3-159).
872 | Page

Figure 3-159. Range of the fisher 

The BLM identified the current range of the fisher in this analysis based on subbasins where there are 

documented, reliable observations. For the purpose of this analysis, the BLM considered observations to 

be reliable if they are noted as having ‘excellent’ reliability in GeoBOB or ORBIC.132 For this analysis, 

the 11 subbasins currently representing the current range of fisher include the 10 listed in the background 

discussion above and the Lower Rogue subbasin. Even though the Lower Rogue subbasin does not have 

reliable observations, the BLM included this subbasin within the current range of the fisher in this 

analysis because of the arrangement of the other subbasins and the fisher’s ability to disperse. The Lower 

Rogue subbasin is approximately 11–20 miles across, north to south, generally within the fisher’s 

dispersal range (an average of 3.7–18.0 miles) of subbasins with reliable sightings to the north, east, and 

south. 

The Planning Criteria described seven subbasins representing the range of the fisher using the GeoBOB 

data (BLM 2014, pp. 190–192), but subsequent inclusion of additional reliable observations from ORBIC 

 

132 Observations in the GeoBOB database are ranked as having excellent, good, fair, poor, or unknown reliability. 
872 | Page

Figure 3-159. Range of the fisher 

The BLM identified the current range of the fisher in this analysis based on subbasins where there are 

documented, reliable observations. For the purpose of this analysis, the BLM considered observations to 

be reliable if they are noted as having ‘excellent’ reliability in GeoBOB or ORBIC.132 For this analysis, 

the 11 subbasins currently representing the current range of fisher include the 10 listed in the background 

discussion above and the Lower Rogue subbasin. Even though the Lower Rogue subbasin does not have 

reliable observations, the BLM included this subbasin within the current range of the fisher in this 

analysis because of the arrangement of the other subbasins and the fisher’s ability to disperse. The Lower 

Rogue subbasin is approximately 11–20 miles across, north to south, generally within the fisher’s 

dispersal range (an average of 3.7–18.0 miles) of subbasins with reliable sightings to the north, east, and 

south. 

The Planning Criteria described seven subbasins representing the range of the fisher using the GeoBOB 

data (BLM 2014, pp. 190–192), but subsequent inclusion of additional reliable observations from ORBIC 

 

132 Observations in the GeoBOB database are ranked as having excellent, good, fair, poor, or unknown reliability. 
873 | P a g e

data has yielded an additional three subbasins in the planning area: North Umpqua, South Umpqua, and 

Williamson subbasins.

The BLM defined fisher habitat as Young, Mature, and Structurally-complex stands in the 11 subbasins 

that represent the current range of the species. The BLM divided habitat for the fisher into denning, 

resting, and foraging habitat. The following structural stages represent these three categories:

 Denning habitat = Structurally-complex

 Resting habitat = Mature Multi-layered Canopy

 Foraging habitat = Young with Structural Legacies

The BLM assumed that denning habitat would also provide resting and foraging functions, that resting 

habitat would also provide foraging function, and that foraging habitat would only provide foraging 

function.

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative and Proposed RMP 

implementation on fisher habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on fisher 

habitat of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including land management activities 

on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The BLM modeled 

habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 2012 GNN structural 

condition.

The BLM assessed habitat connectivity by calculating the amount of ‘edge habitat’ and ‘core habitat’ on 

BLM-administered lands. Based on Lofroth et al. (2011, p. 60), the BLM defined core habitat as the 

interior portion of a contiguous block of denning habitat that is more than 328 feet from non-habitat; edge 

habitat is denning habitat that is within 328 feet of non-habitat. There are no quantified thresholds for the 

amount of core habitat needed by fishers or the effects of changes in patch size. In this analysis, the BLM 

considered habitat quality and connectivity to increase as the proportion of available habitat in core 

habitat increases and as patch size increases.

The BLM estimated the fisher population in the planning area by emulating methods used by the U.S. 

Forest Service in the Bybee Forest Vegetation Management Project (USFS 2013, pp. Appendix F-183 –

F-187), as suggested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (B. White, USFWS Oregon State Office, 

Consultation Branch Manager, personal communication, July 22, 2015). The BLM divided the total 

amount of habitat (i.e., denning, resting, and foraging) in the planning area by the average home range 

size for male and female fishers. The BLM assumed full occupancy of habitat by the species and male 

home ranges overlapping female home ranges. Other factors influence fisher populations, which are not 

predictable and are unaffected by BLM land management actions (e.g., mortality from toxicants and

vehicle collisions) and were not included in estimating fisher populations. Therefore, these estimates of 

the fisher population are approximate and the absolute population numbers should be interpreted with 

great caution. The BLM estimated population numbers only to provide the BLM with the relative 

outcomes of the fisher population under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

There are currently 319,503 acres of denning habitat, 156,657 acres of resting habitat, and 95,100 acres of 

foraging habitat for fisher in the decision area (Table 3-253). Approximately 54 percent of the BLMadministered lands capable of providing fisher habitat is currently providing habitat function: 30 percent 

as denning habitat, 15 percent as resting habitat, and 9 percent as foraging habitat.
874 | P a g e

Table 3-253. Current fisher habitat in the decision and planning areas

Fisher Habitat Type

Decision Area Planning Area

(Acres) Habitat Capable

(Percent)

(Acres) Habitat Capable

(Percent)

Denning, Resting, Foraging 319,503 30% 634,595 10%

Resting, Foraging 156,657 15% 828,658 13%

Foraging Only 95,100 9% 3,018,519 49%

Total Fisher Habitat 571,355 54% 4,481,891 72%

Total Habitat-capable 1,057,676 100% 6,224,237 100%

In the planning area, there is currently 634,595 acres of denning habitat, 828,658 acres of resting habitat, 

and 3,018,519 acres of foraging habitat for the fisher. Approximately 72 percent of land capable of 

providing fisher habitat is providing some form of habitat function. The BLM-administered lands 

contribute 51 percent of the available denning habitat and 13 percent of total fisher habitat in the planning 

area.

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, there would be 644,357 acres of total fisher habitat, 

398,633 acres of denning habitat, and 160,996 acres of resting habitat on BLM-administered lands in 50 

years (Figure 3-160).133 Under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the amount of total habitat, 

denning habitat, and resting habitat on BLM-administered lands would increase from current levels in 50 

years. The action alternatives would provide 8–15 percent more total fisher habitat, 13–20 percent more 

denning habitat, and 5–26 percent more resting habitat on BLM-administered lands than current amounts. 

Alternative B would result in the largest increase in total fisher habitat (662,866 acres) and resting habitat 

(193,001 acres), Alternative D would result in the largest increase in denning habitat (389,533 acres) and 

Alternative C the smallest increase of either (620,639 and 365,611 acres, respectively) among the action 

alternatives. The Proposed RMP would result in an increase in total fisher habitat (612,265 acres) and

denning habitat (366,541 acres) on BLM-administered lands in 50 years. In contrast to all action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the No Action alternative would decrease the amount of total habitat, 

denning habitat, and resting habitat from current levels on BLM-administered lands in 50 years.

 

133 Foraging habitat would decrease under all alternatives, including the No Timber Harvest reference analysis

(Figure 3-160). The reduction of foraging habitat would not represent a loss of overall habitat, but rather the 

development of foraging-only habitat into denning habitat or resting habitat, which provide foraging functions as 

well.
875 | P a g e

Figure 3-160. Fisher habitat in the decision area

The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would have a 1–3 percent loss of denning habitat in the 

first decade (and in the second decade for Alternative C), but additional habitat would develop in 

subsequent decades that would surpass current conditions by 2033 (Appendix S). Similarly, total fisher

habitat and resting habitat would decrease in the first two decades under the action alternatives (3–5

percent) and the Proposed RMP (10–15 percent), but additional habitat would develop in subsequent 

decades that would surpass current conditions by the year 2043. In contrast, the No Action alternative 

would have less total fisher habitat, denning habitat, and resting habitat in 50 years than there is currently 

(Figure 3-160).

Currently, the average patch size of fisher habitat is 31.0 acres (Table 3-254). Under the No Timber 

Harvest reference analysis, average patch size would increase to 35.9 acres in 50 years. The average patch 

size would decrease slightly from current conditions under Alternative C (30.1 acres) and the Proposed 

RMP (27.3 acres) in 50 years. Under the No Action alternative, average patch size would decrease more 

substantially from current conditions (20.4 acres). In contrast, average patch size would increase slightly 

under Alternatives A, B, and D. Using patch size as an index of habitat fragmentation, there would be 

some fragmentation of fisher habitat under the No Action alternative, Alternative C, and the Proposed 

RMP. The No Action alternative would result in a more substantial fragmentation of fisher habitat based 

on patch size. Alternatives A, B, and D would result in a slight reduction of fisher habitat fragmentation 

or, conversely, an increase in connectivity between habitat patches.

319,503 292,012

387,886 376,867 365,611 389,533 366,541 398,633

156,763

143,410

162,066 193,001 167,697 172,961 188,043 160,996

95,100

92,080

82,384 92,998

87,331

90,847 91,004 84,728

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Habitat (Acres)

Denning Habitat Resting Habitat Foraging Habitat
876 | P a g e

Table 3-254. Fisher habitat patch metrics

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Mean Patch Size

(Acres)

Edge vs. Core Habitat

Edge Habitat

(Acres)

Core Habitat

(Acres)

Core

(Percent)

Current Condition (2013) 31.0 403,186 168,168 29%

No Action (2063) 20.4 381,360 146,143 28%

Alt. A (2063) 31.4 428,759 203,578 32%

Alt. B (2063) 32.3 450,183 212,684 32%

Alt. C (2063) 30.1 420,919 199,721 32%

Alt. D (2063) 32.6 441,553 211,790 32%

PRMP (2063) 27.3 450,508 195,078 30%

No Timber Harvest (2063) 35.9 433,931 210,428 33%

Currently, 29 percent of total fisher habitat is core habitat (Table 3-254). Under the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis, core habitat would increase to 33 percent of total fisher habitat in 50 years. Under all 

action alternatives, core habitat would increase to 30–32 percent of total fisher habitat in 50 years. The 

Proposed RMP would provide the smallest increase in core habitat (30 percent) compared to the action 

alternatives. In contrast, the No Action alternative would reduce the amount of core habitat to 28 percent 

of total fisher habitat in 50 years. These results are similar to changes in average patch size. It is unknown 

whether a slight reduction in the proportion of core habitat (1 percent) would lead to a perceptible 

decrease in use by fisher.

These results show slightly less habitat development for fisher under the Proposed RMP than under 

Alternative B, even though the Proposed RMP has larger reserves. This difference in analytical results is a 

result of the BLM update of baseline forest structural conditions resulting from 2013/2014 wildfires, 

which has resulted in changes to the affected environment description (i.e., the current condition), as 

described at the beginning of Chapter 3. The difference in the changes in the baseline are noticeably 

illustrated in changes to the average patch size under current conditions previously reported in the Draft 

RMP/EIS (33.0 acres, p. 706) compared to that reported here in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (31.0 acres, 

Table 3-254). The 2013/2014 wildfires altered habitat in the decision area, particularly within the range 

of the fisher, and resulted in the loss of fisher habitat and an increase in habitat fragmentation. There are 

2,864 acres less total fisher habitat under the updated current condition of the Proposed RMP 

incorporating the effect of the 2013/2014 wildfires than under the current condition previously modeled 

for the other alternatives (Appendix S). This difference in starting condition continues to alter analytical 

results for the habitat availability for the Proposed RMP for an unknown duration in future decades. 

Despite this slight difference in analytical results, the BLM concludes that the Proposed RMP would 

provide habitat development for fisher comparable to Alternative B.

Because fishers use large contiguous tracts of habitat (Lofroth et al. 2011, p. 60), increased fragmentation 

of habitat would reduce the suitability of forest stands as habitat. However, fishers typically use numerous 

patches of habitat over a large landscape, and it is unknown if the slight reductions in patch size modeled 

under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in any meaningful decrease in habitat 

use by the fisher. Similarly, it is unknown whether the slight increases of core habitat would result in any 

meaningful increase in habitat use by the fisher. However, the effects from fragmentation under the No 

Action alternative would be more pronounced and more likely to result in a meaningful decrease in 

habitat use by fisher than the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, because of the more substantial 

decrease in average patch size and decrease of core habitat.
877 | P a g e

At the planning area scale, total fisher habitat would increase slightly from current amounts under the all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP in 50 years (Figure 3-161). Under the No Action alternative, total 

fisher habitat would increase at the planning area scale, even though it would decrease on BLMadministered lands because of the increase in fisher habitat on U.S. Forest Service reserve lands. At the 

planning area scale, there is little differentiation in fisher habitat development among the action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, BLMadministered lands would contribute 13–14 percent of the total fisher habitat and 38–39 percent of the 

denning habitat in the planning area in 50 years. Under the No Action alternative, BLM-administered 

lands would contribute 12 percent of the total fisher habitat and 33 percent of denning habitat in the 

planning area in 50 years.
878 | P a g e

Figure 3-161. Fisher habitat on BLM-administered lands and across all ownerships for foraging, resting, 

and denning

2,923,420

2,343,363 2,343,363 2,343,363 2,343,363 2,343,363 2,343,363 2,343,363

95,100

92,080 82,384 92,998 87,331 90,847 91,004 84,728

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Foraging Habitat (Acres)

Other Lands BLM-administered Lands

672,023

1,097,898 1,097,898 1,097,898 1,097,898 1,097,898 1,097,898 1,097,898

156,753

143,410 162,066 193,001 167,697 172,961 188,043 160,996

0

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,600,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Resting Habitat (Acres)

315,093

606,142 606,142 606,142 606,142 606,142 606,142 606,142

319,503

292,012

387,886 376,867 365,611 389,533 366,541 398,633

0

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Denning Habitat (Acres)
879 | P a g e

The BLM estimates there are 1,292 fishers in the planning area, based on the habitat available in 2013. 

Under the No Action alternative, the fisher population would decrease by 9 individuals in the first decade 

due to the loss of habitat but would increase by 26 individuals in 50 years due to subsequent habitat 

development. Under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the fisher population would initially 

decrease by 2-5 individuals in the first decade but would increase by 53–65 individuals in 50 years (Table 

3-2557). Alternative B would provide a slight decrease in the population (2 fisher) the first decade but the 

largest increase (65 fisher) over 50 years. Alternative C would provide a slight decrease in the population 

(5 fisher) the first decade and the smallest increase to the population (53 fisher) over 50 years (Appendix 

S). For context, the No Timber Harvest reference analysis would result in a population decrease of 1 

fisher in the first decade and a population increase of 60 fishers in 50 years. The loss of a few individuals 

under the all the alternatives in the first decade would be offset by population growth in subsequent 

decades as habitat development continues. The forecast reduction in the fisher population in the first 

decade (up to 9 individuals under the No Action alternative) would constitute a loss of < 1 percent of the 

current estimated population in the decision area (1,292 fishers) and would not reduce the fisher 

population below any known, critical population thresholds. The trends in population forecast follow a 

similar pattern as that for habitat development in the planning area discussed above. Overall, all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in a slight increase in fisher populations in 50 years. The 

No Action alternative would result in a 2 percent increase in 50 years, all of the action alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP would result in 4–5 percent increases in the fisher population in 50 years. Given the very 

coarse assumptions regarding the effect of habitat of populations and the inability to account for nonhabitat factors affecting fisher populations, these small differences in the fisher populations over time, 

including the losses during the first decade, are substantially smaller than the likely error in these 

estimates. Thus, it is possible to conclude from this analysis that the action alternatives and Proposed 

RMP would contribute to fisher population increases over time and would contribute to larger population 

increases than the No Action alternative. However, it is not possible to conclude that there are meaningful 

differences among the action alternatives and Proposed RMP on fisher populations.

Table 3-255. Fisher population in the planning area in 50 years

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Total Fisher 

Habitat

(Acres)

Female 

Fisher

(Population)

Male

Fisher

(Population)

Total

Fisher

(Population)

Fisher

Population

Increase

(Number)

Current Condition (2013) 4,484,755 956 336 1,292 -

No Action (2063) 4,574,905 975 343 1,318 26

Alt. A (2063) 4,679,739 997 351 1,348 56

Alt. B (2063) 4,710,269 1,004 353 1,357 65

Alt. C (2063) 4,668,042 995 350 1,345 53

Alt. D. (2063) 4,700,745 1,002 353 1,355 63

PRMP (2063) 4,692,992 1,000 352 1,352 60

No Timber Harvest (2063) 4,691,760 1,000 352 1,352 60

Figure 3-162 shows the amount of each type of fisher habitat within the planning area in 50 years.
880 | P a g e

Figure 3-162. Fisher habitat in the planning area

Appendix S contains additional information and supporting data on fisher.

References

Aubry, K. B., and J. C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their 

conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (2003): 79–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-

3207(03)00003-X.

GeoBOB. 2013a. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot–March 6, 2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR.

Lofroth, E. C., C. M. Raley, J. M. Higley, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, J. C. Lewis, P. J. Happe, L. L. Finley, R. H. Naney, L. J. 

Hale, A. L. Krause, S. A. Livingston, A. M. Myers, and R. N. Brown. 2010. Conservation of fishers (Martes pennanti) in 

south-central British Columbia, western Washington, western Oregon, and California–Volume I: Conservation Assessment. 

USDI BLM, Denver, CO. http://www.fws.gov/yreka/PDF/Lofroth_etal_2010.pdf.

Lofroth, E. C., J. M. Higley, R. H. Naney, C. M. Raley, J. S. Yaeger, S. A. Livingston, and R. L. Truex. 2011. Conservation of 

fishers (Martes pennanti) in south-central British Columbia, western Washington, western Oregon, and California – Volume 

II: Key findings from fisher habitat studies in British Columbia, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and California. USDI BLM, 

Denver, CO. http://www.fws.gov/yreka/Fisher%20Habitat%20Studies%20Vol%20II.pdf.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2014. ORBIC_ISSSSP_20130912_ssc. http://orbic.pdx.edu/data.html.

USDA FS. 2013. Bybee Vegetation Management Project. High Cascades Ranger District, Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest. 

Medford, Oregon. http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=33406.

USDI BLM. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-westernoregon.pdf.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2013. Species Fact Sheet: Fisher. Last updated: March 19, 2013. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/Fisher/.

634,595 898,154 994,028 983,009 971,753 995,675 972,684 1,004,775

828,777

1,241,308 1,259,963 1,290,899 1,265,595 1,270,859 1,285,940 1,258,894

3,018,519

2,435,443 2,425,748 2,436,361 2,430,694 2,434,211 2,434,368 2,428,091

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Habitat (Acres)

Denning Habitat Resting Habitat Foraging Habitat
881 | P a g e

Golden Eagle

Key Points

 All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would lead to an increase in golden eagle nesting habitat 

in 50 years.

 All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would have a slight loss of golden eagle habitat in the first 

two or three decades, but additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would 

eventually surpass current conditions.

Background

Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos canadensis) nest in open and semi‐open habitat; they may also nest in 

coniferous habitat when open space is available (e.g., fire breaks, clear-cuts, burned areas, and 

pastureland) (Pagel et al. 2010) or there are “broad expanses of open country” available for foraging 

(Johnsgard, 1990). Golden eagles nest on cliffs, the largest trees in forested stands, or artificial structures. 

In Oregon, golden eagles built 82 percent of their nests on cliffs, 16 percent in trees, and 1 percent on 

electrical poles/pylons (Isaacs 2014).

Previously, Isaacs (2011) reported that golden eagle populations in the western U.S. are suspected of a 

long-term decline. A consistent and statewide survey effort for golden eagles was conducted in 2011, and 

the results suggest that there is a long-term loss of potential breeding areas of 14.2 percent in Oregon. 

However, three years of monitoring data (2011–2013) suggest that the nesting population of golden 

eagles in Oregon may be stable (Isaacs 2014). The minimum statewide estimate for golden eagles was 

459 nesting pairs in 2011, 571 nesting pairs in 2012, and 573 nesting pairs in 2013. Estimates of the 

nesting population from the 1980s were 500 pairs, which is comparable to the current estimates,

suggesting no substantive changes in population size. The northwestern and southwestern portions of 

Oregon have not been fully searched for golden eagle nests, and therefore the population size of nesting 

golden eagles may be underestimated. Potential threats to golden eagles in Oregon include reduced prey 

abundance (e.g., jackrabbits), increased off-road recreation, increased rodent shooting, and loss of 

potential nest trees (Isaacs 2011).

Within the planning area, there are 95 golden eagle breeding areas (Table 3-256) concentrated mainly in 

the Klamath Falls Field Office, and the Medford and Roseburg Districts (Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas

counties). Based on Isaacs’ 2011 data, 45 percent of the 38 breeding areas surveyed in the planning area 

were occupied by golden eagles. Golden eagles nested historically within nine counties in the planning 

area (Clackamas, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, and Linn Counties).
882 | P a g e

Table 3-256. Golden eagle breeding areas within the planning area

County*

Historical Breeding

Areas (Pre-2011)

(Number)

Breeding Areas

Surveyed in 2011

(Number)

Breeding Areas

Occupied in 2011

(Number)

Clackamas 2 - -

Coos 2 1 -

Curry 5 - -

Douglas 19 4 3

Jackson 17 10 4

Josephine 2 - -

Klamath 44 22 9

Lane 2 - -

Linn 2 1 1

Totals 95 38 17

* The remaining counties in the planning area (Benton, Clatsop, Columbia, Lincoln, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, 

Washington, and Yamhill) do not have historical golden eagle breeding areas.

Over 98 percent of golden eagle observations are within 4 miles of the center of their territory center 

(McGrady et al. 2002). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Pagel et al. 2010) and Isaacs (2014) 

recommend that the inventory of nesting habitat should be conducted within 10 miles of project 

boundaries to ascertain habitat use by golden eagles.

Golden eagles are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act. In response to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the BLM issued policy guidance 

directing analysis of effects to golden eagles. The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for 

Western Oregon provides more information on the obligations of BLM for golden eagles under these acts, 

which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2013).

Issue 1

What levels of habitat for the golden eagle would be available under each alternative?

Summary of Analytical Methods

In this analysis, the BLM considered nesting habitat for golden eagles to be Mature Multi-layered Canopy 

and Structurally-complex stands within the nine counties with historical breeding territories. During 

preliminary analyses, the BLM considered nesting habitat only within proximity of large patches of open 

habitat. The BLM evaluated nesting habitat within 4, 6, and 10 miles of open habitat that was at least 100 

acres; results indicated that each of these distances encompassed most of the BLM-administered lands 

within the counties with historic golden eagle nesting. Based on these preliminary results, and to simplify 

analytical procedures, the BLM assumed that all BLM-administered lands within the nine counties could 

provide nesting habitat for golden eagles, irrespective of distance to open habitat.

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative and Proposed RMP 

implementation on golden eagle nesting habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative 

effects on golden eagle nesting habitat of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

including land management activities on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in 
883 | P a g e

the planning area. The BLM modeled nesting habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area using the 2012 GNN structural condition.

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and 

techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2014, pp. 196–197).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

There are 789,751 acres of nesting habitat for golden eagles on BLM-administered lands in the decision 

area (Figure 3-163). Of the forested lands capable of providing nesting habitat, 41 percent is currently 

nesting habitat in the decision area.
884 | P a g e

Figure 3-163. Golden eagle nesting habitat in the decision area

There are 3,225,904 acres of nesting habitat for golden eagles across all land-ownerships in the planning 

area (Figure 3-164). Of the forestland capable of providing nesting habitat, 24 percent is currently nesting 

habitat in the planning area. BLM-administered lands provide 24 percent of the available nesting habitat 

for golden eagles.

Figure 3-164. Golden eagle nesting habitat in the planning area

789,751

848,128

957,588 982,160

878,459

1,026,264

969,364 1,018,234

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Golden Eagle Nesting Habitat (Acres)

2,434,272

3,764,338 3,764,338 3,764,338 3,764,338 3,764,338 3,764,338 3,764,338

789,751

848,128

957,588 982,160

878,459

1,026,264 969,364 1,018,234

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Golden Eagle Nesting Habitat (Acres)

Other Lands BLM-administered Lands
885 | P a g e

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, there would be 1,018,234 acres of golden eagle nesting 

habitat in 50 years in the decision area (Figure 3-163). Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the 

amount of golden eagle nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands would increase between 7–30 

percent. Nesting habitat development under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would be 

86–101 percent of the nesting habitat development as under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. 

Alternative D would provide the most golden eagle nesting habitat development and would actually 

surpass nesting habitat development under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. Alternative C 

would provide the least nesting habitat development. The No Action alternative would produce 83 percent 

as much nesting habitat as under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. Alternatives A, B, C, the No 

Action alternative, and the Proposed RMP would have a 1–8 percent loss of golden eagle nesting habitat 

in the first two decades (the three decades for the No Action alternative), but additional nesting habitat 

would develop in subsequent decades that would surpass current conditions (Appendix S).

At the planning area scale, the No Timber Harvest reference analysis would lead to 4,782,572 acres of 

golden eagle nesting habitat in 50 years (Figure 3-164). Golden eagle nesting habitat would increase by 

43–49 percent under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP in 50 years in the planning area. Differences 

in habitat development among Alternatives A, B, and D and the Proposed RMP would be 

indistinguishable, because they would be within 1 percent of the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. 

Alternative C and the No Action alternative would yield less golden eagle nesting habitat at the planning 

area scale, but the difference is insubstantial (3–4 percent less than the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis). The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would have a less than a 2 percent loss of golden 

eagle habitat in the first two decades (the first three decades for the No Action alternative), but additional 

habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would surpass current conditions (Appendix S).

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would restrict activities near golden eagle nests 

that would disrupt nesting during the breeding season; therefore, there would not be any disruption effects 

to nesting golden eagles.

Overall, the BLM concludes that increases in nesting habitat coupled with management direction would 

avoid disruption of breeding and nesting activities would encourage golden eagle population growth 

within the decision and planning areas. There would be little difference in effects among the alternatives

and the Proposed RMP, since habitat development would vary by no more than 4 percent.

Overall, the BLM concludes that golden eagle populations in the decision area and planning area would

remain stable under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Habitat availability for golden eagles would 

increase, and there is no newly identified threat that BLM expects to lead to a downward trend in the 

population of nesting golden eagles.

Appendix S contains additional information and supporting data on golden eagles.
886 | P a g e

References

Isaacs, F. B. 2011. Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) nesting in Oregon, 2011. 1st Annual Report–Revised April 16, 2012. 

Oregon Eagle Foundation, Inc., Klamath Falls, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/energy/opportunity/files/GE_2011AnnualReport.pdf.

---. 2014. Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) nesting in Oregon, 2011–2013. Final Annual Report. Oregon Eagle Foundation, 

Inc., Philomath, OR.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press. 403 pp.

McGrady, M. J., J. R. Gran, I. P. Bainbridge, and D. R. A. McLeod. 2002. A model of golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) ranging 

behavior. Journal of Raptor Research 36(1 Supp.): 62–69. https://sora.unm.edu/node/53954.

Pagel, J. E., D. M. Whittington, and G. T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and monitoring protocols; and other 

recommendations. USFWS, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Carlsbad, CA. 31 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/documents/te_species/wind%20power/usfws_interim_goea_monitoring_protoc

ol_10march2010.pdf.

USDI BLM. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-westernoregon.pdf.

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php.
887 | P a g e

Greater Sage-grouse

Key Points

 There would be no discernable difference in effects to greater sage-grouse among the No Action 

alternative, Alternatives A, B, and C, or the Proposed RMP, and effects from livestock grazing

would remain the same as under the current conditions. Alternative D, which would eliminate 

livestock grazing, would remove the risk of livestock trampling greater sage-grouse individuals 

and disrupting lekking behaviors.

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS

The BLM updated information regarding greater sage-grouse status and population and habitat trends.

Background

On March 23, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife determined that the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) warrants the protection under the Endangered Species Act, but listing of the species is 

precluded by the need to address higher priority species (75 FR 13910). Subsequently, on October 2, 

2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that listing the greater sage-grouse is not warranted,

because the threats faced by the species have been ameliorated by the conservation efforts by Federal, 

State, and private landowners (80 FR 59858).

There are five populations of greater sage-grouse in Oregon: Northern Great Basin, Western Great Basin, 

Baker, Central Oregon, and Klamath Falls (USDI BLM 2015). Only the Klamath Falls population is 

within the planning area. Oregon populations of the greater sage-grouse have been in decline since the 

1940s, with an overall rate of decline of 3.5 percent per year from 1965 to 2003. Statewide population 

trends were relatively stable from 1980–2010, with an estimate of 24,000 birds in 2010 (USDI BLM 

2015, p. 3-22). However, reproduction rates (e.g., lek attendance and chicks per hen) were low in 2012–

2013, and there were several large wildfires in sage-grouse habitat in the summer of 2012 (USDI BLM 

2015, p. 3-22). The 10-year average population for 2006–2015 is 21,331 birds, and the minimum 

Statewide population estimate was 17,520 birds, which is down 27 percent since 2010 (Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Partnership 2015, pp. 40–41). The Klamath Falls population had few birds at four leks in 

1993 (BLM 2008), but there have been no more recent sightings of individuals of this population despite 

periodic surveys (USDI BLM 2015, p. 3-4).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified that overhunting in the late 1800s and early 1900s, habitat 

loss, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation have led to the decline of greater sage-grouse 

populations (75 FR 13962). However, there is no basis that recreational hunting is currently poses a threat 

to the species. Current threats to greater sage-grouse include loss of habitat through urbanization, energy 

development, invasive species encroachment (e.g., cheatgrass, juniper, and other conifer species), 

intensive livestock grazing, and wildland fire (ODFW 2015, 75 FR 13962).

Habitat for the greater sage-grouse is large, intact expanses of any vegetation type that has at least 5 

percent sagebrush cover and less than 5 percent tree cover. In Oregon, the amount of greater sage-grouse 

habitat has declined 21 percent from pre-settlement times (17.8 million acres) to current conditions (14 

million acres). This loss of habitat is largely attributable to conversion to agriculture, encroachment by 

juniper and conifers, and wildfire. Prior to 2012, 3 percent of habitat loss was attributable to wildfire. 

However, 6.4 percent of sage-grouse habitat burned in Oregon in 2012 (USDI BLM 2015, p. 3-24).
888 | P a g e

Treatment of encroaching juniper and other conifers (e.g., pine species) can improve the quantity and 

quality of greater sage-grouse habitat (USDI BLM 2015, p. 4-15). Juniper and conifer encroachment 

lowers the quantity and quality of habitat, because mature trees displace the shrubs, grasses, and forbs 

necessary for sage-grouse habitat, and trees provide perches for avian predators (e.g., raptors and ravens).

The effects on greater sage-grouse from livestock grazing depend on site-specific management. Livestock 

grazing can benefit greater sage-grouse habitat by reducing fuel loading, protecting intact sagebrush 

habitat, and increasing habitat extent and continuity (USDI BLM 2015, p. 4-17). Livestock grazing can 

reduce the spread of invasive grasses if applied annually before the grasses have cured. Light to moderate 

livestock grazing does not appear to reduce perennial bunchgrass cover, which is important to maintain as 

cover from predation of greater sage-grouse during nesting (USDI BLM 2015, p. 4-17). However, heavy 

livestock grazing can reduce perennial bunchgrass cover, which would increase risk of predation and 

facilitate cheatgrass invasion (USDI BLM 2015, p. 4-17). Livestock may also trample birds or nests or 

disrupt lekking or nesting behavior (USDI BLM 2015, p. 4-18). When all rangeland health standards have 

been met, then livestock grazing management is adequate to maintain herbaceous vegetation to provide 

cover for greater sage-grouse (USDI BLM 2015, p. 4-112).

Issue 1

What levels of habitat for the greater sage-grouse would be available under each alternative?

Summary of Analytical Methods

For this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for the greater sage-grouse to be sagebrush habitat within 

Klamath County in the planning area (78 FR 61459). The BLM tabulated the amount of sagebrush habitat 

acres using 2012 GNN ecological systems codes for non-forest on all lands. Appendix S contains more 

details on classifying habitat for this species. The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for 

Western Oregon provides more information on habitat trends and threats to the species, which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2013, p. 145).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

There are 244,934 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat within the planning area; 63,877 acres is within the 

decision area. However, greater sage-grouse have not occupied habitat in the decision area since 1993. 

Management direction common to all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would similarly treat and 

remove encroaching, invasive juniper within greater sage-grouse habitat.

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would reduce the acreage available for 

livestock grazing by 27 percent (from 495,190 acres to 359,049 acres). However, the acreage with active 

livestock grazing in allotments would not change substantially. In 2013, there were 354,633 acres of 

allotments actively grazed; the BLM assumes that this approximate level of livestock grazing would 

continue under Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, as detailed in the Livestock Grazing 

section of this chapter. Therefore, there would be no discernable difference in effects from livestock 

grazing to greater sage-grouse among the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and C, or the 

Proposed RMP, and those effects from livestock grazing would remain the same as under the current 

conditions. Under Alternative D, livestock grazing would be eliminated on BLM-administered lands. The 

elimination of permitted livestock grazing would remove one method by which BLM could treat invasive 

annual grasses, although other methods would still remain available (e.g., mechanical treatment). 

However, elimination of livestock grazing would also benefit greater sage-grouse by removing the risk of 

livestock trampling sage-grouse and disrupting lekking and nesting behaviors.
889 | P a g e

References

Miller, R. F., J. D. Bates, T. J. Svejcar, F. B. Pierson, and L. E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, ecology, and management of western 

juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 152, 82 pp.

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/15143/BiologyEcologyManagementWesternJuniper.pdf.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2015. Greater sage-grouse backgrounder. September 22, 2015. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/sagegrouse/docs/Greater_Sage_Grouse_Candiadate_species_Backgrounder.pdf.

Sage-grouse Conservation Partnership. 2015. The Oregon Sage-grouse Action Plan. Governor’s Natural Resources Office. 

Salem, Oregon. http://oregonexplorer.info/content/oregon-sage-grouseaction-plan?topic=203&ptopic=179. Print version 

PDF available at http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/ExternalContent/SageCon/OregonSageGrouseActionPlan-Print.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. BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php.

---. 2013a. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-western-oregon.pdf.

---. 2015. Oregon Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment (PRMPA) and Environmental Impact 

Statement. BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/energy/opportunity/finaleis.php.

USDI FWS. 2014. Species Fact Sheet: Greater Sage-grouse. Last updated: September 22, 2014. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/GreaterSageGrouse/.
890 | P a g e

Gray Wolf 

Key Points 

 The amount of habitat for gray wolves would not change under the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP, given the plasticity of gray wolves in using the landscape and their resilience to different 

land-use management regimes. 

 The opportunities for conflicts between gray wolves and livestock would be reduced under the 

action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM updated information regarding known packs in the planning area and added analysis and 

discussion of wolf predation rates on domestic livestock and wild deer and elk. 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service originally listed subspecies or regional populations of wolves (the 

timber wolf, Canis lupus lycaon) under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 on March 11, 

1967 (32 FR 4001). On March 9, 1978, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the gray wolf (C. lupus) 

as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act at the species level on March 9, 1978 (43 FR 

9607). Between 2003 and 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published several rules delisting gray 

wolves in most of the United States (except for populations in the southwestern United States and 

Mexico). Because of litigation, the listing status of the gray wolf in 2010 was the same as it was in 1978. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment of 

the gray wolf (except in Wyoming) on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

currently considers the gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest to be the subspecies Canis lupus nubilus and 

proposed to delist gray wolves, including those in the Pacific Northwest, on June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35664). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in Oregon (USDI 

FWS 2014). 

There is one known pack of gray wolves in the planning area, called the Rogue Pack (which includes the 

radio-collared male (OR7) who became pack alpha). The Rogue Pack’s area of use includes portions of 

the Klamath Falls Field Office and Medford District (Figure 3-165). There is also a second area of known 

wolf activity (called the Keno pair) in the planning area, where a pair of wolves has shown repeated use. 

A wolf had been using the Keno area since December 2014, and the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife documented use by a second wolf in January 2015, which establishes this as an area of known 

wolf activity (ODFW 2015a; Figure 3-165).
891 | Page

Figure 3-165. Known areas of wolf activity in the planning area 

OR7 is a radio-collared male gray wolf whose movements are tracked by Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. OR7 dispersed from the Imnaha Pack located in northeastern Oregon in September 2011. In 

March 2013, OR7 moved into Klamath County, Oregon, and found a mate in May 2014. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists confirmed that OR7 and his mate had produced pups, and thus 

became a ‘pack’ on June 4, 2014 (ODFW 2014a). The pack also had pups in 2015 (ODFW 2015b). 

Genetic evidence suggests that OR7’s mate (the alpha female) is a wolf with heritage from two other 

packs in northeastern Oregon: the Snake River and Minam Packs. Prior to the Rogue Pack formation, 

there had been dispersing wolves documented in western Oregon but no verified wolf packs (78 FR 

35679, ODFW 2010). At least 14 dispersing adult wolves not associated with a pack live in Oregon as of 

2010 (ODFW 2010). As of August 2015, ODFW has delineated 14 areas of known wolf activity in 

northeastern Oregon and 2 areas of known wolf activity in southwestern Oregon (the Rogue pack and 

Keno pair); however, spatial descriptions for the two most recent designations are not available and are 

not shown in Figure 3-165. As of 2014, there are 7 wolves in the planning area (the Rogue Pack and the 

Keno pair) and 77 wolves in Oregon. The population of wolves in the State has increased five-fold from 
892 | P a g e

2009–2014. It is reasonably foreseeable that gray wolves will establish additional packs in the planning 

area in the future, given the observed increase in the wolf population in Oregon (Appendix S). 

Wolves are highly mobile habitat generalists with large home ranges. They persist where wild ungulate 

(e.g., deer and elk) populations are adequate to provide prey and conflicts with humans and livestock are 

low. There is no known future condition that would cause a decline in the ungulate population to affect 

the gray wolf throughout its range. As part of their economic considerations, the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife assumed that wolves would consume 7.8 elk and 23.4 deer per wolf per year (ODFW 

2010, p. 100). 

Attributes of wolf habitat include forest cover, public land, high ungulate density, and low livestock 

density. Conversely, low forest cover, high human density, and year-round livestock presence makes 

lands unsuitable as wolf habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also identified increased land 

development (e.g., road development) as having the potential to make some areas less suitable for wolf 

occupancy. However, it is unlikely that increased land development will affect wolves for the following 

reasons: 

 Wolves are habitat generalists and one of the most adaptable large predators in the world. They 

were extirpated in the southern portion of the subspecies’ range only because of sustained,

deliberate, human-targeted elimination. 

 Land-use restrictions on land development are not necessary to ensure the continued conservation 

of the subspecies; even active wolf dens can be quite resilient to nonlethal disturbance by 

humans. 

 Vast areas of suitable wolf habitat and the current wolf population are secure in the subspecies’ 

range (e.g., national parks, wilderness, and roadless areas) and are not available for intensive 

levels of land development. 

Because gray wolves are habitat generalists, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not consider them 

vulnerable to climate change (78 FR 35686). 

There is sufficient habitat in the planning area to support gray wolves. Land-use practices do not appear to 

be affecting viability of wolves and do not need modification to conserve the subspecies. Land 

development projects can render some areas less suitable for wolves, but land-use restrictions are not 

necessary to ensure conservation of the subspecies (78 FR 35681). Wolves in northwest Montana exist 

amidst a complex arrangement of different land ownerships and management practices (public land, small 

private-land holders, and large industrial-land holders), and it would not be unusual for wolves to traverse 

all of these land-holders in a single day (ODFW 2010, p. 119). Land ownership patterns in Oregon are 

similar to those in northwestern Montana, so wolves in Oregon could similarly traverse multiple 

ownerships in a day. Management plans on public lands are more than adequate to support viable wolf 

populations across the range of the subspecies. National parks and monuments provide refugia from 

hunting, trapping, and control activities and may act as a source for dispersing wolves. Human intolerance 

and an active program to eradicate gray wolves were the primary reasons wolves were extirpated from 

portions their historical range (78 FR 35684; ODFW 2010, p. 3). 

The size and boundaries of a given wolf pack’s territory vary annually based on prey movements or 

movements of other packs (ODFW 2010, p. 118). Territories of wolf packs first to colonize an area tend 

to be larger (e.g., 460 square miles) and as packs fully occupy the landscape, territories become smaller 

(e.g., 185 square miles). Pups eventually leave their parents’ pack and either establish a new territory or 

join another pack. On average, male wolves disperse at 28.7 months old and travel 60 miles, and females 

disperse at 38.4 months and travel 48 miles. Dispersal distances of 221 miles have been reported. Activity 

of the wolf pack is centered at or near the den or rendezvous sites as adult pack members hunt and bring 

food to the pups from late April until September (ODFW 2010, p. 118). Wolf dens can be resilient to nonlethal disturbance by humans (78 FR 35681). 
893 | P a g e

The BLM assumed in this analysis that habitat changes in the decision area would not affect wolf 

populations and did not specifically model habitat for the gray wolf in the decision area, because gray 

wolves are habitat generalists, have large home ranges, are capable of dispersing long distances, and are 

resilient to land-use practices. The amount of habitat for gray wolves would not change under the 

alternatives or the Proposed RMP, given the plasticity of gray wolves in using the landscape. Thus, a gray 

wolf habitat model would not be informative or discerning among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

The BLM assumed in this analysis that opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict would be the only 

meaningful effect of BLM management on wolf populations in the decision area. Wolf-livestock conflicts 

potentially could adversely affect wolf populations from human interaction. Any potential loss of 

individual wolves through lethal removal (agency control actions) to address livestock depredation issues 

in the planning area would be the result of decisions made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Between 2009 and 2014, wolves killed 111 livestock in Oregon, and the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife lethally removed 4 wolves to address wolf-livestock conflicts (Appendix S). Within the 

Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves (which includes Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, 

Oregon, and Washington), wolves killed 3,426 livestock, and agency control actions removed 1,293 

wolves between 2009 and 2014. Agency control removed 7–13 percent of the minimum wolf population 

in each year within the Northern Rocky Mountains. Similarly, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

removed up to 13 percent of the minimum wolf population in Oregon but removed wolves only in 2009 

and 2011 (Appendix S). Based on the trends in agency control actions in the Northern Rocky Mountain 

population and in Oregon overall, removal of wolves could range from 0 to 13 percent of the minimum 

population of wolves in a given year, at the scale of the population or across Oregon. However, it is not 

possible for the BLM to forecast specific loss of wolves from agency control actions in the planning area. 

To date, there have been no confirmed wolf kills or wolf removals within the planning area. There is no 

reasonable basis on which the BLM could predict when individual wolves would become chronic 

livestock predators, or when the subsequent control actions would occur. 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict on BLM-administered lands? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM assumed that the acreage available for livestock grazing would generally correspond to the 

opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict. However, there are no quantifiable metrics to equate a specific 

acreage available for livestock grazing to a specific rate of wolf-livestock conflicts. Therefore, this 

analysis is limited to a qualitative comparison of the relative effects of the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP. A reduction in the opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict would reduce potential adverse effects 

on wolves in the planning area, but there is no reasonable basis to describe quantifiably a difference in 

effects among the alternatives or the Proposed RMP or on the gray wolf population. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would reduce the acreage available for 

livestock grazing by 27 percent (from 495,190 acres to 359,049 acres), but the acreage in allotments that 

is actively grazed would not change substantively. In 2013, there were 354,633 acres of allotments 

actively grazed and the BLM assumes that this approximate level of livestock grazing would continue 

under Alternatives A, B, and C and the Proposed RMP and is roughly the same level of active grazing 
894 | P a g e

currently under the No Action alternative (see the Livestock Grazing section in this chapter). Therefore, 

the opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict would remain the same as under current conditions, and there 

would be no discernable difference in effects among the Alternatives A, B, C, the No Action alternative, 

or the Proposed RMP. Under Alternative D, the elimination of livestock grazing on BLM-administered 

lands would reduce opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict. 

References 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2010. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. 194 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Oregon_Wolf_Conservation_and_Management_Plan_2010.pdf. 

---. 2011. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan 2011 Annual Report. La Grande, OR. 32 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/annual_reports.asp. 

---. 2013. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan 2012 Annual Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 3406 

Cherry Ave., Salem, OR. 12 pp. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/annual_reports.asp. 

---. 2014a. Rogue Pack (OR-7) timeline of events. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/OR-7.asp. Accessed February 09, 2015. 

---. 2014b. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan 2013 Annual Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Salem, OR. 17 pp. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/annual_reports.asp. 

---. 2015a. Areas of known wolf activity. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Wolf_Use_Map_141231.pdf. Accessed 

February 09, 2015. 

---. 2015b. Wolf program updates. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/wolf_program_updates.asp. Accessed August 04, 2015. 

---. 2015c. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan 2014 Annual Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

4034 Fairview Industrial Drive, Salem, OR. 12 pp. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/annual_reports.asp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Blackfeet Nation, 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Idaho Fish and Game, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2010. Rocky Mountain Wolf 

Recovery 2009 Interagency Annual Report. C. A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services, Helena, MT. 9 pp. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt09/index.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of 

Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2011. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2010 

Interagency Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Helena, 

MT. 10 pp. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt10/index.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, 

National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and 

USDA Wildlife Services. 2012. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2011 Interagency Annual Report. M. D. 

Jimenez and S. A. Becker, eds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Helena, MT. 13 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt11/index.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, 

National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Confederated 

Colville Tribes, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of 

Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2013. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2012 

Interagency Annual Report. M. D. Jimenez and S. A. Becker, eds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Helena, MT. 13 pp. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt12/index.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind 

River Tribes, Confederated Colville Tribes, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2014. Northern 

Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2013 Interagency Annual Report. M. D. Jimenez and S. A. Becker, eds. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Helena, MT. 13 pp. http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt13/index.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind 

River Tribes, Confederated Colville Tribes, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2015. Northern 

Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2014 Interagency Annual Report. M. D. Jimenez and S. A. Becker, eds. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Helena, MT. 13 pp. http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt14/index.html. 

USDI FWS. 2014. Species Fact Sheet: gray wolf. Last updated: May 14, 2014. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/GrayWolf/. 
895 | P a g e

Marbled Murrelet 

Key Points 

 All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in an increase in the amount of marbled 

murrelet high-quality nesting habitat and total nesting habitat in 50 years in the decision and 

planning areas. 

 In the first decade, all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in a slight decrease of 

high-quality nesting habitat. However, sufficient high-quality nesting habitat would develop by 

the second decade to surpass current amounts. 

 Under the No Action alternative and Alternative D, the BLM would identify and protect all future 

marbled murrelet sites. Alternatives A, B, and C would result in the loss in the first decade of 4 

percent (106 sites), 1 percent (23 sites), and 8 percent (189 sites), respectively, of the estimated 

carrying capacity of BLM-administered lands from timber harvest in the absence of surveys. The 

Proposed RMP would result in the loss in the first decade of less than 1 percent (13 sites) of the 

estimated carrying capacity of BLM-administered lands from timber harvest in the absence of 

surveys. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM updated marbled murrelet detection rates from additional BLM survey data and refined the 

subsequent forecast of occupied sites lost or discovered and protected. The BLM also updated discussion 

and analysis based on recent published literature, including the Northwest Forest Plan marbled murrelet 

20-year monitoring report (Falxa and Raphael 2015). 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on October 1, 1992 (57 FR 45328). The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service identified several anthropogenic threats to the marbled murrelet at the time of listing 

and in the Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USDI FWS 1997), including—

 Habitat destruction and modification in the terrestrial environment from timber harvest and 

human development caused a severe reduction in the amount of nesting habitat; 

 Unnaturally high rates of predation at nest sites resulting from forest ‘edge effects’;

 Existing regulatory mechanisms, such as land management plans (in 1992), were considered 

inadequate to ensure protection of the remaining nesting habitat and reestablishment of future 

nesting habitat; and 

 Manmade factors, such as mortality from oil spills and entanglement in fishing nets used in 

gill-net fisheries. 

Subsequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported changes in the levels of these threats. Even 

though implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan had reduced some threats to the marbled murrelet, 

threats from habitat loss, high predation rates, mortality from oil spills and entanglement in fishing nets 

continued (USDI FWS 2004 pp. 11–12 and 2009, pp. 27–67). In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

identified the following additional environmental and anthropogenic threats to the marbled murrelet 

(USDI FWS 2009b, pp. 27–67): 

 Environmental factors 

o Elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in marbled murrelet prey 

species 

o Changes in prey abundance and availability 
896 | P a g e

o Changes in prey quality

o Harmful algal blooms that produce bio-toxins leading to domoic acid and paralytic 

shellfish poisoning that have caused murrelet mortality 

o Climate change in the Pacific Northwest 

 Anthropogenic factors 

o Derelict fishing gear leading to mortality from entanglement 

o Energy development projects (wave, tidal, and on-shore wind energy projects) 

leading to mortality 

o Disturbance in the marine environment (from exposures to lethal and sub-lethal 

levels of high underwater sound pressures caused by pile-driving, underwater 

detonations, and potential disturbance from high vessel traffic) 

Nelson et al. (2006) completed a review of marbled murrelet biology and nesting habitat. The authors 

concluded that—

 Marbled murrelets are secretive, non-colonial nesters that forage at sea and nest inland; 

 The majority of marbled murrelets nest within 37 miles of the coast, although nests have been 

documented up to 52 miles inland in Washington and 47 miles inland in Oregon (R. 

Espinosa, BLM, personal communication, 2007); 

 The most important component in the nesting habitat for marbled murrelets is the presence of 

large platforms (i.e., limbs or other structures that are at least 4 inches in diameter with a 

substrate [moss or other duff] capable of forming a nest cup); 

 Other important factors include vertical and horizontal cover location with respect to forest 

openings or edge, and height of platform. Platforms should be high enough to provide for 

jump-off departures and open enough to provide for stall landings, while still providing 

protection from predators and the weather; 

 Nest trees documented in the Northwest Forest Plan area are greater than 19 inches (diameter 

at breast height) and greater than 98 feet tall. Nest trees are typically taller than the average 

non-nest tree; and 

 Vertical cover (cover above the nest) is typically above 70 percent. 

Forest stands that provide nesting habitat typically possess a high density of large trees with platforms, 

have multiple canopy layers, and are typically older. Studies summarized for Oregon indicate that the 

density of trees with platforms and the number of platforms in general were the most important variables 

in predicting marbled murrelet nesting habitat at the stand level (USDI BLM 2008, pp. 301–302).

Falxa and Raphael (2015, p. 165) suggest that the amount and pattern of high-quality nesting habitat may 

establish the carrying capacity for marbled murrelet abundance. The abundance of marbled murrelets atsea is positively correlated with the amount of higher-suitability nesting habitat available on adjacent 

inland areas and high cohesion of that nesting habitat (a measure of connectivity related to the geometry 

of patches of habitat—essentially larger patch size) (Falxa and Raphael 2015, pp. 162, 170; Raphael et al.

2015, p. 20). Murrelet at-sea abundance has declined the most where higher-suitability nesting habitat has 

also declined the most, which suggests that nesting habitat may be the factor limiting population stability 

and recovery (Falxa and Raphael 2015, p. 163, 167). Falxa and Raphael (2015, p. 165) report that annual 

variation in marbled murrelet abundance at-sea is more strongly correlated than with amount of nesting 

habitat than with ocean conditions. Falxa and Raphael (2015) also report that declines in murrelet 

abundance and distribution appear to be in response to contemporaneous loss in nesting habitat. They 

theorize that marbled murrelets move out of an area once nesting habitat is lost, but also state that there is 

no direct evidence supporting this theory (Falxa and Raphael 2015, p. 166). 
897 | P a g e

In Oregon, 9.2 percent of higher-suitability nesting habitat was lost between 1993 and 2012 (Falxa and 

Raphael 2015, p. 89). They also reported that 21.1 percent of higher-suitability nesting habitat on nonfederal lands in Oregon was lost from 1993 to 2012. Timber harvest accounted for 98 percent of nesting 

habitat loss on non-federal lands. On Federal lands, 0.3 percent of higher-suitability nesting habitat on 

non-reserved Federal lands was lost from 1993 to 2012, and 3.8 percent was lost on Federal reserved 

lands. Wildland fire (80 percent), timber harvest (18 percent), insects and disease (1 percent), and other 

natural disturbances (< 1 percent) accounted for the loss of higher-suitability habitat from Federal lands in 

Oregon, respectively. While timber harvest resulting in nesting habitat removal is generally restricted in 

Federal reserves, some harvest did occur in Federal reserves after implementation of the Northwest Forest 

Plan where timber sales had been approved prior to 1994. Also, the change detection analysis in Falxa 

and Raphael (2015) likely included rapid nesting-habitat losses from blowdown, landslides, and floods in 

the ‘timber harvest’ category, which would over-attribute habitat loss due to timber harvest.

Climate-influenced factors, particularly wildland fire but also insects and disease and other natural 

disturbances, contributed to the loss of higher-suitability nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet from 

1993 to 2012. In the future, additional climate change may result in the additional loss of marbled 

murrelet nesting habitat due to increased frequency and severity of wildfires (Falxa and Raphael 2015; 

see the Climate Change section in this chapter).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet on May 24, 1996, 

(61 FR 26256); this designation included a description of the Primary Constituent Elements that support 

nesting, roosting, and other normal behaviors that are essential to the conservation of the marbled 

murrelet. The Primary Constituent Elements include: (1) forested stands containing large-sized trees, 

generally more than 32 inches in diameter with potential nesting platforms at sufficient height, generally 

greater than or equal to 33 feet in height; and (2) the surrounding forested areas within 0.5 mile of these 

stands with a canopy height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height. Designated critical habitat 

also includes habitat that is currently unsuitable, but has the capability of becoming suitable habitat in the 

future. On October 5, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revised the critical habitat for the marbled 

murrelet, removing acres in northern California and southern Oregon from the 1996 designation,.

The Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USDI FWS 1997) outlines the conservation strategy with 

both short- and long-term objectives, and places special emphasis on the terrestrial environment for 

habitat-based recovery actions due to nesting occurring in inland forests. Short-term actions include 

protecting occupied habitat, minimizing the loss of unoccupied but suitable habitat, maintaining large 

blocks of suitable habitat, maintaining and enhancing buffer habitat, decreasing risks of nesting habitat 

loss due to fire and windthrow, reducing predation, and minimizing disturbance. Long-term conservation 

needs include—

 Increasing productivity (abundance, the ratio of juveniles to adults, and nest success) and 

population size;

 Increasing the amount (stand size and number of stands), quality, and distribution of suitable 

nesting habitat;

 Protecting and improving the quality of the marine environment; and

 Reducing or eliminating threats to survivorship by reducing predation in the terrestrial 

environment and anthropogenic sources of mortality at sea.

The Recovery Plan identifies six conservation zones throughout the listed range of the species: Puget 

Sound (Conservation Zone 1), Western Washington Coast Range (Conservation Zone 2), Oregon Coast 

Range (Conservation Zone 3), Siskiyou Coast Range (Conservation Zone 4), Mendocino (Conservation 

Zone 5), and Santa Cruz Mountains (Conservation Zone 6). The planning area includes all of 

Conservation Zone 3 and the northern portion of Conservation Zone 4 (Figure 3-166). Recovery zones 

are the functional equivalent of recovery units as defined by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy.
898 | Page

Figure 3-166. Range and management zones of the marbled murrelet 

Given the observed association between marbled murrelet abundance and nesting habitat, Falxa and 

Raphael (2015, pp. 168–170) suggest that conservation and restoration of higher-suitability nesting 

habitat are the primary factors for murrelet conservation. Buffers around nesting habitat would reduce 

fragmentation, risk of windthrow, and risk of predation. The Recovery Plan includes the suggestion that 

buffer widths should be a minimum of 300 feet and consist of whatever age stand is present to provide 

replacement habitat in the future (USDI FWS 1997, p. 140). 

The Northwest Forest Plan established two management zones for the marbled murrelet: Zone 1 from the 

coast to approximately 35 miles inland, and Zone 2 from the eastern boundary of Zone 1 to approximately 

50 miles inland from the coast (Figure 3-166).

Systematic surveys in the Medford District have indicated that the marbled murrelet is likely confined to 

the hemlock-tanoak vegetation zone (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2002, USDI FWS 2002 Memo). The 
899 | P a g e

portion formally considered part of the range of the marbled murrelet in the Medford District is depicted 

as Area C and Area D in Figure 3-166. 

There is no evidence for a trend in the marbled murrelet population in Oregon (+0.3 percent per year; 95 

percent confidence interval: -1.8 to 2.5; Falxa and Raphael 2015, pp. 23, 43). There is also no evidence 

for a trend for the marbled murrelet population within the Northwest Forest Plan area (all five 

conservation zones). Even though the estimates for the annual rate of population change in Oregon was 

+0.3 and the rate of population change for the Northwest Forest Plan area was -1.2 percent, the evidence 

is inconclusive, because the 95 percent confidence interval includes zero in both cases (Falxa and Raphael 

2015). Falxa et al. (2014) reported that the 2013 at-sea population estimate for the marbled murrelet was 

7,896 birds in Conservation Zone 3 and 5,993 birds in Conservation Zone 4. The 2013 population 

estimate for all 5 conservation zones is 19,617 marbled murrelets. The annual rate of population change 

from 2000 and 2013 was +0.6 percent in Conservation Zone 3 and +1.5 percent in Conservation Zone 4 

(Falxa and Raphael 2015, pp. 23, 43). However, these results are also inconclusive because the 

confidence interval for the rate of population change in Conservation Zones 3 and 4 also overlap zero. 

The lack of a conclusive trend in marbled murrelet populations described above is different from previous 

reports. Previously, Miller et al. (2012) reported that the marbled murrelet population was declining 

throughout its range (estimated at 29 percent decline for the listed population from 2001 to 2010). The 

annual population decline from 2001 to 2010 was 3.7 percent. It is unknown what is driving recent 

population levels. It is premature to conclude that the observations from 2011 to 2013 indicate a change in 

the declining trend (Falxa and Raphael 2015; Falxa et al. 2014). According to Falxa and Raphael (2015, 

p. 29), the increase in the marbled murrelet population from 2011 and 2013 is too rapid to be attributable 

to habitat change, because nesting habitat takes many decades to several centuries to develop and is too 

slow a process to account for the rate of population change. 

The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides more information 

on the species range, population trend, and threats, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2013, pp. 143, 149–150). 

Issue 1 

What levels of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet to be Young with Structural 

Legacies, Mature, and Structurally-complex structural stages within the range of the marbled murrelet in 

the planning area (Figure 3-166).

The BLM divided nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet into two categories: high-quality nesting 

habitat and low-quality nesting habitat. In this analysis, the BLM assumed that Structurally-complex 

stands within the range of the marbled murrelet represent high-quality nesting habitat, which provides 

trees and platforms suitable for nesting on a regular, reliable basis. Based on CVS data, the BLM 

estimates the average platform density in high-quality nesting habitat is 54.2 platforms/acre in Zone 1 and 

41.8 platforms/acre in Zone 2. Young with Structural Legacies and Mature stands represent low-quality 

nesting habitat, which may have trees and platforms suitable for nesting murrelet, but the frequency and 

density of such structures is lower. The BLM estimates the average platform density in low-quality 

nesting habitat is 18.1 platforms/acre in Zone 1 and 15.3 platforms/acre in Zone 2. 
900 | P a g e

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative and Proposed RMP 

implementation on marbled murrelet habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects 

on marbled murrelet habitat of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both 

land management on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

The BLM modeled habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the U.S. 

Forest Service 2012 Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) structural condition. The BLM modeled the 

structural condition on non-BLM-administered lands as continuing to provide the same distribution of 

habitat through time as the current condition, except in U. S. Forest Service reserves (i.e., LateSuccessional Reserve and Congressionally Reserved lands). The BLM modeled structural conditions 

continuing to develop on U.S. Forest Service reserve lands through time (Appendix S). This modeling of 

U.S. Forest Service reserve lands assumed that habitat would not develop on U.S. Forest Service reserve 

lands that experience wildfire in the modeling (see the Vegetation Modeling section in this chapter). For 

the purpose of this analysis, the BLM assumed that the future distribution of habitat conditions on nonBLM-administered lands and on U.S. Forest Service reserves that burned would continue to reflect the 

current distribution of habitat conditions. On private lands in Oregon, the assumption that the future 

distribution of habitat conditions would remain the same as current conditions likely overestimates the 

amount of nesting habitat, since Falxa and Raphael (2015, p. 90) found that 21.1 percent of highersuitability nesting habitat was lost between 1993 and 2012. On State and U.S. Forest Service non-reserve 

lands, this assumption likely underestimates the future development of habitat. The BLM acknowledges 

that the spatial arrangement of structural conditions would change in the future, but lacks information to

make more specific projections of how structural conditions would change on non-BLM-administered 

lands. This assumption is consistent with the assumption used in the analysis of forest structure and 

spatial pattern in the 2008 FEIS, which describes the limitations on analyzing future changes on nonBLM-administered lands and is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2008, pp. 532–536).

The GNN structural condition categories used for estimating high-quality nesting habitat on non-BLMadministered lands include structural components and provide a reasonable estimate of high-quality 

nesting habitat in the planning area for context. However, the GNN structural condition categories are not 

effective for estimating lower-quality nesting habitat. Initial calculations of total nesting habitat at the 

planning area scale using the GNN structural condition categories were unreasonably high when 

compared to Raphael et al. (2011) and Falxa and Raphael (2015). The GNN structural condition

categories cannot distinguish Young stands with Structural Legacies from Young stands without 

Structural Legacies, and would therefore include all Young stands in lower-quality nesting habitat, 

grossly overestimating the amount of lower-quality nesting habitat and total marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat. Therefore, for this analysis, the BLM limits discussion of marbled murrelet nesting habitat at the 

planning area scale to high-quality nesting habitat only, because of the limitations on interpreting the data 

available for non-BLM-administered lands.

Falxa and Raphael (2015) present a different methodology to model marbled murrelet habitat. The two 

models are coincident on 847,826 acres of BLM-administered lands. The habitat model in Falxa and 

Raphael (2015) extends to approximately 35 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and does not provide 

coverage for all BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The BLM quantitatively compared the 

level of agreement between the two different models of marbled murrelet habitat in the decision area. 

Overall, the marbled murrelet habitat model in this analysis appears to have fair agreement with the 

habitat model described in Falxa and Raphael (2015). The models generally agree in discerning nesting 

habitat from non-habitat and high-quality habitat from other stand conditions (either non-habitat or lowerquality nesting habitat). There is relatively less agreement between the two models in discerning highquality from lower-quality habitat. However, the BLM identified no systematic disagreement between the 

two models. Appendix S contains additional details on the comparison of the marbled murrelet habitat 

models.
901 | P a g e

The BLM assessed habitat connectivity by calculating the amount of ‘edge habitat’ and ‘core habitat’ on 

BLM-administered lands. Following Raphael et al. (2011, p. 19), the BLM defined core habitat as the 

interior portion of a contiguous block of nesting habitat that is more than 295 feet from non-habitat. BLM 

also defined edge habitat as nesting habitat within 295 feet of non-habitat. The distance to edge or core 

habitat is based on findings that the marbled murrelet has reduced nest success along forested edges due 

to nest depredation, predominantly by species of corvids (Falxa and Raphael 2015, Raphael et al. 2011, 

McShane et al. 2004). The BLM assumed that since the risk of nest predation by corvids is greater along 

habitat edges, there would be less risk of nest predation within larger patches of nesting habitat. Although 

there are no quantified thresholds for the amount of core habitat needed by the marbled murrelet or the 

effects of changes in patch size, the BLM assumed in this analysis that the quality of nesting habitat 

would increase as the proportion of available habitat in core habitat increases and as patch size increases.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

There are 493,434 acres of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet on BLM-administered lands in the 

decision area, of which 232,493 acres are high-quality nesting habitat (Table 3-257).134 Of the forested 

lands capable of providing nesting habitat in the decision area, 56 percent is nesting habitat, and 26 

percent is high-quality nesting habitat.

Table 3-257. Current marbled murrelet nesting habitat

Marbled Murrelet Habitat

Decision Area Planning Area

(Acres)

Habitat 

Capable

(Percent)

(Acres)

Habitat 

Capable

(Percent)

High-quality Nesting Habitat 232,493 26% 572,424 9%

Low-quality Nesting Habitat 260,942 29% - -

Total Nesting Habitat 493,434 56% - -

Total Habitat-capable Acres 885,590 100% 6,638,960 100%

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, there would be 840,024 acres of total nesting habitat 

and 319,070 acres of high-quality nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands in 50 years (Figure 3-167).

 

134 These acreages for the current condition represent the BLM update of baseline forest structural conditions 

resulting from 2013/2014 wildfires, as described at the beginning of this chapter. There are 726 acres less highquality nesting habitat under the updated current condition of the Proposed RMP incorporating the effect of the 

2013/2014 wildfires than under the current condition previously modeled for the alternatives (Appendix S). This 

difference in starting condition represents a difference of less than 1 percent and does not alter the comparative 

analytical results.
902 | P a g e

Figure 3-167. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat in the decision area 

The total amount of marbled murrelet nesting would increase incrementally in each decade under the No 

Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP. Only under Alternative C would 

total nesting habitat decrease in the first decade (Figure 3-168). The amount of total nesting habitat and 

the amount of high-quality nesting habitat would continue to increase after the second decade under 

Alternative C (Figure 3-167). The temporary loss of nesting habitat under Alternative C from 

Conservation Zones 3 and 4 could arrest, or possibly reverse, the observed upwards population trends in 

Conservation Zones 3 and 4. Because the marbled murrelet may respond to the loss of nesting habitat by 

moving out of the area (Falxa and Raphael 2015), there could be a decrease in observed at-sea murrelet 

abundance corresponding with the losses of nesting habitat. As noted above under Background, such an 

effect is speculative. If such an effect were to occur, the marbled murrelet would return to Conservation 

Zones 3 and 4 as nesting habitat continues to develop in subsequent decades. 

232,493 294,666 305,620 308,023 276,789 310,055 308,863 319,070

260,942

479,186 451,174 463,535

378,199

503,666 469,312 520,954

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat 

(Acres)

High-quality Low-quality
903 | Page

450,000

550,000

650,000

750,000

850,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat (Acres)

Year 

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

No Timber Harvest

No Action

Alt. C

Alt. A

Alt. B

Alt. D

PRMP

No Timber Harvest

Figure 3-1. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat trends in the decision area

In the first decade, all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would reduce the amount of high-quality 

nesting habitat. The No Action alternative would have a 3 percent loss, Alternatives A, B, and D would 

have a 1 percent loss, and Alternative C would have a 4 percent loss (Error! Reference source not found.). 

The Proposed RMP would have a 1 percent loss of high-quality nesting habitat in the first decade. 

However, sufficient high-quality nesting habitat would develop by the second decade to surpass current 

amounts under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP (Appendix S).

450,000

550,000

650,000

750,000

850,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat (Acres)

Year

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

No Timber Harvest

No Action

Alt. C

Alt. A

Alt. B

Alt. D

PRMP

No Timber Harvest

Figure 3-168. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat trends in the decision area 

In the first decade, all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would reduce the amount of high-quality 

nesting habitat. The No Action alternative would have a 3 percent loss, Alternatives A, B, and D would 

have a 1 percent loss, and Alternative C would have a 4 percent loss (Figure 3-169). The Proposed RMP 

would have a 1 percent loss of high-quality nesting habitat in the first decade. However, sufficient highquality nesting habitat would develop by the second decade to surpass current amounts under all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP (Appendix S).
904 | Page

 200,000

 225,000

 250,000

 275,000

 300,000

 325,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Marbled Murrelet High-quality Nesting Habitat (Acres)

Year 

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

No Timber Harvest

No Action

Alt. C

Alt. D

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

Alt. A

Alt. B

Figure 3-1. Marbled murrelet high-quality nesting habitat trends in the decision area

Under the No Action alternative, 83 percent of existing total nesting habitat and 91 percent of existing 

high-quality nesting habitat would be within the reserves; the remainder would be within the Matrix and 

Adaptive Management Areas (comparable to the Harvest Land Base). Under Alternatives A, B, and D, 

and the Proposed RMP, there would be more nesting habitat within reserves than under the No Action 

alternative (Error! Reference source not found.). Alternative C would contain less nesting habitat in 

reserves than under the No Action alternative (Error! Reference source not found.). All action alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP would include more existing high-quality nesting habitat in reserves than the No 

Action alternative (Error! Reference source not found.). The Proposed RMP would include 93 percent of 

existing total nesting habitat within reserves and 99 percent of existing high-quality nesting habitat within 

reserves.

 200,000

 225,000

 250,000

 275,000

 300,000

 325,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Marbled Murrelet High-quality Nesting Habitat (Acres)

Year

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

No Timber Harvest

No Action

Alt. C

Alt. D

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

Alt. A

Alt. B

Figure 3-169. Marbled murrelet high-quality nesting habitat trends in the decision area 

Under the No Action alternative, 83 percent of existing total nesting habitat and 91 percent of existing 

high-quality nesting habitat would be within the reserves; the remainder would be within the Matrix and 

Adaptive Management Areas (comparable to the Harvest Land Base). Under Alternatives A, B, and D, 

and the Proposed RMP, there would be more nesting habitat within reserves than under the No Action 

alternative (Table 3-258). Alternative C would contain less nesting habitat in reserves than under the No 

Action alternative (Table 3-258). All action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would include more 

existing high-quality nesting habitat in reserves than the No Action alternative (Table 3-259). The 

Proposed RMP would include 93 percent of existing total nesting habitat within reserves and 99 percent 

of existing high-quality nesting habitat within reserves. 
905 | P a g e

Table 3-258. Land use allocations of marbled murrelet total nesting habitat in 2013

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Within the Harvest Land Base Within Reserves Total Nesting 

Habitat

(Acres) (Acres) (Percent) (Acres) (Percent)

No Action 82,869 17% 411,099 83% 493,968

Alt. A 42,139 9% 451,829 91% 493,968

Alt. B 46,899 9% 447,069 91% 493,968

Alt. C 115,544 23% 378,424 77% 493,968

Alt. D 72,062 15% 421,906 85% 493,968

PRMP 34,362 7% 459,072 93% 493,434

Table 3-259. Land use allocations of high-quality marbled murrelet nesting habitat in 2013

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Within the Harvest Land Base Within Reserves Total Nesting 

Habitat

(Acres) (Acres) (Percent) (Acres) (Percent)

No Action 20,902 9% 212,317 91% 233,219

Alt. A 2,839 1% 230,380 99% 233,219

Alt. B 4,070 2% 229,149 98% 233,219

Alt. C 18,479 8% 214,740 92% 233,219

Alt. D 6,887 3% 226,332 97% 233,219

PRMP 3,425 1% 229,067 99% 232,493

Currently, the average patch size of marbled murrelet nesting habitat is 33.2 acres. Under the No Timber 

Harvest reference analysis, average patch size would increase to 69.7 acres in 50 years. The average patch 

size of marbled murrelet nesting habitat would decrease under Alternative C, but would increase under all 

other alternatives and the Proposed RMP in 50 years (Table 3-260).

Table 3-260. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat patch metrics

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Mean Patch 

Size

(Acres)

Edge vs. Core Habitat

Edge Habitat 

(Acres)

Core Habitat 

(Acres)

Core

(Percent)

Current Condition (2013) 33.2 320,463 172,969 35%

No Action (2063) 44.3 467,594 306,258 40%

Alt. A (2063) 43.2 451,883 304,911 40%

Alt. B (2063) 45.1 460,710 310,848 40%

Alt. C (2063) 29.6 405,013 249,975 38%

Alt. D (2063) 56.5 468,768 344,953 42%

PRMP (2063) 42.3 481,482 296,690 38%

No Timber Harvest (2063) 69.7 472,978 367,046 44%

Currently, 35 percent of nesting habitat is core habitat, and this percentage would increase in 50 years 

under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP (Table 3-260). Alternative C would provide the least 

amount of core habitat in 50 years in terms of gross acres. Alternative C and the Proposed RMP would 

provide the same proportion (38 percent) of core habitat, although the amount of acres of core habitat 
906 | P a g e

would be considerably higher under the Proposed RMP. Alternative D would provide the most core 

habitat for the marbled murrelet (both in terms of gross acres and proportion of total nesting habitat), 

which is only slightly less than the No Timber Harvest reference analysis.

Alternatives D, B, A, and the Proposed RMP (in descending order) would provide nesting habitat in a 

configuration that would lead to reduced risk of nest predation (e.g., larger patch size and less edge 

habitat). In contrast, Alternative C would exacerbate nest predation by reducing patch size and providing 

the largest amount of habitat subject to edge effects.

The BLM-administered lands currently contribute 41 percent of the high-quality nesting habitat for the 

marbled murrelet in the planning area. There are currently 572,424 acres of high-quality nesting habitat 

for the marbled murrelet across all ownerships or 9 percent of the forestland capable of providing nesting 

habitat in the planning area (Table 3-259). Falxa and Raphael (2015, pp. 115–118) report that in 2012, 

approximately 12 percent of habitat-capable lands had higher-suitability nesting habitat within Zone 1 in 

Oregon. Thus, the estimate of high-quality nesting habitat across all ownerships as modeled in this 

analysis is slightly lower but comparable to estimates in Falxa and Raphael (2015).

Within the planning area, high-quality nesting habitat would increase from 9 percent to 12 percent of all 

habitat-capable land under all alternatives, the Proposed RMP, and the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis in 50 years (Appendix S). At the planning area scale, there is only slight differentiation in 

amount of high-quality nesting habitat development among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, and 

that amount is only slightly less than under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis (Figure 3-170).

Figure 3-170. Marbled murrelet high-quality nesting habitat in the planning area

There are 480,369 acres of designated marbled murrelet critical habitat in the decision area and 1,338,444 

acres in the planning area. Currently, 59 percent (273,178 acres) of designated marbled murrelet critical 

habitat on BLM-administered lands is nesting habitat, and 34 percent (154,331 acres) is high-quality 

nesting habitat. Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative A, no designated marbled murrelet 

339,931

505,861 505,861 505,861 505,861 505,861 505,861 505,861

232,493

294,666 305,620 308,023 276,789 310,055 308,863 319,070

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Marbled Murrelet High-quality Nesting 

Habitat (Acres)

Other Lands BLM-administered Lands
907 | P a g e

critical habitat would be within the Harvest Land Base. Under Alternative B, 9 percent of marbled 

murrelet critical habitat would be within the Harvest Land Base. Alternatives C and D would allocate the 

largest amount of marbled murrelet critical habitat within the Harvest Land Base (22 and 20 percent,

respectively). Under the Proposed RMP, 8 percent (39,718 acres) of marbled murrelet designated critical 

habitat on BLM-administered lands would be within the Harvest Land Base. Of the 39,718 acres of 

critical habitat within the Harvest Land Base under the Proposed RMP, 36 percent (14,496 acres) is 

currently marbled murrelet nesting habitat and 3 percent (1,220 acres) is high-quality nesting habitat. 

However, the amount of nesting habitat in critical habitat in the Harvest Land Base represents only 5 

percent of the total nesting habitat within critical habitat on BLM-administered lands. Of the critical 

habitat within the reserve land use allocations under the Proposed RMP, 59 percent is currently marbled 

murrelet nesting habitat and 3 percent is high-quality nesting habitat (Appendix S).

Within designated critical habitat, the No Timber Harvest reference analysis would result in an increase in 

nesting habitat from 59 percent to 97 percent of all habitat-capable land in 50 years and an increase in the 

amount of high-quality nesting habitat from 34 percent to 43 percent of all habitat-capable land in 50 

years (Appendix S). All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would develop more nesting habitat and 

high-quality nesting habitat within designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet in 50 years. 

Alternatives A and D and the No Action alternative would result in increases in nesting habitat in 

designated critical habitat that are almost indistinguishable from the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis. Alternative C would have the smallest increase in nesting habitat and high-quality nesting 

habitat (Figure 3-171).

Figure 3-171. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat in critical habitat in the decision area

Timber harvest under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not affect the functionality of marbled 

murrelet critical habitat above the stand-scale at any time during the next 50 years because of the limited 

extent of timber harvest and because most or all designated critical habitat would be within reserves. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would treat between approximately 1-3 

percent of marbled murrelet nesting habitat within critical habitat with timber harvest per decade during 

154,331

197,017 197,646 194,091 180,763 193,961 196,107 198,051

118,847

237,879 245,345 225,577

199,973

246,435 226,229 248,086

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat in 

Critical Habitat (Acres)

High-quality Low-quality
908 | P a g e

the next 50 years. The harvest treatments would be distributed amongst the 480,369 acres of critical 

habitat in the decision area. Under the No Action alternative and Alternative A, timber harvest within 

critical habitat would be even less and would be limited to thinning treatments within reserve allocations. 

On all land ownerships in the planning area, the No Timber Harvest reference analysis would result in an 

increase in high-quality nesting habitat within designated critical habitat from 24 percent to 37 percent of 

all habitat-capable land in 50 years (Appendix S). The development of high-quality nesting habitat for the 

marbled murrelet would be nearly indistinguishable among the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, 

D, and the Proposed RMP in the planning area. These alternatives and the Proposed RMP would be 

within 1 percent of the No Timber Harvest reference analysis results. Alternative C would develop the 

least high-quality nesting habitat within designated critical habitat, which would be 3 percent less than the 

No Timber Harvest reference analysis in the planning area (Figure 3-172).

Figure 3-172. High-quality marbled murrelet nesting habitat in designated critical habitat in the planning 

area

Opportunities for marbled murrelet nesting would increase under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP

as the amount of nesting habitat and high-quality nesting habitat would increase. Increased nesting 

opportunities and nesting habitat would encourage population growth, thereby aiding species recovery. As 

noted above under Background, there is an association between total marbled murrelet abundance at-sea 

and total nesting habitat available inland (Falxa and Raphael 2015; Raphael et al. 2011). Alternative D 

would provide the largest increase in nesting opportunity, and therefore the largest contribution to species 

recovery, but Alternatives A and B, and the Proposed RMP would provide similar amounts of nesting 

habitat and opportunities. Alternative C and the No Action alternative would provide less of an increase 

in nesting opportunities, but would still contribute to increases in the marbled murrelet population. The

No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP would also provide nesting 

habitat in configurations (larger patches) that would reduce nest predation, which would further aid 

successful marbled murrelet reproduction and population growth. Nesting habitat configuration under 

Alternative C would exacerbate nest predation, limiting opportunities for population growth. Overall, 

190,014

325,999 325,999 325,999 325,999 325,999 325,999 325,999

154,331

197,017 197,646 194,091 180,763 193,961 196,107 198,051

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Marbled Murrelet High-quality Nesting 

Habitat in Critical Habitat (Acres)

Other Lands BLM-administered Lands
909 | P a g e

Alternative D would provide the most favorable habitat conditions for improving marbled murrelet nest 

success and potential population growth. The No Action alternative, Alternatives A and B, and the 

Proposed RMP would provide comparable, but slightly less favorable habitat conditions, compared to 

Alternative D. Alternative C would provide the least improvement to marbled murrelet nesting 

opportunities and would increase the risk the of nest predation.

Issue 2

How would the alternatives affect known and future occupied marbled murrelet sites?

Summary of Analytical Methods

The BLM used existing data as mapped within the BLM corporate murrelet database to identify currently 

known, occupied murrelet sites (GeoBOB 2015).

The BLM forecast the number of marbled murrelet sites that the BLM would identify in the future by 

applying observed detection rates of occupancy and the mean size of occupied stands. Through 

preliminary analysis of previous surveys, the BLM found marbled murrelet occupancy is 54.8 percent of 

survey polygons within 0–25 miles of the coast (251 of 458 survey polygons) and 10.2 percent of survey 

polygons within 25–50 miles of the coast (106 of 1,038 survey polygons) (USDI BLM, unpublished data

2015). The BLM used two different detection rates—split at 25 miles from the Pacific Ocean—because 

there was a marked difference in the rate of occupancy detections within 25 miles of the Pacific Ocean 

and 25–50 miles from the Pacific Ocean (Figure 3-173). The survey polygons examined in this 

preliminary analysis represent 83,234 acres of survey effort.

Figure 3-173. Marbled murrelet occupancy detection rates

The BLM applied these detection rates to the amount of marbled murrelet nesting habitat that the BLM

modeled for potential timber harvest in the vegetation modeling for each alternative and the Proposed 

RMP (see Table 3-261 through Table 3-263). Table 3-261 displays the total acreage of marbled murrelet 

69%

47%

63%

55% 55%

18%

9% 11% 4% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0–5 5–10 10–15 15–20 20–25 25–30 30–35 35–40 40–45 45–50

Marbled Murrelet Occupancy

Detection Rate (Percent)

Distance from Pacific Ocean (Miles)
910 | P a g e

nesting habitat that would be considered for harvest by decade under each alternative and the Proposed 

RMP, prior to forecasting the results of survey and site management requirements under each alternative 

and the Proposed RMP. 

Table 3-261. Decadal forecast for marbled murrelet nesting habitat considered for harvest over 50 years 

(2013–2063) 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat Considered for 

Harvest by End of Decade

(Acres)

Cumulative Nesting 

Habitat Considered 

for Harvest

2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 (Acres)

No Action 37,734 37,407 30,237 35,391 37,721 178,491

Alt. A 22,886 18,105 20,351 20,857 19,327 101,526

Alt. B 36,442 29,417 28,258 25,138 31,471 150,726

Alt. C 57,612 47,845 44,280 48,413 52,740 250,889

Alt. D 38,735 21,684 23,508 20,850 45,150 149,928

PRMP 28,493 21,166 15,329 16,287 23,056 104,332

Table 3-262 displays the amount of marbled murrelet nesting habitat modeled for harvest under each 

alternative and the Proposed RMP, which would require surveys prior to harvest. If surveys on these acres 

were to detect marbled murrelet, the BLM would protect the occupied site and would not implement the 

timber harvest. That is, these are acres to which the BLM applied the detection rates to forecast ‘predicted 

marbled murrelet sites’ that would be allocated to the Late-Successional Reserve, as described in Chapter 

2. 

Table 3-262. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat modeled for harvest that would be subject to surveys prior 

to harvest 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat Considered for 

Harvest with Surveys by End of Decade

(Acres)

Cumulative Nesting 

Habitat Considered 

for Harvest

2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 (Acres)

No Action 37,734 37,407 30,237 35,391 37,721 178,491

Alt. A - - - - - -

Alt. B 24,073 23,948 21,738 20,382 23,834 113,975

Alt. C 10,028 11,057 3,089 606 1,615 26,395

Alt. D 38,735 21,684 23,508 20,850 45,150 149,928

PRMP 21,331 18,024 11,571 13,702 18,333 82,960

Table 3-263 displays the amount of marbled murrelet nesting habitat modeled for harvest under each 

alternative and the Proposed RMP without being surveyed, and thus without determining whether nesting 

marbled murrelet are present. That is, these are acres to which the BLM applied the detection rates to 

forecast occupied sites that would be lost, as described in this analysis below. 
911 | P a g e

Table 3-263. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat modeled for harvest that would not be subject to surveys 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat Harvested

without Surveys by End of Decade

(Acres)

Cumulative Nesting 

Habitat Harvested

(Acres) 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

No Action - - - - - -

Alt. A 22,886 18,105 20,351 20,857 19,327 101,526

Alt. B 12,370 5,469 6,520 4,755 7,636 36,751

Alt. C 47,584 36,788 41,190 47,807 51,125 224,494

Alt. D - - - - - -

PRMP 7,162 3,143 3,758 2,586 4,723 21,371

The average size of survey polygons is 55.6 acres (USDI BLM, unpublished data 2015), and the BLM 

assumed that survey polygons are the best available dataset depicting marbled murrelet occupancy at the 

stand level. The BLM divided the acreage of available nesting habitat at the end of each decade (2023, 

2033, 2043, 2053, and 2063) by the average size of survey polygons to forecast the number of occupied 

sites that may exist in the future. While this forecast uses spatial data, the BLM did not forecast the 

specific location of future, occupied sites. Thus, the BLM did not specifically and separately analyze 

habitat development in or near these forecast sites. The forecast of the total number of marbled murrelet 

sites in the decision area would help to provide context for the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP. 

Based on total amount of nesting habitat, the observed detection rates of occupancy and the mean size of 

occupied stands described above, the decision area could currently support 2,459 marbled murrelet sites. 

To evaluate the accuracy of this forecast, this analysis also estimated marbled murrelet occupied sites on 

BLM-administered lands using a different methodology. Raphael et al. (2002) estimated 150 hectares 

(370 acres) of nesting habitat could support a pair of marbled murrelet on the Olympic Peninsula. 

Applying their estimate to the amount of nesting habitat currently available on BLM-administered lands 

(493,969 acres), the decision area could currently support 1,335 marbled murrelet sites—approximately 

half the estimate based on BLM survey detection rates. Thus, the estimate of marbled murrelet sites, both 

currently and in the future under each alternative and the Proposed RMP, may overestimate the number of 

future marbled murrelet sites in the decision area. 

The alternatives and the Proposed RMP present a range of pre-project survey requirements in the 

management direction (see Chapter 2 and Appendix B). The following is a brief summary of 

management direction for marbled murrelet surveys: 

 No Action alternative—survey nesting habitat 

 Alternative A—no surveys required 

 Alternative B—survey nesting habitat in Zone 1 (0–35 miles from the coast), no surveys in 

Zone 2 (35–50 miles from the coast) 

 Alternative C—survey nesting habitat for projects in stands 120 years old or older 

 Alternative D— survey nesting habitat 

 Proposed RMP—survey nesting habitat in all land use allocations in Zone 1 (0–35 miles from 

the coast) and in the reserves in Zone 2 (35–50 miles from the coast), no surveys in the 

Harvest Land Base in Zone 2. 

Depending on the management direction and arrangement of nesting habitat, each alternative and the 

Proposed RMP would have different amounts of nesting habitat that would have surveys and nesting 

habitat that would not have surveys. For this analysis, the BLM assumed future marbled murrelet sites 
912 | P a g e

would be discovered using the detection rates described above in nesting habitat with surveys. 

Conversely, the BLM assumed that nesting habitat without surveys would still contain marbled murrelet 

sites using the detection rates described above, but that these sites would remain undiscovered and that 

the habitat at these sites within the Harvest Land Base would be removed by timber harvest. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would restrict activities that would disrupt 

nesting marbled murrelet during the nesting period. Therefore, the BLM assumed that there would not be 

any disruption effects to nesting marbled murrelet under any of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 

The BLM did not quantitatively forecast population trends of the marbled murrelet because of the 

uncertainty surrounding recent population trends as reported in Falxa et al. (2014) and discussed above. 

In addition, there are numerous threats to the marbled murrelet in the marine environment from 

environmental sources (e.g., changes in prey abundance, distribution, and quality, or harmful algal 

blooms) or anthropogenic sources (e.g., derelict fishing gear and disturbance from vessel traffic) that are 

beyond the scope of land management decisions on BLM-administered lands. Instead, the BLM 

qualitatively evaluated the combined effects of habitat development and site management on marbled 

murrelet populations. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are 351 known, occupied marbled murrelet sites on BLM-administered lands (GeoBOB 2015), 

encompassing 51,995 acres, as delineated by the BLM offices (Figure 3-174). Based on available 

information, there are also approximately 417 known occupied marbled murrelet sites on the lands 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon and 237 sites on State lands managed by the Oregon 

Department of Forestry, for 1,005 sites in the planning area (Table 3-264). Information regarding 

marbled murrelet occupancy for other landowners is not available. The BLM-administered lands support 

35 percent of the known, occupied marbled murrelet sites in Oregon, whereas BLM-administered lands 

only comprise 13 percent of the habitat-capable acreage within range of the marbled murrelet. This may 

reflect a greater survey effort on BLM-administered lands than on other land ownerships, given the lack 

of information on survey efforts on several land ownerships. However, as detailed above, the BLMadministered lands currently contribute 41 percent of the high-quality nesting habitat for the marbled 

murrelet in the planning area. This suggests that BLM-administered lands play a substantial role in the 

conservation of the marbled murrelet.
913 | Page

Figure 3-174. Known, occupied marbled murrelet sites in the decision area 
914 | P a g e

Table 3-264. Known marbled murrelet sites in the planning area 

Ownership

Known Occupied

Marbled Murrelet Sites

Marbled Murrelet

Survey Effort

Sites

(Number)

Total 

Known Sites

(Percent)

Area

(Acres)

Survey 

Period 

(Years)

Stations 

(Number)

Survey 

Polygons 

(Number)

Survey 

Area 

(Acres)

BLM 351 35% 51,995 1991–2014 6,121 1,496 83,234

U.S. Forest 

Service 417* 41% 21,144†

1986–2009 Not

Available

Not

Available

Not

Available

Oregon 

Department 

of Forestry

237 24% 21,235 1989–2014 9,650 2,107 300,455

Totals 1,005 100% 94,374 - - - -

* Combination of 133 occupied marbled murrelet sites reported from the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest and surveyors observed 

occupied behaviors at 381 survey stations on the Siuslaw National Forest. For this analysis, BLM assumed that the stations 

within 400 meters of each other represented the same occupied site since the maximum effective distance of a survey station is 

200 meters radius (Mack et al. 2003, p. 9). Thus, the 381 survey stations with occupied behaviors represent approximately 284 

occupied sites. 

† Only includes acreage from the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest; acreage from the Siuslaw National Forest is not available 

Approximately 88 percent of total occupied site acreage in the decision area is currently nesting habitat, 9 

percent is capable of developing into nesting habitat in the future, and 3 percent is non-forest. Existing, 

known sites would be included within the Late-Successional Reserve under the No Action alternative, 

Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP. Therefore, all current nesting habitat within occupied 

sites would be retained, and eventually 97 percent of the acreage within occupied sites would develop into 

nesting habitat under these alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

The No Action alternative and Alternative D would not result in the loss of any occupied sites (Table 3-

265). The No Action alternative and Alternative D would result in the discovery and protection of 144 

and 141 sites discovered, respectively, in the first decade (Table 3-266). Alternative C would also result 

in the discovery and protection of sites (35), but more sites would be lost than would be discovered. 

Alternative B would result in the loss of 23 sites, and the discovery and protection of 132 sites in the first 

decade (Table 3-266 and Table 3-265). Alternative A would result in the loss of 106 sites in the first 

decade with no additional sites discovered (Table 3-266 and Table 3-265). Alternative C would result in 

the largest number of occupied sites lost in the first decade (189 sites). Under the Proposed RMP, the 

BLM would discover and protect 377 occupied marbled murrelet sites during the first five decades where 

the BLM would conduct surveys (all land use allocations in Zone 1 and outside of the Harvest Land Base 

in Zone 2). In the Harvest Land Base in Zone 2 under the Proposed RMP, 39 occupied marbled murrelet 

sites would be lost during the first five decades, because the BLM would not conduct surveys prior to 

modification or removal of nesting habitat. 
915 | P a g e

Table 3-265. Decadal forecast for marbled murrelet occupied sites lost over 50 years (2013–2063) 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Occupied Sites Forecast to be Lost

(Number by End of Decade)

Cumulative Occupied Sites 

Lost

2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 (Number)

No Action - - - - - -

Alt. A 106 101 96 89 89 481

Alt. B 23 10 12 9 14 68

Alt. C 189 174 178 212 238 991

Alt. D - - - - - -

PRMP 13 6 7 5 9 39

Table 3-266. Decadal forecast for marbled murrelet occupied sites discovered over 50 years (2013–2063) 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Occupied Sites Discovered and Protected

(Number by End of Decade)

Cumulative Occupied Sites 

Discovered and Protected

2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 (Number)

No Action 144 165 129 165 191 794

Alt. A - - - - - -

Alt. B 132 110 101 95 122 560

Alt. C 35 34 11 4 5 89

Alt. D 141 74 89 92 166 562

PRMP 97 76 42 69 91 377

These estimates for the Proposed RMP overstate the acreage of marbled murrelet nesting habitat that 

would be harvested and number of occupied sites that would be lost during each decade. During part of 

the first decade of RMP implementation, the Proposed RMP would avoid incidental take of northern 

spotted owls. High-quality marbled murrelet nesting habitat and northern spotted owl nesting-roosting 

habitat substantially overlap. Where the BLM would defer timber harvest to avoid incidental take of 

northern spotted owls, marbled murrelet nesting habitat would not be harvested and undetected occupied 

marbled murrelet sites coincident with occupied northern spotted owl sites would not be lost. It is not 

possible to quantify how much overlap would occur under the Proposed RMP, because the overlap would 

be dependent upon a spatially explicit forecasting of northern spotted owl occupancy combined with a 

spatially explicit forecasting of marbled murrelet occupancy. Nevertheless, this overlap is likely to be 

substantial, given the overlap in habitat requirements. 

Management direction under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would provide differing amounts of 

protection around future occupied marbled murrelet sites. Alternative D and the No Action alternative 

would provide the largest acreage of protection around an individual site; all contiguous habitat within 0.5 

miles would be included in the occupied site delineation (approximately 503 acres based on a circular 

radius). Alternatives B and C and the Proposed RMP would protect lands within 300 feet (approximately 

6.5 acres based on a circular radius) of forecasted, occupied site delineations, but only Mature or 

Structurally-complex stands would be included in the delineation under Alternative C. Alternative A 

would provide no protection to future sites—because the BLM would not survey—and thus would 

identify no future sites. 

Under Alternative C, designation and protection of an occupied site would last for 10 years after its 

discovery. For known, occupied sites, protection would last for 10 years after the Record of Decision for 

the RMP is signed (until approximately 2026). Cessation of protection for occupied sites 10 years after 
916 | P a g e

discovery or after the Record of Decision is signed, could lead to the loss of currently occupied marbled 

murrelet habitat. Under Alternative C, the BLM would resurvey nesting habitat before habitat 

modification, but the BLM could modify or remove the habitat if resurvey does not determine occupancy. 

For the first decade or two, the BLM assumes that most currently occupied marbled murrelet sites would 

continue to be occupied, since the marbled murrelet tend to have high nest-site fidelity and nest locations 

of multiple birds can be aggregated. Miller et al. (2012) report that marbled murrelet re-nest in the same 

forest stands and trees in successive years, which suggests they have high nest-site fidelity. Although the 

marbled murrelet are not colonial nesters, similar constraints apply, since there can be multiple, 

simultaneous detections of more than one bird at inland sites, and nesting locations are often aggregated 

(Raphael et al. 2015, pp. 17–18; 57 FR 45328). Mack et al. (2003) reported that, on average, 39 percent 

of occupied sites changed status over a two-year period, and site status was not independent between 

years. The causes of changing site status between years are unknown, but variation between years could 

be due to changes in ocean conditions and prey base (Mack et al. 2003, p. 13). Finally, many currently 

occupied marbled murrelet sites would remain within the Late-Successional Reserve or other reserve land 

use allocations under Alternative C, even after 10 years without evidence of occupancy, because of 

reasons unrelated to the marbled murrelet, such as location within Structurally-complex forest or large 

block forest reserves. Because of these uncertainties related to whether current and future marbled 

murrelet sites would continue to be protected for longer than 10 years, the BLM did not model the loss of 

protection around occupied marbled murrelet sites after 10 years under Alternative C. Cessation of 

protection for occupied marbled murrelet sites after 10 years presents an unquantified level of uncertainty 

related to marbled murrelet site protection under Alternative C. 

Overall, the No Action alternative and Alternative D would result in the least effect to occupied sites, 

because 144 and 141 additional sites, respectively, would be discovered and protected and none would be 

lost. The Proposed RMP would result in the net increase of 84 known, occupied sites, although 13 would 

be lost in the first decade. Alternative B would result in the net increase of 109 known, occupied sites, 

although 23 would be lost in the first decade. Alternative A would result in the net loss of 106 occupied 

sites with no new sites discovered. Alternative C would result in the largest net loss of occupied sites (154 

sites), despite the discovery of 35 new occupied sites. In addition, all alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

would provide some level of continued protection for the 351 existing, known occupied marbled murrelet 

sites, although long-term protection under Alternative C is less certain. Alternative C would have the 

largest negative effect on future occupied marbled murrelet sites, and the No Action alterative or 

Alternative D would have no negative effect on future occupied marbled murrelet sites. 

Despite the occasional loss of undiscovered marbled murrelet sites under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives A, B, and C (as described above), the BLM forecasts that the marbled murrelet population 

would increase over 50 years due to the continued development of nesting habitat and the net increase in 

the number of occupied sites (Figure 3-175). The murrelet population on BLM-administered lands would 

increase incrementally decade-by-decade under the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and 

the Proposed RMP. Under Alternative C, the BLM forecasts a net decrease in the murrelet population on 

BLM-administered lands in the first decade that corresponds to the net loss of nesting habitat described 

above. Fewer sites for nesting marbled murrelet under Alternative C would lead to reduced nesting, 

reduced nest success, and ultimately to population instability or decline. Fewer occupied sites under 

Alternative C would make marbled murrelet nesting more susceptible to stochastic events in the terrestrial 

or marine environments. Given that 35 percent of currently known, occupied marbled murrelet sites occur 

on BLM-administered lands, the loss of BLM sites under Alternative C could contribute to an overall 

population decline in Conservation Zones 3 and 4. While such population effects under Alternative C are 

possible, they are uncertain; given that the observed population levels do not currently demonstrate any 

trend, and it is uncertain what effect a loss of murrelet population on BLM-administered lands under 

Alternative C would have on the overall population levels. 
917 | Page

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Forecast of Marbled Murrelet Occupied Sites in the 

Decision Area (Number)

Year

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

Alt. A

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

No Action

No Timber Harvest

Figure 3-175. Forecast of the number of occupied marbled murrelet sites in the decision area 

Appendix S contains additional information and supporting data on the marbled murrelet. 
918 | P a g e

References 

Falxa, G., J. Baldwin, M. Lance, D. Lynch, S. K. Nelson, S. F. Pearson, M. G. Raphael, C. Strong, and R. Young. 2014. Marbled 

murrelet effectiveness monitoring, Northwest Forest Plan: 2013 data summary report. 20 pp. 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/murrelet/MAMU_2013_NWFP%20EM_Annual%20Report_May2014.pdf. 

Falxa, G.A.; Raphael, M.G., technical editors. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan–The first 20 years (1994–2013): status and trend of 

marbled murrelet populations and nesting habitat. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-XXXX. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 191 pp. http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/index.shtml. 

GeoBOB. 2013. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot – March 6, 2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR. 

GeoBOB. 2015. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Marbled Murrelet Data snapshot (RWOR127) – March 26, 2015. USDI BLM, 

Portland, OR. 

Mack, D. E., W. P. Ritchie, S. K. Nelson, E. Kuo-Harrison, and T. E. Hamber. 2003. Methods for surveying marbled murrelets in 

forests: A revised protocol for land management and research. Pacific Seabird Group Technical Publication Number 2. 

http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org. 

McShane, C., T. Hamer, H. Carter, G. Swartzman, V. Friesen, D. Ainley, R. Tressler, K. Nelson, A. Burger, L. Spear, T. 

Mohagen, R. Martin, L. Henkel, K. Prindle, C. Strong, and J. Keany. 2004. Evaluation report for the 5-year status review of 

the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Unpublished report. EDAW, Inc., Seattle, WA. Prepared for 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 370 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/MM/documents/mm5yr_rpt_final_web.pdf. 

Miller, S. L., M. G. Raphael, G. A. Falxa, C. Strong, J. Baldwin, T. Bloxton, B. M. Galleher, M. Lance, D. Lynch, S. F. Pearson, 

C. J. Ralph, and R. D. Young. 2012. Recent population decline of the marbled murrelet in the Pacific Northwest. The 

Condor 114(4): 771–781. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/Miller_etal_2012_NWFP%20EM%20Population%20monitoring%202000%20to%202010.p

df. 

Nelson, S. K., M. H. Huff, S. L. Miller, and M. G. Raphael. 2006. Marbled murrelet biology: habitat relations and populations. 

In: Huff, M. H., M. G. Raphael, S. L. Miller, S. K. Nelson, and J. Baldwin, tech. coords. Northwest Forest Plan—The first 

10 years (1994–2003): status and trends of populations and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-650. 160 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr650.pdf. 

Raphael, M. G., D. E. Mack, and B. A. Cooper. 2002. Landscape-scale relationships between abundance of marbled murrelets 

and distribution of nesting habitat. The Condor 104(2): 331–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1650/0010-

5422(2002)104[0331:LSRBAO]2.0.CO;2. 

Raphael, M. G., G. A. Falxa, K. M. Dugger, B. M. Galleher, D. Lynch, S. L. Miller, S. K. Nelson, and R. D. Young. 2011. 

Northwest Forest Plan–the first 15 years (1994–2008): status and trend of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-858. 52 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr848.pdf. 

Raphael, M. G., A. J. Shirk, G. A. Falxa, and S. F. Pearson. 2015. Habitat associations of marbled murrelets during the nesting 

season in nearshore waters along the Washington to California coast. Journal of Marine Systems 146: 17–25. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2014.06.010. 

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 2002. Memo re: results of landscape level protocol survey of survey zones 1 and 2 for marbled 

murrelets in SW Oregon. March 4, 2002. Siskiyou National Forest, Rogue River National Forest, and Medford District 

BLM, Medford, OR. 30 pp. 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php. 

---. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-western-oregon.pdf. 

USDI FWS. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, 

and California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/USFWS%20Recovery%20Plan%201997.pdf. 

---. 2002. Memo re: technical assistance on the final results of landscape level surveys for marbled murrelets in Southwest 

Oregon [FWS reference: 1-7-02-TA-640]. May 6, 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 2 pp. 

---. 2004. Marbled murrelet 5-year review process: overview. August 31, 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 28 

pp. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/Documents/Marbled%20murrelet.pdf. 

---. 2009. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 5-year review. June 12, 2009. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, 

WA. 108 pp. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/MM/documents/Mamu2009_5yr_review%20FINAL%2061209.pdf. 
919 | P a g e

North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Red 

Tree Vole 

Key Points 

 All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would lead to an increase in habitat for red tree voles 

within the North Oregon Coast DPS in 50 years. 

 The loss of occupied stands under Alternatives A and C, particularly north of Highway 20, would 

further reduce the distribution of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS. 

 The lack of provisions for pre-disturbance surveys and known site protection under Alternatives 

A and C would negatively affect the species throughout the North Oregon Coast DPS. 

 The No Action alternative and Alternatives B and D would protect red tree voles throughout the 

North Oregon Coast DPS because of direction to conduct pre-disturbance surveys and known site 

management. 

 The Proposed RMP would protect red tree voles north of Highway 20 because of direction to 

conduct pre-disturbance surveys and known site management. The Proposed RMP would 

negatively affect the species south of Highway 20 within the Harvest Land Base, where predisturbance surveys would not be required. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS has deleted the erroneous statement from the Draft RMP/EIS, “Since every 

red tree vole site in the North Oregon Coast DPS is critical for persistence ....” That statement could not 

be supported given the uncertainties around population numbers, trend, and distribution of the North 

Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole. 

Background 

On October 13, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the North Oregon Coast Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS)135 of the red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) warranted protection under the 

Endangered Species Act, but listing the species is precluded by the need to address higher priority species 

(76 FR 63720). The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides 

more information on the species range, population trend, and threats, which is incorporated here by 

reference (USDI BLM 2013, pp. 145–146). 

Red tree voles are widely distributed throughout much of their range in Oregon, except in the northern 

Oregon Coast Range – particularly within the North Coast Distinct Population Segment area north of 

Highway 20. In the northern portion of the North Coast Distinct Population Segment area, red tree voles 

are uncommon and sparsely distributed as compared to the rest of their range. Due to ownership patterns, 

connectivity between blocks of Federal habitat is limited north of Highway 20 as well (76 FR 63740). 

Based on radio telemetry, red tree voles use a mean home range area of 0.43 acres, and there is no 

statistical difference between the size of male and female red tree vole home ranges. The average distance 

between red tree vole nest trees is 148 feet and the furthest distance reported is 531 feet (Swingle and 

Forsman 2009). 

 

135 A distinct population segment (DPS) is a discrete population of a species and the smallest portion of a vertebrate 

species’ range that can be protected under the Endangered Species Act. 
920 | Page

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole would be available under 

each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole to be 

Mature and Structurally-complex stands within the range of the DPS (Figure 3-176). The Planning 

Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, and 

geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014). 

Figure 3-176. Range of the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative and Proposed RMP 

implementation on habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole in the decision area and an 

analysis of the cumulative effects on habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole of past, 
921 | P a g e

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including land management activities on BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

The BLM assessed habitat connectivity by calculating the average patch size for contiguous habitat. The 

BLM considers the quality of habitat to increase as patch size increases. The BLM modeled habitat on 

non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 2012 GNN structural condition. 

The BLM forecast the number of stands within the North Oregon Coast DPS occupied by red tree voles in 

the future by applying observed detection rates and mean size of occupied stands against the acreage of 

habitat in the Harvest Land Base. In this analysis, the BLM assumed that forecast future sites within the 

Harvest Land Base would be lost because of timber harvest in the alternatives or the Proposed RMP that 

did not require surveys prior to habitat modification and protection of sites. The BLM assumed that sites 

within reserve allocations would be protected under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Through preliminary analysis, the BLM found that surveys had a 22.9 percent detection rate (39 of 120 

survey polygons) within the range of the North Oregon Coast DPS (USDI BLM, unpublished data 2014). 

Within the North Oregon Coast DPS, red tree voles are more abundant south of Highway 20 (49.2 percent 

detection rate) than north of Highway 20 (8.3 percent detection rate). The survey polygons the BLM 

considered in this preliminary analysis represent 6,245 acres of survey effort. The BLM applied these 

detection rates to the amount of red tree vole habitat within the Harvest Land Base within the range of the 

North Oregon Coast DPS under each alternative and the Proposed RMP. 

The average size of survey polygons within the North Oregon Coast DPS is 36.7 acres (GeoBOB 2013). 

The BLM divided the acreage of habitat in the Harvest Land Base by 36.7 acres to forecast the number of 

stands that the BLM predicts to be occupied by red tree voles in the Harvest Land Base within the North 

Oregon Coast DPS. While this forecast uses spatial data, the BLM did not forecast the specific location of 

future, occupied stands. Thus, BLM did not specifically and separately analyze habitat development in or 

near these forecast sites. 

Unlike the analysis for marbled murrelet and fisher, BLM did not calculate core and edge habitat since the 

available scientific literature has not established an effective ‘edge’ distance for red tree voles. 

In this analysis, the BLM did not evaluate changes in the population of red tree voles because of changes 

in habitat, because quantifiable relationships between habitat availability and numbers of individual red 

tree voles in populations are unavailable. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are 329,236 acres of BLM-administered lands capable of providing habitat for the North Oregon 

Coast DPS of the red tree vole, of which 174,495 acres (53 percent) are currently providing habitat in the 

decision area (Figure 3-177). 
922 | P a g e

Figure 3-177. Red tree vole habitat within the North Oregon Coast DPS in the decision area 

There are 3,728,250 acres of forested land capable of providing habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS 

of the red tree vole across all land ownerships in the planning area. Of the forested land capable of 

providing habitat, 20 percent (741,263 acres) is existing habitat within the planning area. BLMadministered lands provide 24 percent (174,495 acres) of the available habitat for the North Oregon Coast 

DPS of the red tree vole (Figure 3-178).

Figure 3-178. Red tree vole habitat within the North Oregon Coast DPS in the planning area 

174,495

289,971 279,899 279,489

236,047

294,208 277,503 313,820

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Red Tree Vole Habitat (Acres)

566,768

688,959 688,959 688,959 688,959 688,959 688,959 688,959

174,495

289,971 279,899 279,489

236,047

294,208 277,503 313,820

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

PRMP

2063

No

Timber

Harvest

2063

Red Tree Vole Habitat (Acres)

Other Lands BLM-administered Lands
923 | P a g e

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, there would be 313,820 acres of habitat in the decision 

area in 50 years (Figure 3-177). Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, habitat for red tree voles 

within the North Oregon Coast DPS would increase from current conditions in 50 years. The action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would develop 75–94 percent as much habitat as under the No Timber 

Harvest reference analysis. Alternative D would develop the largest amount of habitat among the action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Alternative C would develop the least amount of habitat, 

substantially less than the other alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Under the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP, the amount of red tree 

vole habitat within the North Oregon Coast DPS would continually increase. That is, there would be no 

net loss of habitat at any time period relative to current conditions. Under Alternative C, there would be a 

4 percent loss (-7,339 acres) of habitat in the first decade. However, sufficient habitat would develop by 

the second decade under Alternative C to surpass current amounts (Appendix S) 

In the planning area, red tree vole habitat within the North Oregon Coast DPS would increase by 25–33 

percent under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP in 50 years (Figure 3-178). The No Action 

alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and the Proposed RMP would have the similar increases in habitat 

(32, 31, 31, 33, and 30 percent respectively), only slightly less than the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis (35 percent). Alternative C would have the least increase in habitat development (25 percent). 

Under the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, D, and the Proposed RMP, BLM-administered lands 

would contribute 29–30 percent of the habitat for red tree voles within the North Oregon Coast DPS in 

the planning area in 50 years. The BLM-administered lands would contribute 26 percent of the habitat 

under Alternative C (Figure 3-178). At the planning area scale, the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, 

B, and D, and the Proposed RMP would provide 92–98 percent of the habitat projected under the No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis, with Alternative C providing the least habitat development (92 

percent). 

Currently, the average patch size of red tree vole habitat in the North Oregon Coast DPS is 29.3 acres. In 

50 years, the average patch size would decrease under Alternative C, but would increase under all the 

other alternatives and the Proposed RMP, and under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. The 

average patch size would increase to 64.4 acres under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis in 50 

years. Alternative C would reduce average patch size to 25.6 acres, the No Action alternative and 

Alternatives A, B, and D would increase patch size (42.0, 40.0, 39.2, and 47.2 acres, respectively). The 

Proposed RMP would also result in an increase in the average patch size (36.5 acres in 50 years). 

Alternative C would lead to additional fragmentation of red tree vole habitat, while the other alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP would increase connectivity and suitability of habitat, based on trends in patch 

size. Larger patches of habitat would encourage higher local populations and higher nest numbers at a 

site, since the home ranges (0.43 acres) of multiple individuals could be contained within a single patch. 

Larger sites containing multiple nests would better support red tree vole population persistence in 

localized areas (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000, p. 5). 

There are 395 observations of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS within the decision area 

(Table 3-267), and an additional 14 observations on non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area 

(GeoBOB 2013). These observations are typically active or inactive nest structures that were discovered 

during pre-disturbance surveys; occasionally red tree voles themselves were observed during surveys. The 

small number of observations on non-BLM-administered lands is not necessarily reflective of population 

numbers, given the general lack of surveys outside of Federal lands within the range of the North Oregon 

Coast DPS. On BLM-administered lands, the currently known observations of red tree voles are biased 

towards pre-disturbance surveys that the BLM conducted within timber sale project areas typically 

located within the Matrix land use allocation. 
924 | P a g e

Table 3-267. Known observations (395) of red tree voles within the North Oregon Coast DPS

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Observations

in the HLB*

(Number) 

Observations

in the HLB*

(Percent)

Observations

in the Reserves

(Number)

Observations

in the Reserves

(Percent)

No Action 40 10% 355 90%

Alt. A 21 5% 374 95%

Alt. B 25 6% 370 94%

Alt. C 41 10% 354 90%

Alt. D 29 7% 366 93%

PRMP 39 10% 357 90%

* Harvest Land Base under the No Action alternative includes Adaptive Management Areas, Connectivity/Diversity Blocks, and 

the General Forest Management Area.

Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, 63–87 percent of BLM-administered lands within the 

North Oregon Coast DPS would be included in reserves and 13–37 percent of BLM-administered lands 

would be included in the Harvest Land Base (Table 3-268). Table 3-268 provides a simplified summary 

of land use allocations within the North Oregon Coast DPS under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Habitat and sites of red tree voles that fall within the reserves would generally be protected by the 

management direction of the reserve land use allocations, which would protect existing Mature and 

Structurally-complex forest habitat and foster the development of additional habitat. Under all action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, management direction in reserves would largely limit stand 

treatments to thinning to improve habitat conditions and would generally preclude stand treatments that 

would remove or degrade Mature and Structurally-complex habitat (Appendix B).

Table 3-268. Land use allocations within the North Oregon Coast DPS (348,186 acres of BLMadministered lands)

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Harvest Land Base Reserves

(Acres) (Percent) (Acres) (Percent)

No Action 60,459 17% 287,727 83%

Alt. A 45,902 13% 302,284 87%

Alt. B 66,944 19% 281,242 81%

Alt. C 127,240 37% 220,766 63%

Alt. D 102,294 29% 245,892 71%

PRMP 61,949 18% 286,237 82%

Alternatives A and C would not require pre-disturbance surveys and protection of known sites. The 

Proposed RMP would require pre-disturbance surveys north of Highway 20. The Proposed RMP would 

not require pre-disturbance surveys south of Highway 20, but known sites in reserves south of Highway 

20 would be protected. Of the 39 known sites of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS that are 

within the Harvest Land Base under the Proposed RMP, 36 are south of Highway 20 and 3 are north of 

Highway 20. Even in the absence of pre-disturbance surveys, red tree vole habitat and sites within the 

North Oregon Coast DPS that fall within the reserve system would receive protection through the overall 

reserve network (e.g., Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve). However, there are few 

federally administered lands in the North Oregon Coast DPS (22 percent of the North Oregon Coast DPS 

is federally administered, and 9 percent of the North Oregon Coast DPS is BLM-administered lands). 

Even though a high proportion of habitat would be protected within reserves, land management practices 
925 | P a g e

on non-federal lands reduce the potential for connectivity between the blocks of federally managed 

habitat (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004).

The alternatives have differing amounts of red tree vole habitat that would be allocated to the Harvest 

Land Base. Alternative A would have the least amount of current habitat in the Harvest Land Base 

(21,715 acres or 12 percent of all habitat) and Alternative C would have the largest amount of current 

habitat in the Harvest Land Base (61,284 acres or 35 percent of all habitat; Table 3-269). The Proposed 

RMP would have 28,529 acres (16 percent) of current red tree vole habitat in the Harvest Land Base 

(Table 3-269).

Table 3-269. Existing red tree vole habitat and forecast of occupied stands within the North Oregon Coast 

DPS within the Harvest Land Base

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

RTV Habitat

in the Harvest Land Base

(Acres)

Occupied RTV Stand Forecast

Discovered and Protected

(Number)

Lost

(Number)

No Action 33,810 211 -

Alt. A 21,715 - 136

Alt. B 37,846 237 -

Alt. C 61,284 - 383

Alt. D 58,847 368 -

PRMP 28,529* 129 49

* 20,735 acres of habitat in the Harvest Land Base north of Highway 20 (with surveys) and 7,794 acres of habitat in the Harvest 

Land Base south of Highway 20 (without surveys)

Alternatives B and D would include direction to conduct pre-disturbance surveys and known site 

management, which would protect red tree voles throughout the North Oregon Coast DPS, and therefore 

no future sites would be lost. Similarly, the No Action alternative would also include direction to conduct 

pre-disturbance surveys and known site management, but it would differ in that projects within Matrix 

and AMA (or a combination of Matrix/AMA and Riparian Reserve) land allocations in select watersheds 

in the southern portion of the North Coast DPS would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys and site 

management (Huff et al. 2012), which would result in some loss of sites. The BLM did not quantify the 

loss of sites under the No Action alternative from these exempted watersheds and the potential loss of 

sites is not reflected in Table 3-269. Under Alternatives A and C, the BLM would not require surveys 

prior to habitat modification throughout the North Coast DPS, and 136 and 383 stands, respectively, with 

forecast red tree vole occupancy would be lost over 50 years. (Table 3-269). The Proposed RMP would 

require surveys north of Highway 20 in stands ≥ 80 years old, and 49 stands with forecast red tree vole 

occupancy south of Highway 20 would be lost over 50 years.

The protection of stands occupied by red tree voles within the North Oregon Coast DPS under the No 

Action alternative and Alternatives B and D would contribute to reducing the likelihood or the need for 

further listing under the Endangered Species Act. It is uncertain whether the loss of stands occupied by 

red tree voles within the North Oregon Coast DPS under Alternatives A and C, and the Proposed RMP 

would increase the likelihood or need for further listing under the Endangered Species Act because of the 

uncertainties around population numbers, trend, and distribution. Alternative C would result in the loss of 

almost three times as many occupied stands as would be lost under Alternative A. The loss of forecast 

occupied stands under Alternative C would be almost as much as the number of current observations of 

red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS. The loss of occupied stands under Alternatives A and C, 

particularly north of Highway 20, would further reduce the distribution of red tree voles in the North 

Oregon Coast DPS. Red tree voles already have a sporadic and sparse distribution north of Highway 20 
926 | P a g e

within the North Oregon Coast DPS (76 FR 63734) and the detection rate of voles in this portion of the 

North Oregon Coast DPS (8.3 percent) is lower than south of Highway 20 (49.2 percent). Loss of sites (or 

occupied stands) would further reduce population interaction and connectivity in the North Oregon Coast 

DPS, particularly north of Highway 20. Because more occupied stands would be lost under Alternative C 

than under Alternative A or the Proposed RMP (Table 3-269), Alternative C would have a greater 

negative effect on the distribution of the red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS than Alternative A

or the Proposed RMP. In contrast, red tree voles in the southern portion of the DPS (south of Highway 

20) are relatively more abundant, so the loss of occupied stands would not reduce the distribution of the 

species within this portion of its range. The Proposed RMP would result in sites lost south of Highway 20

within the Harvest Land Base. Although it is possible that regeneration harvest in unsurveyed stands < 80 

years old north of Highway 20 could result in loss of red tree vole sites under the Proposed RMP, such 

loss is not reasonably foreseeable, for the following reasons:

 a relatively small acreage of regeneration harvest would occur in stands < 80 years old (an 

average of approximately 440 acres per year) north of Highway 20 

 the majority of stands < 80 years old north of Highway 20 (approximately two-thirds) are not red 

tree vole habitat 

 the probability of such stands actually being occupied by red tree vole is low (8.3 percent 

detection rate north of Highway 20)

For these reasons, any loss of red tree vole sites north of Highway 20 is speculative, and it is more likely 

that any regeneration harvest in stands < 80 years old north of Highway 20 would occur in stands that are 

not occupied by red tree voles. Therefore, the relative effect of the Proposed RMP on red tree voles would 

be substantially less than Alternatives A or C because the number of lost sites would be much lower and 

because sites would only be lost in the portion of the range in which red tree voles are less vulnerable. 

Because the population status or population trend of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS is 

unknown, it is also unknown the extent to which loss of occupied stands would negatively affect the 

overall population of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS. Nevertheless, the loss of occupied 

stands south of Highway 20 under the Proposed RMP would not reduce the distribution of the species 

within this portion of its range, because red tree voles are more abundant south of Highway 20 and loss of 

some occupied stands would have relatively less effect on population interaction and connectivity than 

north of Highway 20, and because the vast majority of red tree vole habitat south of Highway 20 

(approximately 92 percent) is allocated to reserve land use allocations under the Proposed RMP.

In summary, all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would lead to an increase in habitat for red tree voles 

within the North Oregon Coast DPS in 50 years, and the majority of that habitat would be protected 

within the reserves. In addition, at least 90 percent of red tree vole observations within the North Oregon 

Coast DPS would be protected in the reserves under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The lack of 

provisions for pre-disturbance surveys and known site protection under Alternatives A and C would 

negatively affect the species. Under the Proposed RMP, the lack of surveys south of Highway 20 would 

also negatively affect the species, although existing known sites in the reserves would be protected. The 

loss of occupied stands under Alternatives A and C, particularly north of Highway 20, would further 

reduce the distribution of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS. Alternative C would have greater 

negative effect to red tree vole distribution than Alternative A or the Proposed RMP, because a greater 

proportion of habitat would be in the Harvest Land Base from which more sites would be lost. The No 

Action alternative and Alternatives B and D would include direction to conduct pre-disturbance surveys 

and implement known site management, which would protect red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast 

DPS. The Proposed RMP would include direction to survey habitat ≥ 80 years old and protect red tree 

voles in that portion of the range where they are most vulnerable.

Appendix S contains additional information and supporting data on the North Oregon Coast DPS of the 

red tree vole.
927 | P a g e

References

GeoBOB. 2013a. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot –March 6, 2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR.

GeoBOB. 2013b. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Surveys Version 1 Polygon. Data snapshot –March 6, 2013. USDI BLM,

Portland, OR.

Huff, R., K. Van Norman, C. Hughes, R. Davis and K. Mellen-Mclean. 2012. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Version 

3.0. USDI BLM, Oregon/Washington, and USDA Forest Service, Regions 5 (CA) and 6 (OR/WA), Portland, OR. 52 pp.

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/sp-RedTreeVole-v3-0-2012-11.pdf.

Swingle, J. K. and E. D. Forsman. 2009. Home range areas and activity patterns of red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in 

western Oregon. Northwest Science 83(3): 273–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.3955/046.083.0310.

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 2000. Management recommendations for the Oregon red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus): 

Phenacomys longicaudus in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 2.0. 27 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/mr-rtv-v2-2000-09-att1.pdf.

---. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards 

and Guidelines. Regional Ecosystem Office. Portland, OR. 359 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/07-

2004_fseis_v1_ch1-4.pdf.

USDI BLM. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-westernoregon.pdf.

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. USDI BLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, 

Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php.
928 | P a g e

Northern Spotted Owl

Key Points

 The northern spotted owl population is under severe biological stress in much of western Oregon 

and has an even chance of being extirpated from the Coast Range within 20 years. This 

population risk is predominately due to competitive interactions between northern spotted owls 

and barred owls.

 In the Coast Range, the BLM has no opportunity, through habitat management alone, to reduce 

risks to the northern spotted owl during the next 50 years, and there are no substantive differences 

among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP in their potential effects on those risks.

 However, under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would contribute to selfsustaining northern spotted owl populations in the eastern and western Cascades, and the Klamath 

Basin, during the next 50 years.

 The Late-Successional Reserve designs of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP make similar 

contributions to the development and spacing of the large habitat blocks needed for northern 

spotted owl conservation. Once necessary lands are reserved, additional lands provide no 

appreciable benefit to the development or spacing of large habitat blocks.

 The alternatives and the Proposed RMP differ substantively in their contributions to east-west 

northern spotted owl movement between the Coast Range and western Cascades.

 BLM-administered lands are indispensable—

 To northern spotted owl reproduction, movement and survival in the Coast Range, and in 

western and central portions of the Klamath Basin; and

 In supporting north-south species movement through the Coast Range, and east-west 

species movement between the Coast Range and western Cascades.

 Implementation of a barred owl control program would appreciably improve the northern spotted 

owl population response under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP in all modeling regions. In 

the North Coast and Olympic and Oregon Coast modeling regions, a barred owl control program 

would appreciably delay the probability of de facto extirpation of northern spotted owl 

populations.

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS

 The BLM has conducted additional analysis only for Alternative C, the Proposed RMP, and the 

No Timber Harvest reference analysis. Based on the analytical results in the Draft RMP/EIS, the 

modeling results in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS for Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis generally bracket the results for the other alternatives (i.e., the No Action 

alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and Sub-alternatives B and C). Where the analytical results 

for Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis are essentially indistinguishable, 

the results for Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis represent the effects of 

the other alternatives as well.

 The BLM dropped the analysis of northern spotted owl dispersal flux (Issue 2) and the northern 

spotted owl source analysis (Issue 4), because the results, over time, primarily were a function of 

competitive interactions between northern spotted owls and barred owls, as opposed to habitat 

changes resulting from the alternatives. Although both analyses helped the BLM refine the 

placement of land use allocations for the Proposed RMP, the BLM saw no analytical value in a 

second set of analyses.

 As described in Appendix T, Section D, the BLM refined its northern spotted owl relative habitat 

suitability surfaces to address recommendations by subject matter experts. The overall result of 

this refinement in the relative habitat suitability surface is that the baseline condition in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS describes less nesting-roosting habitat and more dispersal habitat than 
929 | P a g e

the baseline condition in the Draft RMP/EIS.136 Thus, some analytical results for Alternative C 

and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS differ slightly in 

absolute values from those in the Draft RMP/Final EIS.

 As described under Issue 4 of this section and in Appendix T, Section E, the BLM—

 Incorporated new northern spotted owl fecundity and survival, and barred owl encounter rate, 

data from the 2016 northern spotted owl meta-analysis (Dugger et al. 2016) into its northern 

spotted owl population simulations, and recalibrated its northern spotted owl HexSim model 

with those new values.

 Refined the modeling of a barred owl control program according to recommendations from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Background

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 

FWS 2011a, pp. I-6 – I-10; hereafter referred to as the Revised Recovery Plan), and its final rule on 

northern spotted owl critical habitat (77 FR 71818; hereafter referred to as the final rule), described the 

biology and management history, and the threats to the conservation and recovery, of the northern spotted 

owl.

The BLM evaluated the potential effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on the northern 

spotted owl according to the specific criteria developed by the U.S. Fish and Service in its Revised 

Recovery Plan, and used by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate proposed actions in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Specifically, the BLM designed its northern 

spotted owl analyses to determine if, under each alternative and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would—

 Contribute to a landscape in the planning area that meets the four ‘habitat-dependent’

conservation needs of the northern spotted owl;

137 and

 Manage its administered lands in the planning area in a manner that addresses the resources and 

processes described by Recovery Actions 6, 10, 12 and 32 of the Revised Recovery Plan (USDI 

FWS 2011a). RMP planning decisions could affect the implementation and accomplishment of 

only those four recovery actions.

Conservation Needs of the Northern Spotted Owl

In 1990, Thomas et al. (pp. 23–27) determined that northern spotted owl conservation required:

1. Large blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat that support clusters of reproducing owls, 

are distributed across a variety of ecological conditions, and are spaced to facilitate owl 

movement between the blocks, and;

2. Habitat conditions within and surrounding large blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat 

that facilitate owl movement between the blocks and ensure the survival of dispersing owls.

In 2004, Courtney et al. (Chapter 9) concluded that, although subsequent northern spotted owl research 

had refined these conservation needs, they remained valid. In 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 

136 The estimated amount of dispersal habitat on BLM-administered lands in 2013 increased from 511,700 acres to 

571,200 acres; the amount of nesting-roosting habitat decreased from 1,358,000 acres to 1,120,000 acres.

137 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also identifies two ‘habitat-independent’ conservation needs in its biological 

opinions: a coordinated research and adaptive management effort to better understand and manage competitive 

interactions between spotted and barred owls, and monitoring to better understand the risk of West Nile virus and

sudden oak death pose to spotted owls and, for West Nile virus, research into methods that may reduce the 

likelihood or severity of outbreaks in spotted owl populations. The BLM analysis did not address these conservation 

needs because they are habitat independent and would be unaffected by RMP decisions.
930 | P a g e

reaffirmed these conservation needs in its final rule on northern spotted owl critical habitat (77 FR 

71908).

After the report by Courtney et al. (2004), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified two additional 

habitat-dependent conservation needs for the northern spotted owl:

3. A coordinated, adaptive management effort to reduce the loss of habitat due to catastrophic 

wildfire throughout the northern spotted owl’s range, and a monitoring program to clarify 

whether these risk reduction methods are effective and to determine how owls use habitat treated 

to reduce fuels, and;

4. In areas of significant population decline, sustain the full range of survival and recovery options 

for this species in light of significant uncertainty.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers all four habitat-dependent conservation needs when it 

evaluates proposed actions. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service added Conservation Needs 3 and 4 

because of findings that the range-wide losses of northern spotted owl habitat to wildfire, especially in 

southern Oregon, posed a greater threat to northern spotted owl conservation than previously thought 

(Courtney et al. 2004, Chapter 6) and because of observed declines in the northern spotted owl population 

(Anthony et al. 2006). Conservation Need 4 has become increasingly important with continued 

population declines (Forsman et al. 2011 and Dugger et al. 2016) and recent findings on competitive 

interactions between northern spotted owls and barred owls (e.g., Van Lanen et al. 2011, Dugger et al.

2011, and Wiens et al. 2014).

Recovery Actions 6, 10, 12 and 32

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued its Revised Recovery Plan in 2011. Although recovery plans 

are guidance documents (Stanford Environmental Law Society 2001, p. 76), they describe reasonable 

actions and criteria that the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service recommend 

for the recovery of ESA-listed species. Thus, the Revised Recovery Plan provides a useful framework for 

this analysis. Of the 33 recovery actions in the Revised Recovery Plan, only 4 are pertinent to the RMP 

planning effort in that BLM planning decisions could affect the implementation and accomplishment of 

only those actions on BLM-administered lands in the planning area (USDI FWS 2011a):

“Recovery Action 6: In moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat, land managers should 

implement silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands to 

accelerate the development of structural complexity and biological diversity that will benefit spotted 

owl recovery” (p. III-19).

“Recovery Action 10: Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide 

additional demographic support to the spotted owl population” (p. III-43).

“Recovery Action 12: In lands where management is focused on development of spotted owl habitat, 

post-fire silvicultural activities should concentrate on conserving and restoring habitat elements that 

take a long time to develop (e.g., large trees, medium and large snags, downed wood)” (p. III-49).

“Recovery Action 32: Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older and more 

structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-Federal lands across its range, 

land managers should work with the Service as described below to maintain and restore such habitat 

while allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management 

actions. These high-quality spotted owl habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter 

trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, 

mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees” (p. III-67).
931 | P a g e

Summary of Analytical Methods

The BLM framed its evaluations of the four habitat-dependent conservation needs of the northern spotted 

owl and the implementation of Recovery Actions 6, 10, 12 and 32 as analytical questions, stated below. 

To complete its evaluations, the BLM created a series of northern spotted owl relative habitat suitability 

data surfaces (i.e., digitized geospatial datasets used in computer analyses) for all lands in the United 

States-portion of the northern spotted owl’s range.138 These surfaces reflect current habitat values and 

forecast changes in habitat values at decadal increments for the next 50 years. The forecasts include 

anticipated changes to northern spotted owl habitat from forest ingrowth, forest treatments including 

restoration (such as thinning consistent with Late-Successional Reserve or Riparian Reserve management 

direction) and timber harvest, and wildfire. The BLM describes the creation and validation of these 

surfaces in Appendix T, Sections A–C. As explained in more detail in the sections on vegetation 

modeling and climate change in this chapter, the BLM did not incorporate projections of climate change 

into the simulation of the growth of stands through time because of the uncertainty in climate change 

predictions and problems in downscaling the available climate predictions for use in forest stand growth 

and harvesting models.

The BLM chose a 50-year analytical timeframe for its northern spotted owl analyses, mindful that the 

Revised Recovery Plan identifies a 30-year timeframe for the recovery of the northern spotted owl (USDI 

FWS 2011a, p. viii). However, the 30-year timeframe is unchanged from that of an earlier recovery plan 

(USDI FWS 2008) which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued before the most recent meta-analyses 

of northern spotted owl demography (Forsman et al. 2011 and Dugger et al. 2016) and recent findings on 

competitive interactions between northern spotted owls and barred owls (e.g., Van Lanen et al. 2011, 

Dugger et al. 2011, and Wiens et al. 2014). In addition, on April 3, 2013, the assistant directors for 

Regions 1 and 2 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which include the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

planning area, issued agency guidance on implementation of the final rule on 2012 northern spotted owl 

critical habitat, in which they identified a conservation timeframe of at least 50 years.

The BLM analyses differ from the analyses done by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to inform its 

decisions on northern spotted owl recovery and northern spotted owl critical habitat (USDI FWS 2011a, 

pp. Appendix C; USDI FWS 2012). These differences arise from differences in planning needs and 

regulatory requirements, as well as differences in data availability. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 

delineated critical habitat units, in part, assuming that existing Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations 

and management standards would continue, including on BLM-administered lands. In contrast, the BLM 

evaluated scenarios in which Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations and management standards 

would change on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and 

BLM also relied on different relative habitat suitability surfaces and different processes to evaluate the 

effects of habitat change.139 Prior to deciding on its analytical methods, the BLM reviewed with the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife Service and other subject matter experts the methods developed by the U.S Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The BLM then incorporated or augmented those datasets and methods that met its 

planning needs (Appendix T).

 

138 A small population of northern spotted owls exists in British Columbia but it would be unaffected by BLM 

planning decisions and its size and location would prevent it from measurably affecting the results of the BLM 

analyses.

139 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated northern spotted owl responses to ‘pessimistic’ and ‘optimistic’ 

habitat change scenarios, neither of which was intended to predict future habitat conditions. The BLM instead chose 

to simulate northern spotted owl responses to forecasts of habitat change over time, on all land ownerships, from 

forest ingrowth, treatment, and wildfire.
932 | P a g e

Issue 1

In accordance with Conservation Need 1, would the alternatives contribute to a landscape in the 

planning area that creates large blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat that are capable of 

supporting clusters of reproducing owls, distributed across a variety of ecological conditions and spaced 

to facilitate owl movement between the blocks?

Summary of Analytical Methods

To meet Conservation Need 1, BLM-administered lands would contribute to ‘large blocks of habitat,’

each capable of supporting at least 25 northern spotted owl nesting pairs, in the Oregon Western 

Cascades, Oregon Eastern Cascades, Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Klamath physiographic provinces 

during each of the next 5 decades and, within 30–50 years, to a network of large habitat blocks that are 

spaced no more than 12 miles (19.3 km) apart. Where large blocks do not form within 30–50 years, BLMadministered lands would contribute to a network of ‘small blocks of habitat,’ each capable of supporting 

1 to 24 northern spotted owl nesting pairs, that are spaced no more than 7 miles (11.3 km) from large 

habitat blocks or from other small habitat blocks. Because this conservation need is not specific to BLMadministered lands, the BLM evaluated Conservation Need 1 by forecasting habitat conditions on all 

lands in the planning area during the next 50 years as described in Appendix T.

Thomas et al. (1990, p. 164) described northern spotted owl “nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat” as 

“multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by large (greater than 30 inches diameter at breast height) 

conifer overstory trees, and an understory of shade-tolerant conifers or hardwoods; a moderate to high (60 

to 80 percent) canopy closure; 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 owls to fly within and beneath it.” Their description, in light of subsequent research, 

remains valid (Courtney et al. 2004, Chapter 5; USDI FWS 2011a, pp. G-2, G-3).140

Thomas et al. (1990, p. 24) described a “large block” of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat as being 

capable of supporting 15–20 northern spotted owl nesting pairs which they estimated was the minimum 

number for a local, reproductively-stable population. Lamberson et al. (1994), based on modeling, 

estimated that large blocks capable of supporting 20–25 owl pairs would have the highest efficiency of

use by northern spotted owls (i.e., number of northern spotted owl pairs to block size ratio). Although 

‘efficiency of use’ is not a measure of population stability, the BLM considered their findings relevant to 

its evaluation of block size in light of recent information on competitive interactions between northern 

spotted owls and barred owls. Marcot et al. (2013, p. 196), also based on modeling, determined that 

“Long-term occupancy rates of habitats are significantly higher in scenarios with habitat clusters 

supporting at least 25 NSO [northern spotted owl] pairs.” Marcot et al. did not model clusters of 15–20 

northern spotted owl pairs; the next largest cluster size they modeled was 9 pairs. Nonetheless, part of the 

BLM Purpose and Need for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS is to contribute to the conservation and 

recovery of the northern spotted owl, which requires more than managing for essentially static

populations. Therefore, the BLM defined a ‘cluster of reproducing owls’ as at least 25 northern spotted 

owl nesting pairs, and a ‘large block’ as the amount and spatial arrangement of nesting-roosting habitat 

capable of supporting at least 25 pairs. Consequently, a ‘small block’ of habitat is capable of supporting 

1–24 northern spotted owl nesting pairs.

 

140 Studies in the California Klamath and Coast Range provinces (e.g., Dugger et al. 2005) found that habitat 

comprised of a mixture of older and younger forests supported northern spotted owl reproduction better than habitat 

comprised almost exclusively of older forests. However, other studies have not supported that conclusion. Given the 

checkerboard land ownership pattern of BLM-administered lands in much of the planning area, the BLM did not 

consider excessive homogeneity of older forests to be a management issue.
933 | P a g e

Thomas et al. (1990, p. 318) considered large blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat to be 

“distributed across a variety of ecological conditions” when they occurred in all ecological gradients of 

the northern spotted owl’s range (i.e., in all environmental regions of a landscape). The Northwest Forest 

Plan (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994, p. A-3, with map), based on findings by the Forest Ecosystem 

Management and Assessment Team (FEMAT 1993), defined the ecological gradients within the northern 

spotted owl’s range by the boundaries of physiographic provinces which differentiated “areas of common 

biological and physical processes.” The BLM analysis of Conservation Need 1 used the same 

physiographic provinces in the planning area to express ecological condition, in part, because Thomas et 

al. (1990, p. 194) calculated median home range sizes for the northern spotted owl, described below, for 

those provinces. The physiographic provinces in the planning area are the Oregon Western Cascades, 

Oregon Eastern Cascades,141 Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Klamath provinces. The Willamette Valley 

Physiographic Province also occurs in the BLM planning area but does not support habitat for analytically 

meaningful numbers of northern spotted owls.

Thomas et al. (1990, p. 28) defined “spaced to facilitate owl movement between the blocks” as large 

blocks separated by no more than 12 miles (19.3 km) and small blocks separated by no more than 7 miles 

(11.3 km). Marcot et al. (2012, pp. 196–200), based on modeling, determined that habitat blocks with 

similar spacing had significantly higher northern spotted owl occupancy rates than blocks with larger 

spacing.

The BLM qualified its criteria for meeting Conservation Need 1, based on previous modeling (USDI 

BLM 2008a[2], pp. 4-646 – 4-655; No Timber Harvest reference analysis), according to the limited 

quantities and distributions of BLM-administered lands in some portions of the planning area—most 

notably in the northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Province—which might preclude the BLM from 

contributing to properly-spaced habitat blocks everywhere in the planning area. The BLM identified such 

areas by completing a No Timber Harvest reference analysis, which forecasted potential habitat changes 

on (1) BLM-administered lands in the planning area from forest ingrowth and wildfire but in the absence 

of forest treatment (i.e., no timber harvest), and (2) all other lands in the range of the northern spotted owl

from forest ingrowth, timber harvest, and losses due to insects, disease and wildfire.

To address Conservation Need 1, the BLM identified areas in the planning area with the quantity and 

spatial arrangement of habitat sufficient to support at least one northern spotted owl nesting pair. As 

explained below, ‘spatial arrangement’ is a function of the median annual home range of the northern 

spotted owl, which varies by physiographic province, and the minimum amount of habitat that must occur 

within both the median annual home range area and the 500-acre (200-ha) core use area surrounding a 

potential nest site. Table 3-270 shows these values. The BLM based the size of the median annual home 

range in each physiographic province on Thomas et al. (1990, p. 194). Because Conservation Need 1 

addresses reproducing northern spotted owls, and foraging habitat commonly does not support nesting 

(USDI FWS 2011a, p. G-2), the BLM analyses relied on nesting-roosting habitat.

 

141 Only a portion of the Oregon Eastern Cascades Physiographic Province occurs in the planning area.
934 | P a g e

Table 3-270. Metrics to identify blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat

Physiographic Province

Median 

Annual 

Home 

Range 

(Acres)

Radius of a 

Circle Equal in 

Size to the 

Median Annual

Home Range

(Miles)

Calculated Minimum 

Quantity of NestingRoosting Habitat 

Within a Median 

Annual Home Range

(Acres)

Calculated 

Minimum Quantity 

of Nesting-Roosting 

Habitat Within a 

500-acre Core Area

(Acres)

Oregon Western Cascades 2,900 1.2 1,450 250

Oregon Coast Range 4,520 1.5 2,260 250

Oregon Klamath 3,400 1.3 1,700 250

Thomas et al. (1990, p. 194) first tabulated median annual home ranges of northern spotted owl pairs in 

different study areas and physiographic provinces. According to Courtney et al. (2004, p. 5-5), although 

the sizes of northern spotted owl home ranges differ by physiographic province and forest type, and 

among individual owl pairs within a study area, research since 1990 has shown that provincial variations 

are similar to those tabulated by Thomas et al. (1990, p. 194). However, neither Thomas et al. (1990) nor 

Courtney et al. (2004, pp. 5–24) estimated the median annual home range size in the Oregon Eastern 

Cascades Physiographic Province. Therefore, the BLM applied the Oregon Western Cascades metrics in 

Table 3-270 (and Table 3-271, below) to the Oregon Eastern Cascades due to their proximity and 

because Davis et al. (2011, pp. 34–35), for their analyses of northern spotted owl habitat, merged the two 

provinces due to their ecological similarities.

Table 3-271. Metrics to identify and map large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat

Physiographic Province

Median Annual

Home Range

(Acres)

Minimum Area

of a Large Habitat Block

(Acres)

Oregon Western Cascades 2,900 54,375

Oregon Coast Range 4,520 84,750

Oregon Klamath 3,400 63,750

The ‘calculated minimum quantity of nesting-roosting habitat within a median annual home range’ for 

each physiographic province, shown in Table 3-270, is based on Courtney et al. (2004, Chapter 5, Table 

5-1), Olson et al. (2004, pp. 1048–1052), and Dugger et al. (2005, pp. 873–875). It is a multiple of the 

median annual home range area and the minimum quantity of nesting-roosting habitat (50 percent) that 

should occur in that area to support owl survival and reproduction. The quantity of nesting-roosting 

habitat is not the best predictor of owl reproduction and survival, and the observed quantities of nestingroosting habitat within occupied owl home ranges vary by region and by study. Nevertheless, based on 

expert advice (Thrailkill 2005; Jim Thrailkill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication to 

Eric Greenquist, 2005; and Robert Anthony and Eric Forsman, both with the Oregon Cooperative 

Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, and Joe Lint, BLM, personal communications to Eric 

Greenquist, 2007; also see USDI BLM 2008a[1], p. 3-288), the BLM considered a northern spotted owl

territory to be unstable when less than 40 to 50 percent of the land within the home range supported 

nesting-roosting habitat.

Bingham and Noon (1997, pp. 133–138) defined the core use area as that portion of a northern spotted 

owl home range that receives disproportionately high use by owls for nesting, roosting and access to prey; 

they suggested that 60–70 percent of owl activity during the breeding season occurs in about 20 percent 

of the home range. Even though observed core area sizes vary among northern spotted owls (Courtney et 

al. 2004, p. 5-5), Jim Thrailkill (2005; and personal communication to Eric Greenquist, BLM, 2005) 
935 | P a g e

determined that Bingham and Noon (1997), Wagner and Anthony (1999), Franklin et al. (2000) and Irwin 

et al. (2004) collectively suggested a core area of 500 acres (200 ha). Meyer et al. (1998, pp. 24–25) and 

Zabel et al. (2003, pp. 1032–1037) found that their best fitting models for predicting owl occupancy also 

were at the 500-acre scale. Based on several studies (e.g., Bart 1995, Franklin et al. 2000, Zabel et al.

2003, and Dugger et al. 2005) and expert advice (Robert Anthony, Eric Forsman and Joe Lint personal 

communications to Eric Greenquist, 2007; also see USDI BLM 2008a[1], pp. 3-288 – 3-289), the BLM 

determined that 250 acres (50 percent of a 500-acre core use area) of nesting-roosting habitat within a 

500-acre circle was needed for a functional core use area142.

This issue presents an analysis of the cumulative effects on large blocks of northern spotted owl habitat of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land management on BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

Because Conservation Need 1 is not specific to BLM-administered lands, the BLM analysis mapped 

blocks of nesting-roosting habitat on all land ownerships in the planning area (and 10 km into 

Washington and California). To do this the BLM analysis ‘moved’ a 500-acre (200-ha; core use area-size) 

circle over the planning area, centering it in turn on each 30 × 30-m pixel, and calculated the acres of 

nesting-roosting habitat on all lands in that circle. For those 500-acre circles that supported at least 250 

acres of nesting-roosting habitat, the BLM analysis calculated the acres of nesting-roosting habitat within 

the associated provincial median annual home range circle.143 Where the amount of nesting-roosting 

habitat within the median annual home range circle also met or exceeded the ‘calculated minimum 

quantity of nesting-roosting habitat within a median annual home range’ shown in Table 3-270, the BLM 

analysis defined all lands in that median annual home range circle as a block of nesting-roosting habitat. 

The BLM considered such a block to have both the quantity and spatial arrangement of nesting-roosting 

habitat capable of supporting a pair of reproducing northern spotted owls, regardless of observed owl 

occupancy.

In this manner, the BLM analysis evaluated the areas around all 30 × 30-m pixels, on all land ownerships 

in the planning area. Where blocks of nesting-roosting habitat overlapped, the BLM analysis aggregated 

those blocks into a single block of nesting-roosting habitat. The BLM aggregated habitat blocks in this 

manner because, when their potential nest locations are separated by more than the diameter of the 

median annual home range circle, northern spotted owl pairs are less able to support each other 

demographically (i.e., their dispersing young are less likely to encounter each other and form nesting 

pairs), which is required for an owl cluster.

As described above, a ‘large block’ is capable of supporting at least 25 pairs of northern spotted owls. The 

BLM determined the minimum size of a large block using a formula adapted from Thomas et al. (1990, p. 

198, 25 owl pairs × the median annual pair home range size × 0.75). The function 0.75 accounts for the 

estimated 25 percent overlap of northern spotted owl home ranges (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 320). This 

 

142 As explained in Appendix T, the BLM derived the relative habitat suitability value of each 30 × 30-m pixel from 

the means of 11 covariate values within 2,600 feet (800 m) of each pixel; 2,600 feet is the radius of a 500-acre (200-

ha) circle. Thus, the 500-acre core use area, as modeled by the BLM, does not have a hard boundary because relative 

habitat suitability values within the 500-acre circle are diminishingly influenced by variable values up to 2,600 feet 

outside the circle boundary. This better represents how northern spotted owls choose and use core habitat. With 

respect to modeling functional core use areas, the BLM determination is consistent with the literature cited in this 

paragraph, which states that northern spotted owl survival is influenced by forest conditions up to 4,900 feet (1,500 

m) from site centers, and core use sizes vary substantively among studies and site locations due to reasons in 

addition to the amount of older forest. Since the BLM chose the 500-acre circle scale, as influenced by variable 

values up to 2,600 feet away, to better simulate how northern spotted owls select and use site locations, the BLM 

used the same scale to evaluate habitat block development.

143 Table 3-270 shows the province-specific radii of such circles. For home range circles that fell in more than one 

province, this analysis used the province-specific metrics appropriate for the center pixel.
936 | P a g e

formula generated the minimum area of a large block of nesting-roosting habitat for each province, shown 

in Table 3-271. 

If the area of a habitat block equaled or exceeded the ‘minimum area of a large habitat block’ shown in 

Table 3-271, the BLM analysis defined that block as a large block of nesting-roosting habitat. The BLM 

classified the remaining blocks as small blocks of nesting-roosting habitat. Finally, the BLM analysis 

delineated the area around each block: 6 miles (9.7 km) from the boundaries of large blocks and 3.5 miles 

(5.6 km) from the boundaries of small blocks. 

The products were maps of the planning area showing large and small habitat blocks on all land 

ownerships at decadal increments, each surrounded by delineations to help visually determine if large 

blocks would be within 12 miles (19.3 km) of other large blocks and small blocks would be within 7 

miles (11.3 km) of large or other small blocks. Since the underlying relative habitat suitability surfaces 

varied between Alternative C, the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, and the Proposed RMP, and by 

decade over 50 years, the resulting maps and their habitat block configurations also varied by 

management scenario and decade. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-179 shows the current locations of large and small habitat blocks in the planning area, and areas 

within 6 miles of large blocks and within 3.5 miles of small blocks. Currently, large habitat blocks, each 

capable of supporting a cluster of reproducing northern spotted owls (i.e., at least 25 owl pairs), are 

distributed across the variety of ecological conditions (i.e., in all physiographic provinces). In addition, 

the large blocks are spaced to facilitate northern spotted owl movement between and through the large 

blocks in and between the Oregon Western Cascades, Oregon Eastern Cascades and Oregon Klamath 

provinces, and between the Oregon Klamath Province and the southern half of the Oregon Coast Range 

Province. However, the northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Province currently supports one large 

habitat block, which is not spaced properly with any other large habitat block. In addition, the small 

habitat blocks in this area, when added to the single large habitat block, are insufficient to meet 

Conservation Need 1. 
937 | Page

Figure 3-179. The current (2013) positions of northern spotted owl habitat blocks in western Oregon 

Notes: Dark green blocks are capable of supporting ≥ 25 pairs; dark orange blocks are capable of supporting 1–24 pairs. Light 

green denotes areas within 6 miles of dark green blocks; light orange denotes areas within 3.5 miles of dark orange blocks. 

Figure 3-180 shows the capability of the forested landscape managed by the BLM in the planning area to 

contribute to habitat block development in 30 years (2043) and 50 years (2063) according to the No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis. As evidenced by this figure, the forested landscape managed by the 

BLM is capable of continuing to contribute to a western Oregon landscape that meets Conservation Need 

1 in both 30- and 50-year timeframes, except in the northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Province. 

937 | Page

Figure 3-179. The current (2013) positions of northern spotted owl habitat blocks in western Oregon 

Notes: Dark green blocks are capable of supporting ≥ 25 pairs; dark orange blocks are capable of supporting 1–24 pairs. Light 

green denotes areas within 6 miles of dark green blocks; light orange denotes areas within 3.5 miles of dark orange blocks. 

Figure 3-180 shows the capability of the forested landscape managed by the BLM in the planning area to 

contribute to habitat block development in 30 years (2043) and 50 years (2063) according to the No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis. As evidenced by this figure, the forested landscape managed by the 

BLM is capable of continuing to contribute to a western Oregon landscape that meets Conservation Need 

1 in both 30- and 50-year timeframes, except in the northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Province. 
938 | Page

Figure 3-180. The potential contributions of BLM-administered lands in western Oregon to habitat 

blocks in 2043 and 2063 according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

Figure 3-181 shows the locations of northern spotted owl habitat blocks in 30 years (2043) and 50 years 

(2063) under Alternative C. Figure 3-182 shows the locations of northern spotted owl habitat blocks in 

30 years (2043) and 50 years (2063) under the Proposed RMP. During the next 50 years, under 

Alternative C and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would contribute to a landscape that supports large blocks 

of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat in accordance with Conservation Need 1, with the exception of 

the northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Province in which the BLM has no opportunity to contribute 

to properly spaced large habitat blocks because of the limited extent of BLM-administered lands. 

938 | Page

Figure 3-180. The potential contributions of BLM-administered lands in western Oregon to habitat 

blocks in 2043 and 2063 according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

Figure 3-181 shows the locations of northern spotted owl habitat blocks in 30 years (2043) and 50 years 

(2063) under Alternative C. Figure 3-182 shows the locations of northern spotted owl habitat blocks in 

30 years (2043) and 50 years (2063) under the Proposed RMP. During the next 50 years, under 

Alternative C and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would contribute to a landscape that supports large blocks 

of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat in accordance with Conservation Need 1, with the exception of 

the northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Province in which the BLM has no opportunity to contribute 

to properly spaced large habitat blocks because of the limited extent of BLM-administered lands. 
939 | Page

Figure 3-181. Northern spotted owl habitat block locations in 2043 and 2063 under Alternative C 

Note: The circled area is discussed in the text. 

939 | Page

Figure 3-181. Northern spotted owl habitat block locations in 2043 and 2063 under Alternative C 

Note: The circled area is discussed in the text. 
940 | Page

Figure 3-182. Northern spotted owl habitat block locations in 2043 and 2063 under the Proposed RMP 

Note: The circled area is discussed in the text. 

The substantive difference between the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, on the one hand, and 

Alternative C and the Proposed RMP, on the other hand, is that by 2043 a portion of the large habitat 

block in the northern half of the Coast Range Province (circled areas in Figure 3-181 and Figure 3-182) 

would not develop as well under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP as it could according to the No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis (Figure 3-180). However, under both Alternative C and the Proposed 

RMP, the 2043 spacing between the large and small habitat blocks in this area is sufficient for northern 

spotted owl movement between the blocks. In addition, by 2063 this substantive difference would 

disappear (2063 maps in Figure 3-180, Figure 3-181, and Figure 3-182).

The remaining differences among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP and the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis are negligible in terms of their overall contributions to Conservation Need 1. In fact, 

the different Late-Successional Reserve designs would make surprisingly similar contributions to the 

development of large habitat blocks over time. The alternatives and the Proposed RMP reserve those 

940 | Page

Figure 3-182. Northern spotted owl habitat block locations in 2043 and 2063 under the Proposed RMP 

Note: The circled area is discussed in the text. 

The substantive difference between the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, on the one hand, and 

Alternative C and the Proposed RMP, on the other hand, is that by 2043 a portion of the large habitat 

block in the northern half of the Coast Range Province (circled areas in Figure 3-181 and Figure 3-182) 

would not develop as well under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP as it could according to the No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis (Figure 3-180). However, under both Alternative C and the Proposed 

RMP, the 2043 spacing between the large and small habitat blocks in this area is sufficient for northern 

spotted owl movement between the blocks. In addition, by 2063 this substantive difference would 

disappear (2063 maps in Figure 3-180, Figure 3-181, and Figure 3-182).

The remaining differences among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP and the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis are negligible in terms of their overall contributions to Conservation Need 1. In fact, 

the different Late-Successional Reserve designs would make surprisingly similar contributions to the 

development of large habitat blocks over time. The alternatives and the Proposed RMP reserve those 
941 | P a g e

BLM-administered lands necessary to support large habitat blocks and, once those lands are reserved, 

reserving additional lands provides little added support to the development and spacing of large habitat 

blocks. 

Issue 2 

In accordance with Conservation Need 2, would the alternatives contribute to a landscape in the 

planning area that facilitates northern spotted owl movement between and through large blocks of 

nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat and ensures the survival of dispersing owls? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

To meet Conservation Need 2, the BLM would contribute to a western Oregon landscape that, within 30 

to 50 years, supports northern spotted owl movement between the physiographic provinces, and between 

and through the large blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within each physiographic 

province.144 Because this conservation need is not specific to BLM-administered lands, the BLM 

forecasted the development of northern spotted owl dispersal habitat on all lands in the planning area 

during the next 50 years. 

This issue presents an analysis of the cumulative effects on northern spotted owl dispersal habitat of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land management on BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

Even though Thomas et al. (1990, pp. 27–29, Appendix J) and Courtney et al. (2004, Chapter 5) defined 

the structural characteristics of dispersal habitat, the scientific literature on the northern spotted owl does 

not define the quantity or spatial arrangement of such habitat needed to support spotted owl movement or 

the survival of dispersing owls. Instead, Thomas et al. (1990, pp. 27, 309–310) stated that, if 50 percent of 

the land in a regulated forest supported stands that were older than 40 years (i.e., had an average trunk 

diameter of at least 11” [0.3 m] at breast height and a canopy closure of at least 40 percent), and were 

managed in association with stands of older forest (e.g., visual and riparian corridors, and stands 

harvested on relatively long rotations), then “We would expect much of that managed landbase to be 

suitable for passage by dispersing northern spotted owls.” Although Forsman et al. (2002) subsequently 

examined northern spotted owl dispersal, the relationship between the degree of forest fragmentation, and 

the movement and survival of dispersing owls, was beyond the scope of their study (p. 22). 

Davis et al. (2011, pp. 40–43) first modeled the spatial arrangement of habitat needed to support the 

movement of northern spotted owls. Davis et al. based their model on empirical evidence that at least 40 

percent habitat within (i.e., at the scale of) a 15.5-mile (25.0 km) radius circle is sufficient to support 

dispersing northern spotted owls (Davis et al. 2011, p. 40). Marcot et al. (2012, p. 202), based on 

modeling, reported similar results, stating “The various combinations of size and spacing of habitat 

clusters that produced at least 35–40% of the landscape in habitat seemed adequate to provide for 

successful NSO [northern spotted owl] dispersal and recolonization.”

 

144 In addition to northern spotted owl movement between habitat blocks, Conservation Need 2 addresses habitat 

conditions outside habitat blocks that support the survival of dispersing northern spotted owls (i.e., all life functions 

until a northern spotted owl can establish a territory). In the Draft RMP/EIS (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 765–773) the 

BLM modeled how northern spotted owls would move and survive across the planning area (i.e., dispersal flux) 

under each alternative and over time. The BLM determined that, under all alternatives, change in simulated northern 

spotted owl movement and survival over time primarily was a function of competitive interactions between northern 

spotted owls and barred owls, as opposed to habitat changes resulting from BLM planning decisions (USDI BLM 

2015, p. 773). Therefore, the BLM did not model dispersal flux for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 
942 | P a g e

To evaluate northern spotted owl movement, the BLM produced decadal maps of habitat in the planning 

area capable of supporting such movement, relying on the distance and habitat quantity thresholds 

developed by Davis et al. (2011, p. 40). As described in Appendix T, Sections A and B, to conform to 

BLM planning needs to forecast habitat change, the BLM northern spotted owl relative habitat suitability 

surfaces differed from that used by Davis et al. (2011). 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-183 shows those lands in the planning area that supported northern spotted owl dispersal in 

2013. Figure 3-184 shows how the forested landscape managed by the BLM is capable of contributing to 

dispersal capability in 2043 and 2063 according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. In both 

figures, the areas of western Oregon that are capable of supporting northern spotted owl dispersal are 

indicated by stippling. Because the No Timber Harvest reference analysis simulates only the effects of 

forest ingrowth and wildfire on BLM-administered lands, the BLM shows only these two decadal maps; 

the intermediate decadal maps show a transition of dispersal-capable lands between those in Figure 3-183

and Figure 3-184. 
943 | Page

Figure 3-183. The northern spotted owl dispersal-capable landscape (stippled areas) in 2013, according to 

the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

943 | Page

Figure 3-183. The northern spotted owl dispersal-capable landscape (stippled areas) in 2013, according to 

the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 
944 | Page

Figure 3-184. The northern spotted owl dispersal-capable landscape (stippled areas) in 2043 and 2063, 

according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

Note: The circled areas are discussed in the text. 

Currently, BLM-administered lands contribute to north-south northern spotted owl movement throughout 

the Oregon Western Cascades Province and through much of the Oregon Klamath Province (Figure 3-

183). However, current habitat conditions do not support adequate north-south northern spotted owl 

movement through much of the Oregon Coast Range Province or between the Oregon Coast Range and 

the other physiographic provinces. According to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, the forested 

landscape managed by the BLM is capable of progressively improving the dispersal-capable landscape 

during the next 50 years (Figure 3-184), contributing to habitat conditions that support north-south 

northern spotted owl dispersal through the Oregon Coast Range Province and between the Oregon Coast 

Range and the Oregon Klamath and Oregon Western Cascades provinces. Most importantly, by 2063 

BLM-administered lands are capable of contributing to areas that support northern spotted owl movement 

between the northern and southern portions of the Oregon Coast Range Province (the circled area west of 

Salem), and between the Oregon Coast Range and the Oregon Western Cascades provinces (the circled 

944 | Page

Figure 3-184. The northern spotted owl dispersal-capable landscape (stippled areas) in 2043 and 2063, 

according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

Note: The circled areas are discussed in the text. 

Currently, BLM-administered lands contribute to north-south northern spotted owl movement throughout 

the Oregon Western Cascades Province and through much of the Oregon Klamath Province (Figure 3-

183). However, current habitat conditions do not support adequate north-south northern spotted owl 

movement through much of the Oregon Coast Range Province or between the Oregon Coast Range and 

the other physiographic provinces. According to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, the forested 

landscape managed by the BLM is capable of progressively improving the dispersal-capable landscape 

during the next 50 years (Figure 3-184), contributing to habitat conditions that support north-south 

northern spotted owl dispersal through the Oregon Coast Range Province and between the Oregon Coast 

Range and the Oregon Klamath and Oregon Western Cascades provinces. Most importantly, by 2063 

BLM-administered lands are capable of contributing to areas that support northern spotted owl movement 

between the northern and southern portions of the Oregon Coast Range Province (the circled area west of 

Salem), and between the Oregon Coast Range and the Oregon Western Cascades provinces (the circled 

Currently, BLM-administered lands contribute to north-south northern spotted owl movement 

throughout the Oregon Western Cascades Province and through much of the Oregon Klamath Province 

(Figure 3-183). However, current habitat conditions do not support adequate north-south northern 

spotted owl movement through much of the Oregon Coast Range Province or between the Oregon Coast 

Range and the other physiographic provinces. According to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, 

the forested landscape managed by the BLM is capable of progressively improving the dispersal-capable 

landscape during the next 50 years (Figure 3-184), contributing to habitat conditions that support northsouth northern spotted owl dispersal through the Oregon Coast Range Province and between the Oregon 

Coast Range and the Oregon Klamath and Oregon Western Cascades provinces. Most importantly, by 

2063 BLM-administered lands are capable of contributing to areas that support northern spotted owl 

movement between the northern and southern portions of the Oregon Coast Range Province (the area 

west of Salem), and between the Oregon Coast Range and the Oregon Western Cascades provinces (the 

area south of Eugene), two areas where current habitat conditions appear to create barriers or strong 

filters to northern spotted owl movement and survival (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 767–768).
945 | Page

area south of Eugene), two areas where current habitat conditions appear to create barriers or strong filters 

to northern spotted owl movement and survival (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 767–768). 

Figure 3-185 shows the northern spotted owl dispersal-capable landscape as it would develop in 30 years 

(2043) and 50 years (2063) under Alternative C; Figure 3-186 shows the northern spotted owl dispersalcapable landscape as it would develop in 30 years (2043) and 50 years (2063) under the Proposed RMP. 

The circled areas in each figure indicate the substantive differences between Alternative C and the 

Proposed RMP, and between the Alternative C and the Proposed RMP and the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis. 

Figure 3-185. Dispersal-capable lands (stippled areas), as they would exist in 2043 and 2063, under 

Alternative C 

Note: The circled areas are discussed in the text. 

Figure 3-185 shows the northern spotted owl dispersal-capable landscape as it would develop in 30 years 

(2043) and 50 years (2063) under Alternative C; Figure 3-186 shows the northern spotted owl dispersalcapable landscape as it would develop in 30 years (2043) and 50 years (2063) under the Proposed RMP. 

The areas in each figure indicate the substantive differences between Alternative C and the Proposed RMP, 

and between the Alternative C and the Proposed RMP and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis.

945 | Page

capable landscape as it would develop in 30 years (2043) and 50 years (2063) under the Proposed RMP. 

The circled areas in each figure indicate the substantive differences between Alternative C and the 

Proposed RMP, and between the Alternative C and the Proposed RMP and the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis. 

Figure 3-185. Dispersal-capable lands (stippled areas), as they would exist in 2043 and 2063, under 

Alternative C 

Note: The circled areas are discussed in the text. 
946 | Page

Figure 3-186. Dispersal-capable lands (stippled areas), as they would exist in 2043 and 2063, under the 

Proposed RMP 

Note: The circled areas are discussed in the text. 

When compared to Alternative C (Figure 3-185), by 2063 the Proposed RMP (Figure 3-186) would 

better support north-south northern spotted owl movement through the Oregon Coast Physiographic 

Province (the circled area west of Salem) and northern spotted owl east-west movement between the 

Oregon Coast and Oregon Western Cascades provinces (the circled area south of Eugene). However, 

when compared to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis (Figure 3-184), by 2063 the Proposed RMP 

would appear to provide slightly less support to east-west northern spotted owl movement between the 

Oregon Coast and Oregon Western Cascades provinces (the circled area south of Eugene). This is despite 

the BLM constructing the Proposed RMP to augment the Late-Successional Reserve land use allocation 

specifically to support east-west northern spotted owl movement through this area. 

In spite of this single difference between the Proposed RMP and the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis, the BLM is confident that the Proposed RMP would support northern spotted owl east-west 

946 | Page

Figure 3-186. Dispersal-capable lands (stippled areas), as they would exist in 2043 and 2063, under the 

Proposed RMP 

Note: The circled areas are discussed in the text. 

When compared to Alternative C (Figure 3-185), by 2063 the Proposed RMP (Figure 3-186) would 

better support north-south northern spotted owl movement through the Oregon Coast Physiographic 

Province (the circled area west of Salem) and northern spotted owl east-west movement between the 

Oregon Coast and Oregon Western Cascades provinces (the circled area south of Eugene). However, 

when compared to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis (Figure 3-184), by 2063 the Proposed RMP 

would appear to provide slightly less support to east-west northern spotted owl movement between the 

Oregon Coast and Oregon Western Cascades provinces (the circled area south of Eugene). This is despite 

the BLM constructing the Proposed RMP to augment the Late-Successional Reserve land use allocation 

specifically to support east-west northern spotted owl movement through this area. 

In spite of this single difference between the Proposed RMP and the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis, the BLM is confident that the Proposed RMP would support northern spotted owl east-west 

When compared to Alternative C (Figure 3-185), by 2063 the Proposed RMP (Figure 3-186) would 

better support north-south northern spotted owl movement through the Oregon Coast Physiographic 

Province (the area west of Salem) and northern spotted owl east-west movement between the Oregon 

Coast and Oregon Western Cascades provinces (the area south of Eugene). However, when compared 

to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis (Figure 3-184), by 2063 the Proposed RMP would 

appear to provide slightly less support to east-west northern spotted owl movement between the 

Oregon Coast and Oregon Western Cascades provinces (the area south of Eugene). This is despite the 

BLM constructing the Proposed RMP to augment the Late-Successional Reserve land use allocation 

specifically to support east-west northern spotted owl movement through this area.

In spite of this single difference between the Proposed RMP and the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis, the BLM is confident that the Proposed RMP would support northern spotted owl east-west 
947 | P a g e

movement through this area as well as can be achieved with its administered lands. As described in the 

Draft RMP/EIS (USDI BLM 2015, p. 768), the BLM delineation of lands capable of supporting northern 

spotted owl movement are influenced by an artifact of scale. In other words, the determination of whether 

each point on the landscape is capable of supporting northern spotted owl movement is based on the mean 

of all habitat values within a 15.5-mile radius (~ 196,000 ha) circle around each point. Thus, the 

delineation of lands that support northern spotted owl movement is influenced by non-habitat within 15.5 

miles. In this case, the delineations of lands that support east-west northern spotted owl movement 

between the Oregon Coast and Oregon Western Cascades provinces is influenced by large areas of nonhabitat: the Willamette Valley immediately to the north and the Umpqua Basin immediately to the south. 

The BLM confirmed this by analyzing 2013 dispersal flux through this area (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 767–

769). Since, under the Proposed RMP, the BLM specifically configured its Late-Successional Reserve 

network to maximize its contribution to east-west northern spotted owl movement through this area (even 

though it did not include all BLM-administered lands within 15.5 miles of this area), the BLM concludes 

that the Proposed RMP would maximize its contribution to Conservation Need 2. 

Issue 3 

In accordance with Conservation Need 3, would the alternatives contribute to a coordinated, adaptive 

management effort to reduce the loss of habitat due to catastrophic wildfire throughout the northern 

spotted owl’s range?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service addresses catastrophic wildfire as a separate Conservation Need. 

However, wildfire is relevant to northern spotted owl conservation only because it modifies northern 

spotted owl habitat and, consequently, demography, which the BLM addressed by evaluating 

Conservations Needs 1, 2, and 4. As explained in Appendix T, the relative habitat suitability surfaces the 

BLM developed to address Conservation Needs 1, 2, and 4 incorporate habitat changes from wildfire. The 

BLM methodology for modeling wildfire is shown in Appendix D. Thus, the evaluations of Conservation 

Needs 1, 2, and 4 also address Conservation Need 3. The BLM needed no additional analysis. 

Issue 4 

In accordance with Conservation Need 4, would the alternatives, in areas of significant population 

decline, sustain the full range of survival and recovery options for the northern spotted owl in light of 

significant uncertainty? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

To meet Conservation Need 4, the BLM would contribute to a landscape that supports, in light of current 

uncertainties, reproductively viable northern spotted owl populations in each western Oregon modeling 

region during the next 50 years or, if the No Timber Harvest reference analysis indicates that supporting 

populations for 50 years is not possible, during the next 30 years. Because this conservation need is not 

specific to BLM-administered lands, the BLM simulated on all land ownerships the northern spotted owl 

population responses to habitat changes and competitive interactions with barred owls. The BLM 

evaluated those population responses in terms of population size and population extirpation risk.145

 

145 For the Draft RMP/EIS (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 782–783, 800–804), the BLM also modeled how northern spotted 

owl population sources would change under each alternative and over time. However, the BLM determined that, 

under all alternatives, change in simulated northern spotted owl population sources over time primarily was 

determined by competitive interactions between northern spotted owls and barred owls, as opposed to habitat 

changes resulting from BLM planning decisions (USDI BLM 2015, p. 804). Therefore, the BLM did not evaluate 

northern spotted owl population sources for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 
948 | P a g e

This issue presents an analysis of the cumulative effects on northern spotted owl population response of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land management on BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

In 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service convened seven experts to identify threats to the northern 

spotted owl (USDI FWS 2011b). The experts identified past habitat loss, current habitat loss, and 

competition from barred owls as the most pressing threats, even though implementation of the Northwest 

Forest Plan had reduced the rate of timber harvest on Federal lands. They noted evidence of these threats 

in the scientific literature. The range of threat scores by the individual experts was narrowest for barred 

owl competition, indicating more agreement about the threat from barred owls.

Northern spotted owl populations are declining across their range at an annual rate of 3.8 percent (Dugger

et al. 2016, p. 70). Therefore, ‘areas of significant population decline’ include the entire planning area. A 

principal cause of the decline is competition from barred owls, which have colonized portions of 

Washington, Oregon, and California during the past forty years. Barred owls now occupy the entire range 

of the northern spotted owl, utilize all northern spotted owl habitats and prey species, displace northern 

spotted owls from their breeding territories, inhibit northern spotted owls from establishing new 

territories, and outbreed northern spotted owls (Forsman et al. 2011, Van Lanen et al. 2011, Dugger et al.

2011, Wiens et al. 2014). Although BLM-administered lands play a key role in northern spotted owl 

conservation in some portions of the planning area (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 768–769, 804), current 

research provides no evidence that the BLM can manage individual forest stands to provide northern 

spotted owls with a competitive advantage over barred owls (Dugger et al. 2011 and Wiens et al. 2014). 

Instead, research reaffirms the importance of older forest conditions and managing for large blocks of 

unfragmented older forest (Dugger et al. 2011, p. 2463; Wiens et al. 2014, pp. 36–38).

To address Conservation Needs 1 and 2, the BLM examined potential BLM contributions to northern 

spotted owl habitat in the planning area: to the formation of blocks of nesting-roosting habitat, to spacing 

between the blocks, and to habitat conditions that support northern spotted owl movement and survival146

between and through the blocks. The BLM northern spotted owl relative habitat suitability surfaces 

include forecasts, on all land ownerships, of forest ingrowth, forest treatment, and wildfire. Therefore, to 

address Conservation Need 4, the BLM simulated how northern spotted owl populations would respond 

to changing habitat conditions on a landscape occupied by barred owls. Even though the BLM analyses 

focused on the planning area, the BLM modeled northern spotted owl population responses throughout 

the United States-portion of their range because the movement of northern spotted owls across the 

planning area boundaries would affect owl populations in the planning area.

Population Modeling

To address Conservation Need 4, the BLM used a spatially explicit, individual-based HexSim model 

(Schumaker 2011) to simulate northern spotted owl demographic responses over time.147 Although 

computer modeling commonly involves an inherent tension between improved realism and errors 

 

146 Within the analysis of dispersal flux (USDI 2015, pp. 767–769), the BLM evaluated northern spotted owl

movement and survival. For reasons explained at the beginning of the northern spotted owl section, the BLM limited 

the current analysis of Alternative C and the Proposed RMP to northern spotted owl movement.

147 Due to the number of biological and physical variables that affect northern spotted owl demography, some of 

which are not fully understood, no model can accurately forecast a northern spotted owl demographic response over 

50 years. However, the BLM determined that the individual-based HexSim model developed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service for the northern spotted owl represented the best analytical tool to simulate northern spotted owl 

responses to the alternatives and the Proposed RMP and, thus, help inform BLM decision-making (Appendix T). 

That said, the BLM does not intend to portray its northern spotted owl population forecasts as absolute values, but 

only as comparative outcomes of alternate management scenarios in terms of general populations numbers, trends 

and risk probabilities.
949 | P a g e

associated with increased complexity, HexSim was designed to quantify wildlife population responses to 

multiple, interacting environmental stressors, as deemed appropriate, without unnecessarily simplifying 

landscapes, species’ life histories, or disturbances. HexSim also can—

 Incorporate environmental stochasticity (i.e., species traits, such as individual fecundity and survival, 

as probabilities based on observed rates instead of as less-realistic fixed parameters) 

 Operate at relatively fine spatial scales, in this case at a scale of 214-acre (86.6-ha) hexagons; 

 Generate a full set of demographic response data, including simulated numbers and locations of 

individual northern spotted owls, at any year, which is important for BLM evaluations of northern 

spotted owl responses to alternatives and the Proposed RMP; and 

 Generate both rate-based and count-based matrices for each modeling region during each decade. 

 Count-based matrices record the numbers of individuals moving between locations, important for 

evaluating northern spotted owl movement and survival. 

 Rate-based matrices are important for evaluating how habitat change affects the northern spotted 

owl population in an ecologically meaningful way.148

The BLM determined that the HexSim model developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to inform 

its decisions on northern spotted owl recovery and critical habitat (USDI FWS 2011a, pp. Appendix C; 

USDI FWS 2012), would meet, and could be adapted to, BLM planning needs with cost and technical 

efficiency (i.e., this model incorporated appropriate information on northern spotted owl demography and 

ecology, including barred owl competition, without introducing unnecessary analytical assumptions or 

complexity). The BLM described its application of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s HexSim model in 

Appendix T.

Analytical Scales 

The BLM evaluated its contributions to Conservation Needs 1 and 2 using the physiographic provinces 

(USDA USFS and USDI BLM 1994, p. A-3), because Thomas et al. (1990, p. 320) defined northern 

spotted owl median home range sizes—which they used to define large habitat blocks—for each 

physiographic province. More recently, Davis et al. (2011, pp. 34–36) modeled northern spotted owl 

relative habitat suitability values according to six modeling regions that were similar to the physiographic 

provinces but based exclusively on ecological divisions (i.e., unlike the physiographic provinces, two 

modeling regions crossed state boundaries). And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, during its process to 

delineate northern spotted owl critical habitat, divided the northern spotted owl range into eleven 

modeling regions (USDI FWS 2011a, pp. C-7 – C-13) on all land ownerships that reflected “regional 

differences in forest environments and factors such as important prey species” (USDI FWS 2011a, p. C7). Again, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service modeling regions (Figure 3-187) were similar to the 

physiographic provinces but four of the regions crossed state boundaries. 

 

148 The BLM arrayed parameters driving population change analytically instead of inferring such parameters from 

habitat patterns, as was done in previous land use planning efforts at this scale (i.e., the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan 

and the 2008 BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions). 
950 | Page

Figure 3-187. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service modeling regions 

Note: Acronyms are defined in Table 3-272 below (2011a, pp. C-7 – C-13). 

To address Conservation Need 4, the BLM tabulated results at the scales of the physiographic provinces 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service modeling regions, because Schumaker et al. (2014, p. 585) found 

key insights by comparing simulated northern spotted owl responses at different scales. The BLM 

considered tabulating results only for the planning area (i.e., by truncating modeling regions that extended 

into California or Washington at state boundaries), because BLM planning decisions would affect only 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Additionally, tabulating results for regions that extend into 

another state—some of which occur mostly in another state—might ‘dilute’ the analytical effects of BLM 

alternatives. However, the BLM decided to tabulate data by entire modeling regions because those 

regions are most appropriate for examining northern spotted owl population extirpation risk. Aware of the 

limitations of its model, and that the BLM would use results mainly to compare alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP, the BLM felt that tabulating results by entire modeling regions more accurately would 

reflect northern spotted owl responses to the alternatives and the Proposed RMP unaffected by 

biologically-arbitrary divisions at state boundaries. The BLM chose not to tabulate results by the Davis et 
951 | P a g e

al. (2011, pp. 34–36) modeling regions, because it felt that their larger modeling regions, only three of 

which occurred in the planning area, were too coarse to augment the analyses at the other scales.

Barred Owl Encounter Rates

The BLM included the influence of barred owl competition in its modeling of northern spotted owl

population response. Barred owl competition is reflected in the HexSim population modeling by a barred 

owl encounter rate—the estimated probability, based on observation that a northern spotted owl will

encounter a barred owl in the northern spotted owl’s territory—that, in the HexSim model, affects 

northern spotted owl survival.149

In the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM changed how it applied barred owl encounter rates in its 

HexSim model. As described below, the BLM updated the barred owl encounter rates based on results 

from the 2016 northern spotted meta-analysis (Dugger et al. 2016). In addition, for reasons described 

below, for the Draft RMP/EIS the BLM completed supplemental analyses of some alternatives using a

modified barred owl encounter rate specific to each modeling region, which the BLM applied uniformly 

to each modeling region. For the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM delineated a network of barred owl 

control areas and applied an updated modified barred owl encounter rate in those control areas only, 

applying the estimated barred owl encounter rates in the remainder of each modeling region (Appendix 

T, Section E).

Estimated Encounter Rates

For the Draft RMP/EIS the BLM used estimated barred owl encounter rates (Table 3-272, column 3) 

from USDI FWS 2011a, p. C-66 and Table C-25. For the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM updated the 

estimated encounter rates (Table 3-272, column 4) based on the results of the 2016 northern spotted owl

meta-analysis (Dugger et al. 2016).

 

149 Survival, as used in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s HexSim model, and subsequently by the BLM, was 

derived from Forsman et al. (2011) (see USDI FWS 2011:C-59, C-68 and C-69, and USFWS 2012, pp. 10, 13) and 

results from the 2016 northern spotted owl meta-analysis (Dugger et al. 2016) (Appendix T). Although survival, as 

it is used in the model, might not reflect the ecological processes, such as interference competition, that cause 

northern spotted owls to react to barred owls in specific ways, it is based on scientific research.
952 | P a g e

Table 3-272. Estimated (observed) and modified barred owl encounter rates

Modeling Region* Acronym

Estimated Encounter Rates Modified Encounter Rates

Draft RMP/

EIS

PRMP/

Final EIS

Draft RMP/

EIS

PRMP/

Final EIS

North Coast and Olympics† NCO 0.505 0.515 0.375 0.150

East Cascades-North ECN 0.296 0.374 0.375 0.150

West Cascades-North WCN 0.320 0.405 0.375 0.150

West Cascades-Central WCC 0.320 0.411 0.375 0.150

Oregon Coast† ORC 0.710 0.831 0.375 0.150

West Cascades-South† WCS 0.364 0.442 0.375 0.150

Inner California Coast Range ICC 0.213 0.269 0.250 0.150

East Cascades-South

† ECS 0.180 0.228 0.250 0.150

Klamath-Siskiyou-East† KLE 0.245 0.411 0.250 0.150

Klamath-Siskiyou-West† KLW 0.315 0.398 0.250 0.150

Redwood Coast RDC 0.205 0.259 0.250 0.150

* The names of some modeling regions differ from those shown elsewhere in USDI FWS 2011a: C-9–C-13.

† Modeling regions entirely or partially in the planning area

Note: The estimated encounter rates for the Draft RMP/EIS came from USDI FWS 2011a, p. C-66 and Table C-25; the estimated 

encounter rates for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS came from the results of the 2016 northern spotted owl meta-analysis (Dugger et 

al. 2016). For the Draft RMP/EIS, the modified encounter rates came from USDI FWS 2012, p. 27 and Table 4; for the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS, came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Betsy Glenn, personal communication to Eric Greenquist, 

September 01, 2015).

Modified Encounter Rates

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, during its final simulations to inform its decisions on northern spotted 

owl critical habitat, modified barred owl encounter rates to isolate the effects of habitat on simulated 

northern spotted owl populations and evaluate the relative contributions of different critical habitat 

configurations to northern spotted owl recovery (USDI FWS 2012, pp. 26–27). If the U.S Fish and 

Wildlife Service had used estimated barred owl encounter rates in their analysis, the overwhelming 

negative influence of barred owls on northern spotted owl population responses would have confounded 

the results (USDI FWS 2012, p. 26). These modified encounter rates are shown in Table 3-272, column 

5.

During preparation of the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM used the estimated barred owl encounter rates (Table 

3-272, column 3) derived by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS 2011a, p. C-66 and Table C25). At the suggestion of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM also conducted a second simulation 

of Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis using the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

modified barred owl encounter rates (Table 3-272, column 5) to help parse out the differential effect of 

habitat changes over time from the effects of barred owls.150 The BLM recognized that the relatively high 

 

150 The requirements of regulations and BLM NEPA policy compel the BLM to use current estimated barred owl

encounter rates in this NEPA analysis, but afford the BLM the discretion to include additional analysis using 

modified encounter rates.

 The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service is removing barred owls from four study areas in California, Oregon, and 

Washington to evaluate the feasibility, cost and effectiveness of barred owl removal (USDI FWS 2013). The U.S 

Fish and Wildlife Service completed initial experimental removals in the California study area in 2014 but 

postponed experimental removals in the Oregon and Washington study areas because of funding limitations. The

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s action is relevant to this analysis because Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations for implementing NEPA direct that NEPA analyses address cumulative effects, which include the effects 

of “reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 
953 | P a g e

current barred owl encounter rate observed in the Oregon Coast Modeling Region might prevent northern 

spotted owl persistence in that region regardless of habitat development on BLM-administered lands. 

Modeling Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis with both current and modified 

barred owl encounter rates in the Draft RMP/EIS allowed the BLM to evaluate the influence of barred 

owls coupled with minimum (Alternative C) and maximum (No Timber Harvest reference analysis) 

habitat development on BLM-administered lands, effectively bracketing the possible influence of the 

alternatives on the northern spotted owl population in a scenario of barred owl control.

The Draft RMP/EIS presented modeling results for the No Timber Harvest reference analysis using both 

current barred owl encounter rates and modified barred owl encounter rates to demonstrate the potential 

role of barred owl control independent of habitat removal, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI 

BLM 2015, pp.783–804). The Proposed RMP/Final EIS does not include modeling of the No Timber 

Harvest reference scenario with the updated and refined modified barred owl encounter rates, because the 

analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS already demonstrated the potential role of barred owl control independent 

of habitat removal, which does not represent a reasonable alternative, but a scenario that has utility only

to give context to the analysis of the alternatives. Further updated and refined modeling of the No Timber 

Harvest reference scenario would not improve that analysis.

Application of Encounter Rates

As shown in the northern spotted owl population responses in the Draft RMP/EIS (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 

783–796), when the BLM simulated estimated barred owl encounter rates, those encounter rates mostly or 

completely overwhelmed the effects of habitat development on BLM-administered lands in western 

Oregon under the alternatives. As shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 3-272, in all cases the 2016 barred 

owl encounter rates exceeded those the BLM used for the Draft RMP/EIS, which means that the influence 

of the barred owl on the northern spotted owl population response under each alternative and the 

Proposed RMP would be even stronger in all parts of the northern spotted owl’s range. Therefore, for the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM saw no utility in repeating simulation of northern spotted owl 

population responses in the absence of a barred owl control program with new encounter rates, because 

such an analysis would provide no additional information on the effects of the alternatives or the 

Proposed RMP beyond the analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS. The analysis of the alternatives in the absence 

of a barred owl control program in the Draft RMP/EIS provides a sufficient basis for reaching the 

analytical conclusions on the effects of the alternatives in the absence of a barred owl control program 

and that analysis is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 778–804). Instead, the BLM 

simulated northern spotted owl responses to the Proposed RMP in two ways: (1) using the estimated 

encounter rates (Table 3-272, column 4) throughout each modeling region, and (2) using the modified 

encounter rate (Table 3-272, column 6) in barred owl control areas and the estimated encounter rates 

throughout the remainder of each modeling region.

 

such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). The BLM NEPA Handbook explains that “[r]easonably foreseeable future actions 

are those for which there are existing decisions, funding, formal proposals, or which are highly probable based on 

known opportunities or trends” (USDI BLM 2008, p. 59). Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not 

currently propose to conduct barred owl removal beyond its current study, future barred owl control by the U.S Fish 

and Wildlife Service is not reasonably foreseeable for the purpose of NEPA analysis. For this reason, the BLM must 

use current, estimated barred owl encounter rates in its analysis of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. This is 

not to suggest that the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service will never take future action to control barred owls; the BLM 

simply acknowledges that that the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service has not made a proposal or a decision on future 

barred owl control at this time.

 That said, the BLM NEPA Handbook establishes that the BLM also has discretion regarding analysis of actions 

that are not reasonably foreseeable, stating that additional analysis of speculative future actions “is not required but 

may be useful in some circumstances” (USDI BLM 2008, p. 59). Given this flexibility, the BLM decided to run a 

second No Timber Harvest reference analysis, based on the modified barred owl encounter rates developed by the

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, to help bracket the potential effects of habitat development on BLM-administered 

lands on northern spotted owl population responses.
954 | P a g e

Therefore, for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

model a realistic scenario of a future barred owl control program. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 

recommended that the BLM evaluate its alternatives by delineating hypothetical barred owl control areas, 

and using the 2016 estimated barred owl encounter rates (Table 3-272, column 4) outside control areas 

and a modified encounter rate of 0.150 (Table 3-272, column 6) within the control areas.151 The BLM 

describes its process in Appendix T, Section E. The BLM delineated control areas, and modified the 

barred owl encounter rate within those areas, to forecast the effects of a possible future barred owl control 

program by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service recommended the 

modified encounter rate of 0.150 to reflect the greater effects of barred owl control only in hypothetical 

control areas, which comprise about 10 percent of each modeling region (Appendix T, Section E).

Population Change Analysis

As described above, the BLM simulated northern spotted owl demographic responses over 50 years 

(2013–2063), with relative habitat suitability values changing every decade according to BLM forecasts, 

and then held habitat values constant after 50 years and allowed each of 500 replicate simulations to run 

to 100 years (2113). This allowed the BLM to compare the alternatives and the Proposed RMP in terms of 

simulated northern spotted owl population change and trend during years 2013–2063 and the ability of 

habitat conditions in 2063 to support stable northern spotted owl populations. The BLM ran both 

environmentally stochastic and non-stochastic simulations. In stochastic simulations, the BLM allowed 

the fecundity and survival of individual northern spotted owls to vary probabilistically according to 

observed rates. In non-stochastic simulations, the BLM fixed those variables as the mean of observed 

rates. The stochastic model introduced more variability between replicate simulations (thus, requiring 500 

replicates), making it more reliable for evaluating extinction risk over time using quasi-extinction 

thresholds (described below); the non-stochastic model eliminated that variability (thus requiring only 

100 replicates), making it more reliable for evaluating overall population responses to changing habitat 

conditions.

Based on the analytical results in the Draft RMP/EIS, the modeling results in the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS for Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis bracket the results for the other 

alternatives (i.e., the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and Sub-alternatives B and C). 

Where the analytical results for Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis are 

essentially indistinguishable, the results for Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

represent the effects of the other alternatives as well. Those specific and quantified analyses from the 

Draft RMP/EIS are incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 783–804).

Population Risk Analysis

In this analysis, the BLM used population thresholds of 250 and 100 females in each modeling region, 

respectively representing moderate and high population risk. The BLM set these population thresholds 

consistent with the thresholds used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during its process to delineate 

critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.

The HexSim model developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and adapted by the BLM, simulates 

female northern spotted owls that reproduce probabilistically (i.e., the model does not simulate male 

northern spotted owls or rely on northern spotted owl pair formation). The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 

designed the model this way because female northern spotted owls are more influential on population 

dynamics (USDI FWS 2011a, p. C-56). However, this feature also allows simulated females to reproduce 

 

151 For the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM applied the modified encounter rates [Table 3-272, column 5] for each 

modeling region to the entire modeling region.
955 | P a g e

independently of population size and density. Thus, simulated northern spotted owl populations could 

decline independently of an Allee effect (i.e., a decrease in individual fitness (for example, from 

inbreeding depression or reduced encounters between potential mates) that can occur at low population 

levels and cause sudden, local extirpation) (Akçakaya 2000, p. 3; Singleton 2012, p. 146). This concerned 

the BLM because barred owl encounter rates, in the BLM model, affect northern spotted owl survival. 

Since the BLM model applied estimated barred owl encounter rates uniformly over a modeling region 

(outside the barred owl control areas of some simulations) because available data do not allow for greater 

refinement, the effect to northern spotted owl survival might provide no option for long-term northern 

spotted owl persistence in some regions. That is, local extirpation might be statistically predetermined by 

the parameters of the BLM model. Since the BLM did not design its HexSim model to account fully for 

small population processes, the BLM anticipated situations where regional forecasts of northern spotted 

owl populations might become so low as to be unreliable. It is not possible to model populations of 

species such as northern spotted owls at the scale of this analysis area and fully account for small 

population processes. Thus, the results of population modeling at very low population levels have

inherently low accuracy. Instead, as detailed below, the BLM used quasi- or pseudo-extinction thresholds

in the modeling to provide reliable comparisons of population outcomes under different alternatives.

In previous applications of HexSim, in which modelers did not design their models to account fully for 

small population processes, modelers relied on quasi- or pseudo-extinction thresholds. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, during its process to delineate critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, set quasiextinction thresholds of 250 and 100 females in each modeling region, respectively, representing 

moderate and high population risk, and range-wide thresholds of 1,250 and 1,000 females, also 

respectively representing moderate and high population risk (USDI FWS 2012, pp. 19–21, 30–32). The 

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service set these levels based on what constituted a ‘high risk of extinction’ (USDI 

FWS 2012, p. 20) at each scale. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service based these thresholds on northern 

spotted owl biology and general principles of conservation biology (Betsy Glenn, personal 

communication to Eric Greenquist, October 15, 2014); the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service did not base 

these thresholds on empirical evidence of extinction risk, because such data do not exist. Dunk et al.

(2014, p. 9), using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service modeling regions, used a similar approach for their 

evaluation of northern spotted owls in western Washington, stating that a population of 100 individual 

northern spotted owls “represents a population size below which we believe Spotted Owls would be in 

danger of becoming extirpated,” and “a population of grave concern.” Again, Dunk et al. (2014, p. 9) did 

not base their threshold on empirical evidence of extinction risk, stating, “One hundred individuals is not 

necessarily a ‘tipping point’ population size”; instead, it provides “a quantitative threshold that allows for 

comparison among the baselines and alternative conservation scenarios.” Heinrichs et al. (2010, p. 2233), 

in their simulations of a small population of kangaroo rats, developed quasi-extinction thresholds that, 

again, were based on expert opinion informed by a posteriori analyses that compared how their model 

performed with alternate thresholds (Julie Heinrichs, University of Washington, personal communication 

via email to Eric Greenquist, November 13, 2013). Singleton (2012, p. 146), in his analysis of northern 

spotted owls in the eastern Cascades of Washington, developed a relative index of pseudo-extinction rate 

based on the calculated carrying capacity of his study area, estimating that extinction risk was high when 

simulated northern spotted owl populations fell below 10 percent or 20 percent of the calculated carrying 

capacity. Relative index is important because Singleton only compared the results of different modeling 

scenarios and did not attempt to forecast actual extinction events (Singleton 2012, p. 146, and Peter 

Singleton, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, personal communication via email to 

Eric Greenquist, November 13, 2013).

For its analyses, the BLM relied on the quasi-extinction thresholds established by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service: 250 and 100 females in a modeling region. A regional population of no more than 250 

females is at risk for extirpation, because it is vulnerable to small population processes and stochastic 

events; a regional population of no more than 100 females is de facto extirpated due to the high likelihood 
956 | P a g e

that individuals would be too dispersed to form a cluster. Under Northern Spotted Owl Issue 1, the BLM 

defined a cluster of northern spotted owls—the minimum size of a reproductively-stable population—as 

20–25 breeding pairs that support each other demographically (i.e., their territories overlap such that their 

offspring would readily encounter each other). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also considers a 

regional population of no more than 100 female northern spotted owls to be de facto extirpated (Betsy 

Glenn, personal communication via phone to Eric Greenquist, August 24, 2014.)

Regarding how to portray extinction risk over time, Akçakaya (2000, p. 2) stated that such risk is 

communicated best by specifying the entire distribution of extinction time instead of calculating only the 

mean or median extinction time (i.e., by plotting a cumulative probability distribution that shows the 

probability of extinction at or before a specific time). “Thus, the result becomes (the distribution of) the 

time (e.g., number of years) until the population declines below a predetermined threshold” (Akçakaya 

2000, p. 3, parentheses in original). Therefore, the BLM plotted a cumulative time to quasi-extinction 

curve, for each alternative and the Proposed RMP, using the modeling region-specific quasi-extinction 

thresholds developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS 2012, pp. 19–21, 30–32). This 

allowed the BLM to compare its alternatives and the Proposed RMP in terms of the number of years from 

present during which the simulated northern spotted owl population had a certain probability of persisting 

above these thresholds in each modeling region and range-wide. The BLM did not intend these to be 

actual forecasts of persistence, but only estimates of the relative contribution of each alternative and the 

Proposed RMP to northern spotted owl persistence.

Population Source Analyses

For the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM evaluated northern spotted owl population sources (USDI BLM 2015, 

pp. 800–804) and that analysis is incorporated here by reference. The BLM did not to evaluate population 

sources for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS because, although the results for the Draft RMP/EIS helped the 

BLM refine its network of reserve land use allocations to better protect sources, they also indicated that 

none of the alternatives appreciably altered mean source values across the planning area or limited 

northern spotted owl production in any part of the planning area due to the effects of competitive 

interactions between northern spotted owls and barred owls under all alternatives.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Population Change

Simulations of northern spotted owl population responses for the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

indicate that the forested landscape managed by the BLM is capable of contributing to a range-wide 

northern spotted owl population that would decline from current levels but would stabilize within 40

years (Table 3-273). However, as shown in Table 3-274 and Table 3-275, this range-wide stabilization 

would result mostly from population increases in the California and eastern Cascades-portions of the 

range.152 In the western Cascades, Olympic Peninsula, Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Klamath-portions 

of the range, simulated populations decline throughout the next 50 years.

 

152 However, as described in the next section, Population Risk, the forecast of population increase in the eastern 

Cascades of Oregon has inherently low accuracy.
957 | P a g e

Table 3-273. No Timber Harvest reference analysis: Northern spotted owl range-wide populations (mean 

of 500 replicate non-stochastic simulations) by year

Populations Simulation Year

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

Number of Territorial Females 3,696 3,510 3,397 3,346 3,317 3,319 3,315

Number of All Females 4,763 4,490 4,332 4,259 4,217 4,224 4,218

Table 3-274. No Timber Harvest reference analysis: Simulated northern spotted owl populations (mean 

of 500 replicate non-stochastic simulations), by modeling region and year

Modeling Region Simulation Year

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

West Cascades-North 24 21 20 20 19 18 15

East Cascades-North 308 298 302 308 318 324 321

North Coast and Olympic* 159 137 122 109 97 87 53

West Cascades-Central 154 142 135 129 126 122 107

West Cascades-South* 854 770 695 632 578 532 378

Oregon Coast* 153 105 72 52 36 27 13

East Cascades-South* 170 168 171 174 178 185 195

Klamath-Siskiyou-East* 539 502 466 445 425 414 355

Klamath-Siskiyou-West* 616 581 561 547 533 524 489

Redwood Coast 852 844 861 897 939 988 1,172

Inner California Coast 933 922 927 948 969 1,003 1,121

* Modeling regions entirely or partially in the planning area

Table 3-275. No Timber Harvest reference analysis: Simulated northern spotted owl populations (mean 

of 500 replicate non-stochastic simulations), by physiographic province and year

Physiographic Province Simulation Year

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

Washington Eastern Cascades 182 170 166 165 166 164 156

Washington Western Cascades 167 152 142 133 128 122 105

Washington Western Lowlands 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Washington Olympic Peninsula 142 124 111 100 89 80 49

Oregon Coast Range* 161 110 77 55 38 29 12

Oregon Willamette Valley* 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Oregon Eastern Cascades* 226 233 250 266 285 302 313

Oregon Western Cascades* 1,117 1,008 913 834 764 709 525

Oregon Klamath* 519 486 455 439 422 409 346

California Cascades 80 80 83 86 90 97 124

California Klamath 1,277 1,241 1,228 1,228 1,230 1,244 1,319

California Coast Range 887 883 905 950 1,003 1,065 1,267

* Physiographic provinces entirely or partially in the planning area

Figure 3-188 and Figure 3-189 show forecasts of how northern spotted owl populations would change 

under Alternative C and the Proposed RMP, and according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. 

The forecasts include implementation of the Proposed RMP with and without a barred owl control 

program. The graphs show, for each western Oregon modeling region (Figure 3-188) and each western 

Oregon physiographic province (Figure 3-189), changes in the mean number of females from 500 
958 | P a g e

replicate, non-stochastic simulations. These forecasts are based on decadal changes in habitat conditions 

during 2013–2063, then habitat conditions held static at 2063 levels until 2113.
959 | P a g e

Figure 3-188. Simulated northern spotted owl populations (mean numbers of females from 500 replicate 

non-stochastic simulations) for each western Oregon modeling region, by decade, under Alternative C 

and the Proposed RMP, and according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

Note: The Proposed RMP with and without a barred owl control program are included for comparison. 

50

90

130

170

Simulated Mean Number of 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

North Coast 

and Olympic 

0

40

80

120

160

Simulated Mean Number of 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

Oregon Coast 

300

500

700

900

Simulated Mean Number of 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

West Cascades-South 

160

180

200

220

240

Simulated Mean Number of 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

East Cascades-South 

400

500

600

700

Simulated Mean Number of 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

Klamath-Siskiyou-West

300

400

500

600

Simulated Mean Number of 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

Klamath-Siskiyou-East 
960 | P a g e

Figure 3-189. Simulated northern spotted owl populations (mean numbers of females from 500 replicate 

non-stochastic simulations) for each western Oregon physiographic province, by decade, under 

Alternative C and the Proposed RMP, and according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

Note: The Proposed RMP with and without a barred owl control program are included for comparison. 

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

Simulated Mean Number of NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

Oregon 

Coast Range 

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

Simulated Mean Number of NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

Oregon 

Western Cascades 

200

250

300

350

400

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

Simulated Mean Number of NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

Oregon 

Eastern Cascades 

300

350

400

450

500

550

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

Simulated Mean Number of NSO Females 

Year 

Alt. C

No Timber Harvest

PRMP

PRMP with BO control

Oregon 

Klamath 
961 | P a g e

In general, there would be no discernable difference in the northern spotted owl population response 

under any of the alternatives or sub-alternatives, the Proposed RMP, or a management scenario reflected 

by the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, indicating that northern spotted owl populations would not 

respond substantively to the different amounts and distributions of habitat provided by each alternative 

and the Proposed RMP (i.e., the habitat provided by each alternative and the Proposed RMP would not 

limit the population response). However, in each modeling region and physiographic province, the 

northern spotted owl population response would be substantively higher with implementation of the 

Proposed RMP and a barred owl control program. This indicates that, within the scope of the alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP, the northern spotted owl population response is determined by the effect of 

barred owl encounter rates on northern spotted owl survival.

Coast Range of Oregon

Population simulations for the North Coast and Olympic and the Oregon Coast modeling regions (Figure 

3-188), and the Oregon Coast Range Physiographic Province (Figure 3-189), show no discernable 

difference between all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, or between those alternatives and the No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis. In the North Coast and Olympic Modeling Region, which includes the 

Olympic Peninsula of Washington (Figure 3-187), the number of simulated females would decrease 67

percent during the next 50 years. In the Oregon Coast Modeling Region, the number of simulated females 

would decrease 92 percent in 50 years. Simulations for the Oregon Coast Range Physiographic Province 

(Figure 3-189), which is confined to Oregon, show an essentially identical result: the number of 

simulated females would decrease 93 percent in 50 years.

In this portion of the northern spotted owl’s range, differences in the habitat contributions under all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would have negligible effects on the northern spotted owl population 

response compared to factors that do not differ among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, such as 

starting habitat conditions, how those conditions change on non-BLM-administered lands, and the effect 

of barred owl encounter rates on northern spotted owl survival. Figure 3-188 and Figure 3-189 include 

simulations according to the Proposed RMP with both estimated barred owl encounter rates and encounter 

rates modified to simulate a barred owl control program (Table 3-272). The outcomes illustrate the 

substantive influence of the barred owl on the northern spotted owl population response. However, the 

simulation of the Proposed RMP with a barred owl control program indicates that the forested landscape 

managed by the BLM, even with reduced barred owl encounter rates, is incapable of contributing to a 

stable northern spotted owl population in this portion of the range during the next 50 years.

Western Cascades of Oregon

As shown in simulations for the West Cascades-South Modeling Region (Figure 3-188) and the Oregon 

Western Cascades Physiographic Province (Figure 3-189), the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would 

have an equally negligible influence on the northern spotted owl population response in this portion of the 

range. In the West Cascades-South Modeling Region, the number of simulated females would decrease 56

percent during the next 50 years. In the larger Oregon Western Cascades Physiographic Province, the 

number of simulated females would decrease 53 percent in 50 years.

Similarly to those for the Oregon Coast Range, the simulation of the Proposed RMP with a barred owl

control program indicate that the forested landscape managed by the BLM, even with reduced barred owl 

encounter rates, is incapable of contributing to a stable northern spotted owl population in this portion of 

the range during the next 50 years. However, implementation of a barred owl control program with the 

Proposed RMP would substantially moderate northern spotted owl population declines in this region 

during the next 50 years to 32 percent in the West Cascades-South Modeling Region and 28 percent in the 

Oregon Western Cascades Physiographic Province.
962 | P a g e

Eastern Cascades of Oregon 

In sharp contrast to the Oregon Coast and Western Cascades of Oregon, simulations for the East 

Cascades-South Modeling Region (Figure 3-188) and the Oregon Eastern Cascades Physiographic 

Province (Figure 3-189) forecast positive population changes during the next 50 years. In the East 

Cascades-South Modeling Region, the number of simulated females would increase 15 percent during the 

next 50 years. In the Eastern Cascades Physiographic Province (Figure 3-189), the number of simulated 

females would increase 38 percent in 50 years. The results are different because the East Cascades-South 

Modeling Region includes the southern portion of the eastern Cascades of Oregon and extends into 

California (Figure 3-188), whereas the more northerly Oregon Eastern Cascades Physiographic Province 

includes the entire eastern Cascades of Oregon. 

The simulations indicate that, under the Proposed RMP, the forested landscape managed by the BLM 

would contribute to stable and increasing northern spotted owl populations in this portion of the range 

during the next 50 years, even in the absence of a barred owl control program. (However, as is shown in 

the next section [Population Risk], the northern spotted owl population in this portion of the range 

currently is at risk of extirpation due to its low number.) 

Klamath Basin of Oregon 

Simulations for the Klamath-Siskiyou-West and Klamath-Siskiyou-East modeling regions (Figure 3-188) 

and the Oregon Klamath Physiographic Province (Figure 3-189), show no discernable differences in 

northern spotted owl population responses among the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. In the 

Klamath-Siskiyou-West Modeling Region, the number of simulated females would decrease 21 percent 

during the next 50 years. In the Klamath-Siskiyou-East Modeling Region, the number of simulated 

females would decrease 34 percent in 50 years. In the Oregon Klamath Physiographic Province (Figure 

3-189), the number of simulated females would decrease 33 percent in 50 years. 

However, simulations of the Proposed RMP with a barred owl control program indicate that, during the 

next 50 years, the forested landscape managed by the BLM could contribute to a stable or slightly 

increasing northern spotted owl population in the Klamath-Siskiyou-West Modeling Region, and to stable 

or slightly decreasing populations in the Klamath-Siskiyou-West Modeling Region and the Oregon 

Klamath Physiographic Province (Figure 3-188 and Figure 3-189).

Population Risk 

As shown in Table 3-264, at no time during the simulation of the No Timber Harvest reference analysis 

did the range-wide number of territorial northern spotted owl females decline to the quasi-extinction 

threshold of 1,250 females used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, suggesting that the forested 

landscape managed by the BLM in the planning area is capable of contributing to species persistence 

throughout the next 50 years. That said, Figure 3-190 shows the probability, over time, of the simulated 

northern spotted owl population in each western Oregon modeling region declining to 250 females—the 

quasi-threshold of a population at risk for extirpation—according to the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis. There is at least a 90 percent probability that northern spotted owl populations in the North 

Coast and Olympic and East Cascades-South modeling regions currently are below the 250-female 

threshold. There also is a 71 percent probability that the population in the Oregon Coast Region currently 

is below the 250-female threshold, and the BLM has no opportunity to prevent that probability from 

surpassing 90 percent in 10 years. 
963 | P a g e

Figure 3-190. No Timber Harvest reference analysis: extinction risk as a function of time, using a quasiextinction level of 250 females in each modeling region 

Note: This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 simulated stochastic populations in each of the 

western Oregon modeling regions decline to 250 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent)

Simulation Year

ECS KLE KLW NCO ORC WCS 50% Threshold

Oregon Coast 

North Coast and Olympic 

East Cascades-South

Klamath-Siskiyou-West

Western Cascades-South

Klamath-Siskiyou-East 
964 | P a g e

In the previous section, Population Change, the BLM reported that the eastern Cascades of Oregon is an 

area in which the landscape managed by the BLM is capable of contributing to a stable or increasing 

northern spotted owl population. However, the risk analysis indicates that the current population in that 

region already is so small that the BLM forecast of stability has inherently low accuracy. This population 

currently is at risk from small population processes and stochastic changes to the environment. 

In the Klamath-Siskiyou-East Modeling Region, Figure 3-190 shows that the forested landscape 

managed by the BLM is capable of contributing to a landscape with no more than a 19 percent probability 

that the regional population would decline to 250 females at any time during the next 50 years. In the 

Western Cascades-South and Klamath-Siskiyou-West modeling regions, the probability during the next 

50 years would be less than 10 percent. 

Figure 3-191 shows the probability, over time, of the simulated northern spotted owl population of each 

modeling region declining to 100 females—the quasi-threshold of regional extirpation—according to the 

No Timber Harvest reference analysis. Within the planning area, northern spotted owl populations in the 

Oregon Coast modeling region would reach a 50 percent probability of dropping below the 100-female 

threshold in 17 years, which would increase to a 98 percent probability in 50 years. The northern spotted 

owl population in the North Coast and Olympic modeling region would reach a 50 percent probability of 

dropping below the 100-female threshold in 36 years. However, in the other modeling regions in the 

planning area, the forested landscape managed by the BLM would be capable of contributing to a 

landscape with no more than an 11 percent probability of a regional population dropping below the 100-

female threshold during the next 50 years. 
965 | P a g e

Figure 3-191. No Timber Harvest reference analysis: Extinction risk as a function of time, using a quasiextinction level of 100 females in each modeling region 

Note: This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 stochastic populations in each of the western Oregon 

modeling regions declined to 100 females.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent)

Simulation Year

ECS KLE KLW NCO ORC WCS 50% Threshold

Oregon Coast 

North Coast and Olympic

East Cascades-South

Klamath-Siskiyou-East, 

Klamath-Siskiyou-West, and 

Western Cascades-South
966 | P a g e

These simulations indicate that the northern spotted owl currently is under significant biological stress, 

and at risk for extirpation, over much of the moist forest-portion of its range. In the Coast Range-portion 

of the planning area, the species already appears to be at risk for extirpation with only a 50 percent 

probability of persisting during the next 20 years, which would drop to a less than 5 percent probability of 

persisting to 50 years. This population already appears to be vulnerable to small population processes and 

stochastic events, which could cause its sudden extirpation, and this vulnerability would increase over 

time. So, the estimate that BLM-administered lands in the planning area are capable of contributing to 

species persistence in this area for 20 years should be interpreted with caution. The simulations also 

indicate that the BLM has no opportunity under current barred owl encounter rates to moderate this 

situation through the development of northern spotted owl habitat on BLM-administered lands. 

Effects of the Alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

Alternative C 

As shown in Figure 3-192 and Figure 3-193, northern spotted owl extinction risks under Alternative C 

would not differ substantively to those under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis indicating that, in 

western Oregon, the difference in habitat availability on BLM-administered lands under Alternative C 

would not appreciably affect northern spotted owl population responses. Based on the results in the above 

analysis, the effects of the Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis without barred 

owl control are essentially indistinguishable. Given that the effects of Alternative C and the No Timber 

Harvest reference analysis bracket the results for the other alternatives, the effects here for Alternative C 

also represent the effects of the other alternatives (i.e., the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and 

D, and Sub-alternatives B and C). 
967 | P a g e

Figure 3-192. Alternative C: extinction risk as a function of time, using a quasi-extinction level of 250 

females in each modeling region 

Note: This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 simulated stochastic populations in each of the 

western Oregon modeling regions decline to 250 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent)

Simulation Year

ECS KLE KLW NCO ORC WCS 50% Threshold

Oregon Coast 

North Coast and Olympic 

East Cascades-South 

Klamath-Siskiyou-East 

Klamath-Siskiyou-West 

Western Cascades-South 
968 | P a g e

Figure 3-193. Alternative C: Extinction risk as a function of time, using a quasi-extinction level of 100 

females in each modeling region 

Note: This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 stochastic populations in each of the western Oregon 

modeling regions declined to 100 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent)

Simulation Year

ECS KLE KLW NCO ORC WCS 50% Threshold

Oregon Coast 

North Coast and Olympic 

East Cascades-South

Klamath-Siskiyou-East, 

Klamath-Siskiyou-West, and 

Western Cascades-South 
969 | P a g e

Proposed RMP 

As shown in Figure 3-194 and Figure 3-195, northern spotted owl extinction risks under the Proposed 

RMP would not differ substantively to those under the No Timber Harvest reference analysis or 

Alternative C indicating that, in western Oregon, the difference in habitat availability on BLMadministered lands under the Proposed RMP would not appreciably affect northern spotted owl 

population responses. 

Figure 3-194. Proposed RMP: extinction risk as a function of time, using a quasi-extinction level of 250 

females in each modeling region 

Note: This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 simulated stochastic populations in each of the 

western Oregon modeling regions decline to 250 females.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent)

Simulation Year

ECS KLE KLW NCO ORC WCS 50% Threshold

Oregon Coast 

North Coast and Olympic 

East Cascades-South 

Western Cascades-South 

Klamath-Siskiyou-West 

Klamath-Siskiyou-East
970 | P a g e

Figure 3-195. Proposed RMP: Extinction risk as a function of time, using a quasi-extinction level of 100 

females in each modeling region 

Note: This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 stochastic populations in each of the western Oregon 

modeling regions declined to 100 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent)

Simulation Year

ECS KLE KLW NCO ORC WCS 50% Threshold

Oregon Coast 

North Coast and Olympic 

East Cascades-South 

Klamath-Siskiyou-East, 

Klamath-Siskiyou-West, and 

Western Cascades-South 
971 | P a g e

Proposed RMP with Barred Owl Control 

Figure 3-196 and Figure 3-197 show extinction risks in each western Oregon modeling region under the 

Proposed RMP with the implementation of a barred owl control program. 

Figure 3-196. Proposed RMP with barred owl control: extinction risk as a function of time, using a quasiextinction level of 250 females in each modeling region 

Note: This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 simulated stochastic populations in each of the 

western Oregon modeling regions decline to 250 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent)

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Simulation Year

90

100

ECS KLE KLW NCO ORC WCS 50% Threshold

Oregon Coast 

North Coast and Olympic 

East Cascades-South 

Klamath-Siskiyou-East 

Klamath-Siskiyou-West 

Western Cascades-South 
972 | P a g e

Figure 3-197. Proposed RMP with barred owl control: Extinction risk as a function of time, using a 

quasi-extinction level of 100 females in each modeling region 

Note: This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 stochastic populations in each of the western Oregon 

modeling regions declined to 100 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent)

Simulation Year

ECS KLE KLW NCO ORC WCS 50% Threshold

Oregon Coast 

North Coast and Olympic 

East Cascades-South 

Klamath-Siskiyou-East, 

Klamath-Siskiyou-West, and 

Western Cascades-South 
973 | P a g e

A comparison of Figure 3-194 and Figure 3-196 shows that, during the next 50 years, barred owl

control, as modeled by the BLM, would not appreciably reduce the probability of northern spotted owl

populations declining to 250 females in the North Coast and Olympic, Oregon Coast and East CascadesSouth modeling regions. However, in the Western Cascades-South, Klamath-Siskiyou-East, and KlamathSiskiyou-West modeling regions, during the next 50 years, barred owl control would reduce the 

probability of populations declining to 250 females from no more than 17 percent to no more than 11 

percent.

That said, comparing Figure 3-195 and Figure 3-197 indicates that, during the next 50 years, a barred 

owl control program would appreciably delay the probability of northern spotted owl populations 

declining to 100 females—de facto extirpation—in the North Coast and Olympic and Oregon Coast 

modeling regions. In the North Coast and Olympic modeling region, the population would reach a 50 

percent probability of declining to 100 females in 45 years as opposed to 39 years without barred owl 

control. In 50 years, this population would have a 51 percent probability of declining to 100 females as 

opposed to a 61 percent probability without barred owl control. In the Oregon Coast modeling region, the 

population would reach a 50 percent probability of declining to 100 females in 20 years as opposed to 18 

years without barred owl control. In 50 years, this population would have an 83 percent probability of 

declining to 100 females as opposed to a 99 percent probability without barred owl control. This 

relatively modest decrease in the extinction risk in the Oregon Coast modeling region with barred owl 

control under any alternative, the Proposed RMP, or the No Timber Harvest reference scenario largely 

reflects the currently low northern spotted owl population and the limited potential for BLM-administered 

lands to contribute to a stable northern spotted owl in the Oregon Coast modeling region. Nevertheless, 

any decrease in extinction risk in the Oregon Coast modeling region would provide additional time for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop and implement additional conservation measures, including 

additional barred owl management. In the other Oregon modeling regions, barred owl control would 

appreciably improve northern spotted owl population response, but would have only negligible effects on 

extinction risk.

In summary, the northern spotted owl population is under severe biological stress in much of western 

Oregon, and this population risk is predominately due to competitive interactions between northern 

spotted owls and barred owls. Habitat management by the BLM alone will not be sufficient to produce 

stable populations of northern spotted owls in some (though not all) of the provinces within the planning 

area. However, habitat on BLM-administered lands plays an indispensable role in northern spotted owl 

conservation in several provinces. Habitat management by the BLM combined with the mitigation 

measure related to barred owl management would result in substantially improved outcomes for the 

northern spotted owl populations. Thus, the greatest contribution to conservation and recovery of the 

northern spotted owl by the BLM would come from a combination of habitat management and 

participation in barred owl management.

Issue 5

In accordance with Recovery Action 6, would the alternatives delineate at least one reserve land use

allocation in the moist forest and, within that allocation, implement silvicultural techniques in 

plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands that would benefit the northern spotted owl?

Summary of Analytical Methods

To evaluate Recovery Action 6, the BLM quantified the progression of non-habitat, a surrogate for 

“plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands,” to northern spotted owl habitat on BLMadministered lands in the moist forest of the planning area, in both reserve land use allocations and critical 
974 | P a g e

habitat units. In this context, ‘non-habitat’ is statistically shown to be avoided by northern spotted owls 

(i.e., ‘strongly-selected-against’ habitat, as defined in Appendix T, Sections B and C).

Recovery Action 6 states, “In moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat, land managers should 

implement silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands to 

accelerate the development of structural complexity and biological diversity that will benefit spotted owl 

recovery” (USDI FWS 2011a, p. III-19). The Recovery Action 6 narrative states that such activities 

“should be carried out in all Federal land classifications consistent with the NWFP [Northwest Forest 

Plan] Standards and Guidelines.” The BLM initially interpreted “moist forests managed for spotted owl 

habitat” to refer only to reserve land use allocations. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated 

that Recovery Action 6 also addresses management within northern spotted owl critical habitat in the 

moist forests, even where critical habitat overlays the Harvest Land September 24, 2013).

Based on this input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM refined this issue to evaluate 

whether the BLM would designate a reserve land use allocation in the moist forest for northern spotted 

owl recovery, and, within that reserve allocation and within designated critical habitat in the moist forest, 

implement appropriate silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger 

stands. However, neither Recovery Action 6 nor the associated narrative recommends an analytical 

threshold, such as the quantity of forest treated, for the BLM to evaluate the consistency of the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP with Recovery Action 6. Lacking such a threshold, evaluating how 

the BLM would manage “plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands” in reserves and 

critical habitat would reveal nothing more, with respect to BLM contributions to overall northern spotted 

owl recovery, than the analyses to address Conservation Needs 1–4, especially since the treatment of such 

stands is incorporated into the northern spotted owl relative habitat suitability surfaces that the BLM uses 

to evaluate Conservation Needs 1–4.

In summary, the alternatives and the Proposed RMP include reserve land use allocations in the moist 

forest that would be managed for structural complexity and biological diversity beneficial to the northern 

spotted owl. The alternatives and the Proposed RMP also include portions of designated critical habitat in 

the moist forest within the reserve land use allocations and management direction to implement 

silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands, and modified younger stands to benefit 

northern spotted owl recovery. Since Recovery Action 6 recommends no threshold for the BLM to 

evaluate the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM needs no additional analysis to determine that 

the alternatives and the Proposed RMP are consistent with Recovery Action 6. Instead, the BLM tabulates 

in this analysis the changes in the acres of non-habitat for reserve land use allocations and critical habitat 

in the moist forest.

As described in Appendix T, Section D, the BLM refined its northern spotted owl relative habitat 

suitability surfaces in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The overall result of this refinement in the relative 

habitat suitability surface is that the baseline condition in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS describes less 

nesting-roosting habitat and more dispersal habitat than the baseline condition in the Draft RMP/EIS.

Because there are no recommended thresholds related to Recovery Action 6, the interpretation of the 

analytical results is limited to evaluating the relative outcomes under the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP and the trajectory of habitat over time. Although the use of the refined relative habitat suitability 

surface in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS has changed the absolute values for ‘strongly avoided’ habitat, 

the relative outcomes for the alternatives and trajectory of the amount of ‘strongly avoided’ habitat from 

the Draft RMP/EIS are still valid.

For this issue, the Proposed RMP/Final EIS has reanalyzed the No Timber Harvest reference analysis and 

Alternative C and has analyzed the Proposed RMP with the refined relative habitat suitability surfaces. 
975 | P a g e

The other alternatives (the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and Sub-alternatives B and C) 

would have the same outcomes relative to Alternative C and the No Timber reference analysis as 

described in the Draft RMP/EIS.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-276 shows the current acres of non-habitat (i.e., habitat strongly-selected-against by northern 

spotted owls) and the potential change in those acres according to the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis. Since the No Timber Harvest reference analysis does not rely on land use allocations, the acres 

are confined to moist forest BLM-administered lands of the planning area in: (1) Northwest Forest Plan

reserve land use allocations;

153 and (2) northern spotted owl critical habitat.

Table 3-276. No Timber Harvest reference analysis: Acres of habitat strongly avoided by the northern 

spotted owl in moist forest land use allocations reserved under the Northwest Forest Plan, and in moist 

forest critical habitat units, on BLM-administered lands in the planning area

Moist Forest BLM-administered 

Habitat Strongly Avoided

2013

(Acres)

2023

(Acres)

2033

(Acres)

2043

(Acres)

2053

(Acres)

2063

(Acre)

Reserved Lands 37,808 35,987 30,908 25,866 24,696 24,021

Critical Habitat Units 69,042 62,050 47,489 39,272 35,962 33,828

According to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, forest growth combined with the effects of 

wildfire would result in a net decrease in the acres of non-habitat in the moist forest portion of both 

Northwest Forest Plan reserve land use allocations and northern spotted owl critical habitat units in the 

decision area in each decade through 2063.

Figure 3-198 shows how the acres of non-habitat in moist forest reserve land use allocations would 

change over time (i.e., would transition to northern spotted owl habitat) under Alternative C and the 

Proposed RMP. Because the alternatives and the Proposed RMP reserve different lands, the acres of nonhabitat are not directly comparable. Under Alternative C, the net acres of moist forest non-habitat in 

reserve land use allocations would decrease by 35 percent during 50 years, resulting in a net increase of 

26,700 acres of northern spotted owl habitat in reserves. Under the Proposed RMP, the net acres of moist 

forest non-habitat in reserve land use allocations would decrease by 49 percent during 50 years, resulting 

in a net increase of 57,500 acres of northern spotted owl habitat in reserves. The other alternatives (the No 

Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and Sub-alternatives B and C) would have the same relative 

outcomes on acres of non-habitat in moist forest reserve land use allocations in comparison to Alternative 

C and the No Timber reference analysis as described in the Draft RMP/EIS, and that analysis is 

incorporated here by reference (BLM 2015, pp. 804–808).

 

153 Since Recovery Action 6 refers to “moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat,” the BLM analysis includes the 

Riparian Reserve interspersed with the Late-Successional Reserve, but excludes the Riparian Reserve interspersed 

with other land use allocations.
976 | P a g e

Figure 3-198. Forecasted change in the acres of the forested landscape that would be strongly avoided by 

northern spotted owls (i.e., non-habitat) of reserve land use allocations 

Note: The No Timber Harvest reference analysis is included for comparison. 

Figure 3-199 shows how the acres of the moist forest non-habitat in critical habitat units on BLMadministered lands would change over time under Alternative C and the Proposed RMP. Because the 

critical habitat units are identical under Alternative C and the Proposed RMP, changes in the acres of nonhabitat are directly comparable between the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Under Alternative C, the 

net acres of moist forest non-habitat in critical habitat would increase by 44 percent during the next 50 

years, which corresponds to a net decrease of 30,800 acres of northern spotted owl habitat. Under the 

Proposed RMP, the net acres of moist forest non-habitat in critical habitat would decrease by 51 percent 

during the next 50 years, which corresponds to a net increase of 34,600 acres of northern spotted owl 

habitat. The other alternatives (the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and Sub-alternatives 

B and C) would have the same relative outcomes on acres of moist forest non-habitat in critical habitat 

units in comparison to Alternative C and the No Timber reference analysis as described in the Draft 

RMP/EIS, and that analysis is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 804–808). 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Moist Forest Non-habitat in Reserve 

LUAs Strongly Avoided by NSO (Acres) 

Year 

Alt. C No Timber Harvest PRMP
977 | P a g e

Figure 3-199. Forecasted change in the acres of the forested landscape that would be strongly avoided by 

northern spotted owls (i.e., non-habitat) in critical habitat units on BLM-administered lands 

Note: The No Timber Harvest reference analysis is included for comparison. 

Therefore, under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would delineate at least one reserve 

land use allocation in the moist forest and, within that allocation, implement silvicultural techniques in 

plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands that would benefit (i.e., result in net 

increases in the amount of habitat for) the northern spotted owl. As a result, all alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP would result in a decrease in the acres of non-habitat in the reserve land use allocation in 

the moist forest over time from current amounts. However, in designated critical habitat in the moist 

forest, Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would result in an increase in the acres of non-habitat over 

time from current amounts, whereas the Proposed RMP would result in a decrease in the acres of nonhabitat. 

Issue 6 

In accordance with Recovery Action 10, would the alternatives conserve northern spotted owl sites and 

high value northern spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the northern 

spotted owl population? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The intent of Recovery Action 10 “is to protect, enhance and develop habitat in the quantity and 

distribution necessary to provide for the long-term recovery of spotted owls” (USDI FWS 2011a, p. III44). Conservation Needs 1 and 2 also address this intent. However, Recovery Action 10 also focuses on 

the management of individual northern spotted owl nest sites and ‘high value’ northern spotted owl 

habitat; which the Revised Recovery Plan defines as “older, multi-layered structurally-complex forests” 

and “areas with current and historic use by spotted owls” (USDI FWS 2011a, p. G-2). 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Moist Forest Non-habitat in Critical Habitat 

on BLM-administered Lands (Acres) 

Year 

Alt. C No Timber Harvest PRMP
978 | P a g e

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not recommend, through Recovery Action 10, that land 

managers protect all northern spotted owl known and historic sites. Instead, the U.S Fish and Wildlife 

Service recommends habitat enhancement to promote long-term northern spotted owl conservation even 

when such enhancement would have short-term negative effects to individual northern spotted owl pairs 

or resident singles (USDI FWS 2011a, p. III-44). The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service also recommends 

interim guidance on how land managers should rank northern spotted owl sites according to their priority 

for protection, and standards for the protection of northern spotted owl habitat within the 500-acre (200-

ha) core use area and the median provincial home range area that surround each site (USDI FWS 2011a, 

p. III-44 – III-45). The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that northern spotted owl sites be 

managed so that at least 50 percent of the 500-acre core use area, and at least 40 percent of the median 

provincial home range area, support nesting-roosting habitat (USDI FWS 2011a). However, the U.S Fish 

and Wildlife Service does not estimate, or provide criteria to estimate, which or how many northern 

spotted owl sites the BLM should maintain to be consistent with Recovery Action 10. Therefore, the 

evaluation of the consistency of each alternative and the Proposed RMP with Recovery Action 10 is 

complicated by the primary focus of Recovery Action 10 on individual known and historic northern 

spotted owl sites, the flexibility Recovery Action 10 provides for the management of individual sites, and 

the lack of recommended criteria to evaluate consistency with Recovery Action 10. 

Confining the analysis to the planning area, the BLM determined the locations of northern spotted owl 

known and historic sites on or near BLM-administered lands from demography studies on those lands 

(Forsman et al. 2011, pp. 5–8), survey data the BLM and its cooperators collected as part of Northwest 

Forest Plan effectiveness monitoring, and additional survey data since the 1970s. The BLM and its 

cooperators have surveyed about 80 percent of BLM-administered lands in the planning area for northern 

spotted owls; all survey results are maintained in the BLM corporate database. The BLM then tabulated if 

habitat conditions within the 500-acre core use area and the median provincial home range circles 

surrounding each site would meet the thresholds of Recovery Action 10 (i.e., at least 50 percent nestingroosting habitat within the 500-acre core use area, and at least 40 percent nesting-roosting habitat within 

the median provincial home range area). 

In addition to managing habitat within the 500-acre core use area and the median provincial home range 

area around each northern spotted owl site, Swindle et al. (1999, p. 1216) determined that, in the central 

Cascades of Oregon, northern spotted owl nest site selection was most influenced by the amount of older 

forest habitat within 660 feet (200 m) of each site. Thus, Swindle et al. indicates that protection of forest 

habitat within 660 feet of sites would help maintain extant northern spotted owl sites, even though 

Recovery Action 10 does not specifically recommend such protection. Therefore, for alternatives or the 

Proposed RMP that include protection of all known and historical northern spotted owl sites, the BLM 

included management direction to maintain all forest habitat within 660 feet of those sites. 

Northern spotted owls on BLM-administered lands are known to nest, and produce young, in habitat 

conditions that are below Recovery Action 10 thresholds. This analysis does not account for additional 

protections that the site-specific implementation of Recovery Action 10 might provide for such pairs. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There currently are 2,465 known (including historic) northern spotted owl sites associated with BLMadministered lands in the planning area (i.e., their provincial home ranges include BLM-administered 

lands) that are delineated as northern spotted owl critical habitat. Of these known sites, 1,395 sites (57 

percent) meet Recovery Action 10 thresholds. Only 1,380 known sites currently meet Recovery Action 

thresholds under the Proposed RMP because, as explained at the beginning of Chapter 3, the BLM 

updated the baseline data for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS to include the effects of wildfires during 2013. 

In 30 years, according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, 1,765 known sites (72 percent) would 
979 | P a g e

be capable of meeting Recovery Action 10 thresholds; in 50 years, the number increases to 1,916 known 

sites (78 percent). According to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, the remaining 22 percent of 

known sites are not capable of meeting Recovery Action 10 thresholds in 50 years due to the limited 

BLM-administered lands, slow habitat development of some BLM-administered lands because of poor 

site conditions, and competing land uses on other land ownerships. 

Figure 3-200 shows the number of northern spotted owl known sites that would be at or above Recovery 

Action 10 habitat thresholds, during each decade, under Alternative C and the Proposed RMP. In 50 

years, Alternative C would support 1,703 northern spotted owl known sites at or above Recovery Action 

10 thresholds, a 22 percent increase from the current 1,395 sites. In 50 years, the Proposed RMP would 

support 1,874 northern spotted owl known sites at or above Recovery Action 10 thresholds, a 36 percent 

increase from the current 1,380 sites. Under Alternative C, in 50 years BLM-administered lands would 

support 69 percent of the 2,465 northern spotted owl known sites associated with those lands at or above 

Recovery Action thresholds whereas the Proposed RMP would support 76 percent of those sites at or 

above those thresholds. The other alternatives (the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and 

Sub-alternatives B and C) would have the same relative outcomes on the number of northern spotted owl 

known sites that would be at or above Recovery Action 10 habitat thresholds in comparison to Alternative 

C and the No Timber reference analysis as described in the Draft RMP/EIS, and that analysis is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2015, pp. 808–811). 

Figure 3-200. Number of northern spotted owl sites that would be at or above Recovery Action 10 habitat 

thresholds during each decade 

Note: The No Timber Harvest reference analysis is included for comparison. 

Issue 7 

In accordance with Recovery Action 12, would the BLM implement post-fire silvicultural activities on 

lands managed for the development of spotted owl habitat, and that are modified by wildfire, that 

conserve and restore habitat elements that take a long time to develop, such as large trees, medium and 

large snags, and downed wood? 

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2054 2063

Number of NSO Sites ≥ RA10 Habitat 

Thresholds

Year

Alt. C No Timber Harvest PRMP
980 | P a g e

Summary of Analytical Methods 

For this analysis, the BLM initially interpreted “lands managed for the development of spotted owl 

habitat” to refer to reserve land use allocations (see the narrative for Issue 5). However, as discussed 

under Issue 5, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the Revised Recovery Plan (and hence this 

recovery action) also pertains to 2012 northern spotted owl critical habitat. Therefore, based on this input 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for this analysis the BLM interprets “lands managed for the 

development of spotted owl habitat” as reserve land use allocations and designated critical habitat. 

As described in Appendix D and Appendix T, Section A, the BLM forecasted wildfire locations, 

footprints and intensities (i.e., how fire would modify northern spotted owl relative habitat suitability 

values within its fire footprint) on all land ownerships within the northern spotted owl’s range, including 

on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, at decadal increments during the next 50 years. The 

Revised Recovery Plan summarizes the effects of post-fire logging on northern spotted owl habitat (USDI 

FWS 2011a, pp. III-47 – III-49). 

The alternatives and the Proposed RMP vary in the management direction for post-fire silvicultural 

activities in reserve land use allocations and critical habitat. The BLM tabulated the acres of BLMadministered lands in reserve land use allocations and in critical habitat modified by wildfire during each 

decade, and described qualitatively the management standards for those lands under each alternative and 

the Proposed RMP. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Since the No Timber Harvest reference analysis does not include silvicultural prescriptions, the BLM 

cannot describe the capability of BLM-administered lands to contribute to Recovery Action 12. 

Table 3-277 shows the acres of reserve land use allocations (Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian 

Reserve that is interspersed within Late-Successional Reserve) that would be affected by high- and 

moderate-intensity wildfire during each decade. Because simulated wildfires are identical under each 

alternative, acre differences are a function of the size and location of the reserve land use allocations of 

each alternative. 

Table 3-277. Acres of reserve land use allocations that would be affected by high- and moderate-intensity 

wildfire during each decade 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

2013–2023

(Acres)

2023–2033

(Acres)

2033–2043

(Acres)

2043–2053

(Acres)

2053–2063

(Acres)

No Action 3,500 3,700 3,900 600 2,300

Alt. A 10,000 7,000 12,800 5,900 12,200

Alt. B 7,200 4,900 9,000 1,800 6,700

Sub. B 8,600 6,600 11,600 3,500 10,900

Alt. C 7,300 4,700 9,900 1,500 6,900

Sub. C 9,000 6,000 13,600 6,600 9,400

Alt. D 4,000 2,900 7,400 1,400 5,700

PRMP 7,300 4,700 8,800 1,900 6,400

Table 3-278 shows the acres of northern spotted owl critical habitat that would be affected by high- and 

moderate-intensity wildfire during each decade. Because the simulated fires are identical under all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the acres of affected critical habitat are identical under all alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP. 
981 | P a g e

Table 3-278. Acres of northern spotted owl critical habitat that would be affected by high- and moderateintensity wildfire during each decade 

Habitat 2013–2023

(Acres)

2023–2033

(Acres)

2033–2043

(Acres)

2043–2053

(Acres)

2053–2063

(Acres)

Critical Habitat 9,000 6,500 8,900 3,700 10,200

With respect to the treatment of areas affected by wildfire: 

Under the No Action alternative: 

 Salvage operations in the Late-Successional Reserve and northern spotted owl Reserved Pair 

Areas are allowed only if they would not diminish habitat suitability now or in the future (USDA 

FS and USDI BLM 1994, pp. C-13, D-16, D-17). 

 Within Managed Late-Successional Areas, salvage “always should be guided by the objective of 

maintaining adequate amounts of suitable habitat” (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994, p. C-26). 

 Salvage following catastrophic events is permitted in the Riparian Reserve “if required to attain 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives” (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994, p. C-32). 

 Salvage is permitted in other land use allocations to the extent it complies with snag and down 

woody debris requirements. 

Under all action alternatives: 

 Implement wildfire rehabilitation and restoration efforts in all land use allocations to protect and 

sustain ecosystems, ecosystem services, public health and safety, and infrastructure adversely 

affected by suppression actions (fire operations) or direct fire effects. 

 Regenerate large-scale disturbances within the dry forest Late-Successional Reserve within 5 

years using a mixture of plant species appropriate to the site. The BLM would leave at least 10 

percent of the disturbance area unstocked with trees, in gaps at least one-quarter-acre in size for at 

least 2 decades, to accelerate the development of heterogeneous fuel conditions. 

 Implement timber salvage operations in the Harvest Land Base (including in northern spotted owl 

critical habitat in the Harvest Land Base) to recover economic value and minimize commercial 

loss or the deterioration of damaged trees. Salvage operations would comply with alternativespecific stand-level snag and down woody debris retention standards. 

 Prohibit timber salvage in the Riparian Reserve. 

In the Late-Successional Reserve and critical habitat within the Late-Successional Reserve: 

 Under Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative D, and Sub-alternative B, the BLM would 

prohibit timber salvage in the Late-Successional Reserve except when necessary to protect public 

health and safety, or to keep roads and other infrastructure clear of debris. Under Alternative A, 

the Late-Successional Reserve would completely encompass northern spotted owl critical habitat 

and, thus, would prohibit timber salvage in all critical habitat. 

 Under Alternative C and Sub-alternative C, the BLM would implement timber salvage operations 

in the Late-Successional Reserve to recover economic value and minimize commercial loss or the 

deterioration of damaged trees. For disturbances that kill at least 60 percent of overstory trees on 

contiguous areas of at least 10 acres, timber salvage would remove all dead wood volume in 

excess of down wood and snag requirements. For other disturbances, timber salvage would occur 

only as needed to reduce hazards to public health and safety. 

In critical habitat within the Harvest Land Base: 

 Under Alternative A, no critical habitat occurs in the Harvest Land Base. 
982 | P a g e

 Under Alternative B and Sub-alternative B, for disturbances in Low Intensity Timber Areas 

(moist forest) that kill at least 60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous areas of at least 10 

acres, timber salvage would follow the management direction for regeneration harvest. For all 

other disturbances (in the moist and dry forest), timber salvage would remove all dead wood 

volume in excess of down wood and snag requirements. 

 Under Alternative C and Sub-alternative C, the BLM would implement timber salvage operations 

in the Late-Successional Reserve to recover economic value and minimize commercial loss or the 

deterioration of damaged trees. In High Intensity Timber Areas, timber salvage would remove all 

merchantable dead and down timber from disturbed areas (although areas probably would be 

clearcut to also remove live trees). In other portions of the Harvest Land Base, timber salvage 

would remove all merchantable dead wood volume in excess of down wood and snag 

requirements. 

 Under Alternative D, for disturbances that kill at least 60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous 

areas of at least 10 acres, timber salvage would remove all dead wood volume in excess of down 

wood and snag requirements. For other disturbances, timber salvage would occur only as needed 

to reduce hazards to public health and safety. 

Under the Proposed RMP: 

 Conduct wildfire rehabilitation and restoration efforts in all land use allocations to protect and sustain 

ecosystems, ecosystem services, public health and safety, and infrastructure adversely affected by 

suppression actions (fire operations) or direct fire effects. 

 Prohibit timber salvage in the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve, and in northern 

spotted owl critical habitat within those land use allocations, except when necessary to protect public 

safety, or to keep roads and other infrastructure clear of debris. 

 In northern spotted owl critical habitat in the Low Intensity Timber Area, the BLM would 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 salvage harvest units following disturbance events, the BLM would retain at least 15 

percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live trees or snags in individual harvest units. 

The BLM also would retain trees and snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including 

aggregated groups, stringers, and individual trees. 

o After salvage harvest, the BLM would use natural or artificial regeneration to regenerate 

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. 

o For areas without timber salvage harvest after disturbance events, the BLM would use natural or 

artificial regeneration to regenerate 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, to the 

extent possible given safety and operational constraints. 

 In northern spotted owl critical habitat in the Moderate Intensity Timber Area, the BLM would 

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 salvage harvest units following disturbance events, the BLM would retain at least 5 

percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live trees or snags in individual harvest units. 

The BLM also would retain trees and snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including 

aggregated groups, stringers, and individual trees. 

o After salvage harvest, the BLM would use natural or artificial regeneration to regenerate 

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. 
983 | P a g e

o For areas without timber salvage harvest after disturbance events, the BLM would use natural or 

artificial regeneration to regenerate 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, to the 

extent possible given safety and operational constraints. 

 In northern spotted owl critical habitat in the Uneven-aged Timber Area, the BLM would 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 salvage harvest units following disturbance events, the BLM would retain at least 5 

percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live trees or snags in individual harvest units. 

The BLM also would retain trees and snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including 

aggregated groups, stringers, and individual trees. 

o After salvage harvest, the BLM would use natural or artificial regeneration to regenerate 

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. 

o For areas without timber salvage harvest after disturbance events, the BLM would 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. 

Therefore, in the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve, the No Action alternative, each of the 

action alternatives, and the Proposed RMP would manage areas modified by wildfire to “conserve and 

restore habitat elements that take a long time to develop, such as large trees, medium and large snags, and 

downed wood.” However, when wildfire kills at least 60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous areas of 

at least 10 acres in the Late-Successional Reserve, Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would allow the 

removal of all dead wood volume in excess of down wood and snag retention standards, which would be 

the minimum level needed “to conserve and restore habitat elements.”

In northern spotted owl critical habitat in the Harvest Land Base, the No Action alternative and 

Alternative B, Alternative D, Sub-alternative B, and the Proposed RMP would allow salvage operations 

that meet down wood and snag retention standards, sufficient “to conserve and restore habitat elements.”

Under the No Action alternative and Alternative B, Alternative D, Sub-alternative B, and the Proposed 

RMP, timber salvage would not cause the loss of dispersal or nesting-roosting habitat and would retain 

sufficient down wood or snags in treatment areas to conserve and restore habitat elements. Alternative A 

has no critical habitat in the Harvest Land Base. Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would allow the 

removal of all dead wood from burned areas in High Intensity Timber Areas, which would be inconsistent 

with the standard “to conserve and restore habitat elements.” Because of this difference in management 

direction, the alternatives and Proposed RMP would differ in stand-level effects of timber salvage, in that 

the No Action alternative and Alternative B, Alternative D, Sub-alternative B, and the Proposed RMP 

would conserve and restore habitat elements after disturbance, and Alternative C and Sub-alternative C 

would not conserve and restore habitat elements after disturbance. However, timber salvage would occur 

on such a small acreage over the next 50 years (see the Forest Management section of this chapter) that it 

would not have any landscape-scale effects or alter landscape patterns of habitat under any alternative or 

the Proposed RMP. 

Issue 8 

In accordance with Recovery Action 32, would the alternatives maintain and restore well-distributed, 

older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area while allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration 

management actions? 
984 | P a g e

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The Revised Recovery Plan does not define “older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer 

forest” in terms of stand age, tree diameter, percent canopy cover or other forest stand structural variables 

that the BLM has for its administered lands. Therefore, the BLM quantified changes in the acres of 

habitat using two surrogate classifications: 

 Forest stands classified in the BLM structural stage classification as mature multiple canopy 

and structurally-complex, and; 

 Habitat that northern spotted owls select most strongly for nesting, i.e., ‘strongly-selected-for’

habitat as defined in Appendix T, Sections B and C. 

The definitions of the mature multiple canopy and structurally-complex forest in this analysis generally 

encompass the characteristics described in the Revised Recovery Plan for “older and more structurallycomplex multi-layered conifer forest” (see the Vegetation Modeling and Forest Management sections). 

However, the Revised Recovery Plan includes maintaining and restoring “older and more structurallycomplex multi-layered conifer forest” because of its value as northern spotted owl habitat. Therefore, the 

‘strongly-selected-for’ habitat presents another valid surrogate for “older and more structurally-complex 

multi-layered conifer forest.” In addition, structural stages and ‘strongly-selected-for’ habitat are defined 

at different scales, and analyses at multiple scales are more robust. 

The BLM defined structural stage at the stand scale in this analysis. As explained in Appendix T, Section 

A, the BLM defined the association between northern spotted owls and their habitat at a 500-acre (~ 200-

ha) scale, the size of a core use area. As such, the strongly-selected-for classification reflects habitat value 

at that scale instead of at the scale of the individual forest stand. Stated another way, the strong 

association of northern spotted owls to certain forest stands, as reflected in the strongly-selected-for 

classification, is affected by habitat conditions within the stand and the surrounding 500 acres. Thus, the 

structural complexity of an individual forest stand could increase over time while, at the same time, the 

value of that stand for northern spotted owl occupancy could decline due to changes to nearby stands 

(e.g., from treatment or wildfire). In such a situation, evaluating stand structure would show a positive 

change whereas evaluating the value of the stand for northern spotted owl occupancy would show a 

negative change. Thus, the BLM used both classifications. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area currently support 426,100 acres of strongly-selected-for 

habitat and 860,200 acres of Mature Multi-layered Canopy and Structurally-complex forest. The No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis indicates that the forested landscape managed by the BLM is capable 

of supporting 675,800 acres of strongly-selected-for habitat (a 59 percent increase), and 1,136,700 acres 

of Mature Multi-layered Canopy and Structurally-complex (a 32 percent increase) in 50 years. These 

acres are through forest ingrowth as affected by wildfire; the No Timber Harvest reference analysis does 

not include management actions for forest restoration, such as thinning consistent with Late-Successional 

Reserve or Riparian Reserve management direction. 

Figure 3-201 shows the acres of strongly-selected-for habitat that would occur on BLM-administered 

lands during the next 50 years under Alternative C and the Proposed RMP.154 Both Alternative C and the 

 

154 As explained at the beginning of Chapter 3, the baseline data for the Proposed RMP includes the effects of large 

wildfires on BLM-administered lands during 2013, which are not included in the baseline data for Alternative C and 

the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. Thus, the results for Alternative C and the No Harvest reference analysis 

reflect the influence of 5,500 more acres of strongly-selected-for habitat in 2013, and 3,100 more acres of Mature 
985 | P a g e

Proposed RMP include management actions for forest restoration, such as thinning consistent with LateSuccessional Reserve or Riparian Reserve management direction. Under Alternative C, BLMadministered lands would support 407,800 acres of strongly-selected-for habitat in ten years, a 4 percent 

decrease from the current level, and then would support increasing acres of strongly-selected-for habitat 

each subsequent decade, reaching 550,200 acres in 50 years, a 29 percent increase from the current level. 

Under the Proposed RMP, BLM-administered lands would support 430,700 acres of strongly-selected-for 

habitat in 10 years, a negligible increase from the current level, and then would support increasing acres 

of strongly-selected-for habitat each subsequent decade, reaching 643,200 acres in 50 years, a 51 percent 

increase from the current level. The other alternatives (the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and 

D, and Sub-alternatives B and C) would have the same relative outcomes on the acres of stronglyselected-for habitat in comparison to Alternative C and the No Timber reference analysis as described in 

the Draft RMP/EIS, and that analysis is incorporated here by reference (BLM 2015, pp. 814–815). 

Figure 3-201. Change in the acres of ‘strongly-selected-for’ habitat on BLM-administered lands in 

western Oregon 

Note: The No Timber Harvest reference analysis is included for comparison. 

Figure 3-202 shows the acres of Mature Multi-layered Canopy and Structurally-complex forest that 

would occur on BLM-administered lands during the next 50 years under each alternative. Alternative D 

would result in a 32 percent increase in Structurally-complex forest, exceeding that of the No Timber 

Harvest reference analysis. Sub-alternative B would result in a 29 percent increase, followed by 

Alternative B (26 percent), the Proposed RMP (24 percent), and Alternative A and Sub-alternative C (23 

percent each), Alternative C (12 percent) and the No Action alternative (11 percent). 

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Strongly-selected-for NSO Habitat on 

BLM-administered Lands (Acres) 

Year 

Alt. C No Timber Harvest PRMP

 

Multi-layered Canopy and Structurally-complex forest in 2013, than were included in the baseline data for the 

Proposed RMP. 
986 | P a g e

Figure 3-202. Change in the acres of mature multiple-canopy and structurally-complex forest on BLMadministered lands in western Oregon 

Note: The No Timber Harvest reference analysis is included for comparison. 

Thus, under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would implement management actions for 

forest restoration, such as thinning consistent with Late-Successional Reserve or Riparian Reserve 

management direction, and would maintain well-distributed, older and more structurally-complex multilayered conifer forests, even though the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would differ substantively in 

the amounts. 

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Mature Multiple Canopy and Structurally-complex Forest on BLM-administered

No Timber Harvest

Lands (Acres)

Year

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D PRMP

Alt. B 

PRMP 

Sub. B

Alt. D

No Timber Harvest

Alt. A

No Action

Alt. C

Sub. C
987 | P a g e

References 

Akçakaya, H. R. 2000. Population viability analyses with demographically and spatially structured models. Ecological Bulletins 

48: 23–38. http://www.ramas.com/PVA2.pdf. 

Anthony, R. G., E. D. Forsman, A. B. Franklin, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, C. J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J. E. 

Hines, G. S. Olson, S. H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B. L. Biswell, P. C. Carlson, L. V. Diller, K. M. Dugger, K. E. Fehring, T. L. 

Fleming, R. P. Gerhardt, S. A. Gremel, R. J. Gutiérrez, P. J. Happe, D. R. Herter, J. M. Higley, R. B. Horn, L. L. Irwin, P. J. 

Loschl, J. A. Reid and S. G. Sovern. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Wildlife 

Monographs 163(1): 1–48. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/data/northernspottedowl/BarredOwl/Documents/AnthonyEtAl2006.StatusTrends.pd

f. 

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation Biology 9(4): 943–946. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09040943.x. 

Bingham, B. B., and B. R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat “take”: Application to habitat conservation planning. Conservation 

Biology 11(1): 127–139. http://www.southernregion.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/bingham/bingham1.PDF. 

Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A. B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. 

Gutiérrez, J. M. Marzluff and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. 

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. September 2004. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/NSO%20SEI%20Scientific%20Status%20Review%202004.pdf. 

Davis, R. J., K. M. Dugger, S. Mohoric, L. Evers, and W. C. Aney. 2011. 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.

Davis, R. J., B. Hollen, J. Hobson, J. E. Gower, and D. Keenum. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 20 years (1994–2013): 

status and trends of northern spotted owl habitats. Draft report. PNW Publications, Portland Habilitation Center, Portland, 

OR. 49 pp. http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report/. 

Dugger, K. M., F. Wagner, R. G. Anthony, and G. S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and 

demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The Condor 107(4): 863–878. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1650/7824.1. 

Dugger, K. M., R. G. Anthony, and L. S. Andrews. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive competition: barred owls, spotted owls, 

habitats, and the demons of competition present. Ecological Applications 21(7): 2459–2468. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonFWO/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/BarredOwl/Documents/DuggerEtAl2011.pdf. 

Dugger, K. M., E. D. Forsman, A. B. Franklin, R. J. Davis, G. C. White, C. J. Schwarz, K. P. Burnham, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, 

C. B. Yackulic, P. F. Doherty, Jr., L. Bailey, D. A. Clark, S. H. Ackers, L. S. Andrews, B. Augustine, B. L. Biswell, J. 

Blakesley, P. C. Carlson, M. J. Clement, L. V. Diller, E. M. Glenn, A. Green, S. A. Gremel, D. R. Herter, J. M. Higley, J. 

Hobson, R. B. Horn, K. P. Huyvaert, C. McCafferty, T. McDonald, K. McDonnell, G. S. Olson, J. A. Reid, J. Rockweit, V. 

Ruiz, J. Saenz, and S. G. Sovern. 2016. The effects of habitat, climate, and barred owls on long-term demography of 

northern spotted owls. The Condor 118(1): 57–116. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70160100. 

Dunk, J. R., D. W. LaPlante, K. A. Whittaker, J. B. Buchanan, L. Burnes, K. Halupka, A. Hayes, G. King, T. Melchiors, and E. 

Rybak. 2014. Draft final report: Identifying and evaluating opportunities for conservation of northern spotted owls on non‐

federal lands in Washington, U.S.A, dated May 30, 2014. A report presented to the Northern Spotted Owl Implementation 

Team by the Northern Spotted Owl Technical Team; unpublished. 57 pp. 

FEMAT. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem 

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993-793-071. General Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Exbbavi7bA0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=Forest+ecosystem+management:+

an+ecological,+economic,+and+social+assessment&ots=n4l_9b6VaF&sig=hrF5nN31Kno5AkNrRzf__x0tKE#v=onepage&q=Forest%20ecosystem%20management%3A%20an%20ecological%2C%20economic

%2C%20and%20social%20assessment&f=false. 

Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, J. A. Reid, P. J. Loschl, S. G. Sovern, M. Taylor, B. L. Biswell, A. Ellingson, E. C. Meslow, G. 

S. Miller, K. A. Swindle, J. A. Thrailkill, F. F. Wagner, and D. E. Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern 

spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs 149: 1–35. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70024280. 

Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, K. M. Dugger, E. M. Glenn, A. B. Franklin, G. C. White, C. J. Schwarz, K. P. Burnham, D. R. 

Anderson, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, J. B. Lint, R. J. Davis, S. H. Ackers, L. S. Andrews, B. L. Biswell, P. C. Carlson, L. V. 

Diller, S. A. Gremel, D. R. Herter, J. M. Higley, R. B. Horn, J. A. Reid, J. Rockweit, J. Schaberl, T. J. Snetsinger, and S. G. 

Sovern. 2011. Population demography of northern spotted owls: 1985–2008. Studies in Avian Biology, Cooper 

Ornithological Society. 106 pp. 

Franklin, A. B., D. R. Anderson, R. J. Gutiérrez, and K. P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern 

spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70(4): 539–590. 

http://wordpress.cfans.umn.edu/gutierrez/files/2013/03/cfans_content_378088.pdf. 

Heinrichs, J. A., D. J. Bender, D. L. Gummer, and N. H. Schumaker. 2010. Assessing critical habitat: Evaluating the relative 

contribution of habitats to population persistence. Biological Conservation 143(9): 2229–2237. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.009. 

Irwin, L. L., D. Rock, and S. Rock. 2004. Adaptive management monitoring of spotted owls, 2004 annual progress report. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Vancouver, WA. 47 pp. 
988 | P a g e

Lamberson, R. H., B. R. Noon, C. Voss, and K. S. McKelvey. 1994. Reserve design for territorial species: the effects of patch 

size and spacing on the viability of the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 8(1): 185–195. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/noon/psw_1994_noon001_lamberson.pdf. 

Marcot, B. G., S. Morey, and P. R. Phifer. 2006. Summary of results: threats workshop, June 1–2, 2006. Unpublished report to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 18 pp. 

Marcot, B. G., M. G. Raphael, N. H. Schumaker, and B. Galleher. 2013. How big and how close? Habitat patch size and spacing 

to conserve a threatened species. Natural Resource Modeling 26(2): 194–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-

7445.2012.00134.x. 

Meyer, J. S., L. L. Irwin, and M. S. Boyce. 1998. Influence of habitat abundance and fragmentation on northern spotted owls in 

western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 139: 3–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3830797. 

Olsen, G. S., E. Glenn, R. G. Anthony, E. D. Forsman, J. A. Reid, P. J. Loschl, and W. J. Ripple. 2004. Modeling demographic 

performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4): 1039–

1053. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[1039:MDPONS]2.0.CO;2. 

Schumaker, N. H. 2011. HexSim (version 2.3). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Lab, Corvallis, OR. http://www.hexsim.net/. 

Schumaker, N. H., A. Brookes, J. R. Dunk, B. Woodbridge, J. A. Heinrichs, J. Lawler, C. Carroll, and D. LaPlante. 2014. 

Mapping sources, sinks and connectivity using a simulation model of northern spotted owls. Landscape Ecology 29(4): 579–

592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0004-4. 

Singleton, P. H. 2013. Barred owls and northern spotted owls in the Eastern Cascade Range, Washington. Unpublished 

dissertation. University of Washington. 198 pp. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/22911. 

Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The Endangered Species Act. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA. 296 pp. 

Swindle, K. A., W. J. Ripple, E. C. Meslow, and D. Schafer. 1999. Old-forest distribution around spotted owl nests in the central 

Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(4): 1212–1220. 

http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub3116.pdf. 

Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the 

northern spotted owl. Report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted 

Owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDI National Park 

Service, Portland, Oregon. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/NSO%20Interagency%20Conservation%20Strategy.pdf. 

Thrailkill, J. 2005. The USFWS 40% rule based on the current science on the northern spotted owl: An update. Unpublished 

manuscript. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 9 pp.

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, and Standards and Guidelines for Management of 

Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

USDA Forest Service, Region 6, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. 

http://www.reo.gov/riec/newroda.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management, Vols. 1 and 2. BLM, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/. 

---. 2008b. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1. BLM Off. Assist. Dir., Renewable Resources and 

Planning (WO-200), Washington, DC 20240. 174 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.24487.Fil

e.dat/h1790-1-2008-1.pdf.

USDI FWS. 1992. Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 2 vols. 

---. 1994. Final biological opinion for the preferred alternative of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on 

Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

---. 2008. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, 

Portland, OR. May 2008. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/pdf/NSO%20Final%20Rec%20Plan%20051408.pdf. 

---. 2011a. Revised Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, OR. 258 pp. http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf. 

---. 2011b. 5-year review, short form summary; northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Unpublished. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 5 pp. with 2 signature pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/documents/NSO5-YrReview-R8SignedCopy10-26-2011.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. Unpublished manuscript. U.S Dept. of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 48 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/data/northernspottedowl/Documents/MODEL_SUPP_Dunk2012AppC.pdf. 

---. 2013. Experimental removal of barred owls to benefit threatened northern spotted owls; final 

environmental impact statement. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 467 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/BarredOwl/Documents/Final_EIS.pdf. 
989 | P a g e

Van Lanen, N. J., A. B. Franklin, K. P. Huyvaert, R. F. Reiser II, and P. C. Carlson. 2011. Who hits and hoots at whom? Potential 

for interference competition between barred and northern spotted owls. Biological Conservation 144(9): 2194–2201. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.05.011. 

Wagner, F. F., and R. G. Anthony. 1999. Reanalysis of northern spotted owl habitat use on the Miller Mountain Study Area; 

Final Report for Step 1: Identification and evaluation of northern spotted owl habitat in managed forests. Oregon 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Wiens, J. D., R. G. Anthony and E. D. Forsman. 2014. Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern 

spotted owls and barred owls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 185(1): 1–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1009. 

Zabel, C. J., J. R. Dunk, H. B. Stauffer, L. M. Roberts, B. S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern spotted owl habitat models 

for research and management application in California. Ecological Applications 13(4): 1027–1040. 

ftp://gisportal.mt.gov/Maxell/Models/Predictive_Modeling_for_DSS_Lincoln_NE_121510/Modeling_Literature/zabel_etal(

2003).pdf. 
990 | P a g e

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat 

Key Points 

 Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would manage northern spotted owl 

critical habitat in accordance with the “special management considerations or protections” 

mandated by the final rule on critical habitat. 

 BLM-administered lands in western Oregon currently support 1,554 known (including historic) 

northern spotted owl sites in critical habitat units, of which 74 percent meet Recovery Action 10 

habitat thresholds. In 50 years, the number of northern spotted owl sites in critical habitat meeting 

Recovery Action 10 thresholds would increase to 81 percent under Alternative C and 89 percent 

under the Proposed RMP. 

 BLM-administered lands in western Oregon currently support 346,200 acres of structurallycomplex forest in critical habitat units. In 50 years, the acres of structurally-complex forest in 

critical habitat units would increase by 25 percent under Alternative C and 44 percent under the 

Proposed RMP. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

 The Proposed RMP/Final EIS has conducted additional analysis only for the Proposed RMP, 

Alternative C, and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. Based on the analytical results in 

the Draft RMP/EIS, the modeling results in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS for Alternative C and 

the No Timber Harvest reference analysis generally bracket the results for the other alternatives 

(i.e., the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and Sub-alternatives B and C). Where 

the analytical results for Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis are 

essentially indistinguishable, the results for Alternative C and the No Timber Harvest reference 

analysis represent the effects of the other alternatives as well. 

 As described in Appendix T, Section D, the BLM refined its northern spotted owl relative habitat 

suitability surfaces to address recommendations by subject matter experts. The overall result of 

this refinement in the relative habitat suitability surface is that the baseline condition in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS describes less nesting-roosting habitat and more dispersal habitat than 

the baseline condition in the Draft RMP/EIS. Thus, some analytical results for Alternative C and 

the No Timber Harvest reference analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS differ slightly in 

absolute values from those in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Background 

Table 3-279 shows the amounts of northern spotted owl critical habitat on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area that would be in the Harvest Land Base under each alternative. In Alternative A, small 

acreages of critical habitat would be in the Harvest Land Base, and in Alternative B, Sub-alternative B, 

and the Proposed RMP, small acreages of critical habitat would be in the Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

because of the accumulated area of very small differences between the critical habitat and BLMadministered lands spatial data. 
991 | P a g e

Table 3-279. Acres and percentages of northern spotted owl critical habitat on BLM-administered lands 

in the Harvest Land Base

Land Use Allocation

No 

Action 

(Acres)

Alt. A 

(Acres)

Alt. B 

(Acres)

Sub. B 

(Acres)

Alt. C 

(Acres)

Sub. C 

(Acres)

Alt. D 

(Acres)

PRMP 

(Acres)

Adaptive Management 

Area 50,304 - - - - - - -

Connectivity/Diversity 

Blocks 61,130 - - - - - - -

General Forest 

Management Area 243,090 - - - - - - -

Low Intensity Timber 

Area - - 71,387 30,306 - - - 63,657

Moderate Intensity 

Timber Area - - 878 339 - - 909 744

High Intensity Timber 

Area - 1,418 - - 200,930 135,995 - -

Uneven-aged Timber 

Area - 562 132,572 49,365 89,571 45,089 594 108,228

Predicted Marbled 

Murrelet† - - - - 1,571 306 - -

Owl Habitat Timber Area - - - - - - 140,492 -

Harvest deferral‡- - - - - - 165,547 -

Totals 354,524 1,980 204,837 80,010 292,072 181,391 307,542 172,629

Percent of Total Critical 

Habitat*

29.2% 0.2% 16.9% 6.6% 24.1% 14.9% 25.3% 14.2%

* There are 1,213,975 acres of northern spotted owl critical habitat on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

† Estimated acres that would be removed from the Harvest Land Base due to predicted marbled murrelet occupancy 

‡ Estimated acres where harvest would be delayed until Recovery Action 10 thresholds are met

Sec. 3(5)(A)(i) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), defines critical habitat as 

having “those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which 

may require special management considerations or protection.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its 

final rule on northern spotted owl critical habitat (77 FR 71908), hereafter referred to as the final rule, 

stated four “special management considerations or protections” (hereafter referred to as ‘considerations’) 

for critical habitat in the western Cascades and Coast Range of Oregon, and eight for the eastern Cascades 

of Oregon (77 FR 71908). These same considerations apply to the Klamath Basin of southwestern Oregon 

depending on site-specific moist and dry forest conditions (77 FR 71910). 

Oregon Western Cascades and Coast Range: 

“(1) Conserve older stands that contain the conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy or highvalue northern spotted owl habitat as described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32 (USDI FWS 2011, pp. III43, III-67). On Federal lands, this recommendation applies to all land-use allocations (see also Thomas et 

al. 2006, pp. 284–285). 

(2) Management emphasis needs to be placed on meeting northern spotted owl recovery goals and longterm ecosystem restoration and conservation. When there is a conflict between these goals, actions that 

would disturb or remove the essential physical or biological features of northern spotted owl critical 

habitat need to be minimized and reconciled with long-term ecosystem restoration goals. 

(3) Continue to manage for large, continuous [sic] blocks of late-successional forest. 

(4) In areas that are not currently late seral forest or high-value habitat and where more traditional forest 

management might be conducted (e.g., matrix), these activities should consider applying ecological 
992 | P a g e

forestry prescriptions. Some examples that could be utilized include Franklin et al. (2002, pp. 417–421; 

2007, entire), Kerr (2012), Drever et al. (2006, entire), Johnson and Franklin (2009, pp. 39–41), Swanson 

et al. (2010, entire), and others cited in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 

FWS 2011, pp. III-14, III-17 – III-19).”

Oregon Eastern Cascades: 

“(1) Conserve older stands that contain the conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy or highvalue northern spotted owl habitat as described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32 (USDI FWS 2011, pp. III43, III-67). On Federal lands this recommendation applies to all land-use allocations (see also Thomas et 

al. 2006, pp. 284–285). 

(2) Emphasize vegetation management treatments outside of northern spotted owl territories or highly 

suitable habitat; 

(3) Design and implement restoration treatments at the landscape level; 

(4) Retain and restore key structural components, including large and old trees, large snags, and downed 

logs; 

(5) Retain and restore heterogeneity within stands; 

(6) Retain and restore heterogeneity among stands; 

(7) Manage roads to address fire risk; and 

(8) Consider vegetation management objectives when managing wildfires, where appropriate.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delineated the northern spotted owl range into 61 critical habitat 

subunits within 11 critical habitat units (77 FR 71918). Of these, 31 critical habitat subunits—within all 

or parts of 7 critical habitat units—occur in the planning area. To evaluate the potential effects of a 

proposed project on northern spotted owl critical habitat, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service evaluates the 

potential effects of the project on each of the pertinent considerations at three scales: the critical habitat 

subunit, the critical habitat unit, and all critical habitat (77 FR 71941). 

To evaluate the potential effects of each alternative and the Proposed RMP on northern spotted owl 

critical habitat, the BLM developed spatial and tabular data, at the subunit and unit scales, on how critical 

habitat would change over time under each alternative and the Proposed RMP . In addition, as described 

below, the BLM evaluated the consistency of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP with each of the 

considerations to the extent it could develop relevant data. 

Issue 1 

In accordance with Consideration (1) for the Oregon Western Cascades and Coast Range, and Oregon 

Eastern Cascades, would the alternatives conserve older stands of northern spotted owl critical habitat 

that contain the conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy or high-value northern spotted owl 

habitat as described in recovery actions 10 and 32? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM evaluated its potential contributions to “conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy 

as described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32” on all lands in the planning area in its evaluations of 

Northern Spotted Owl Issues 1–4, 6, and 8. Although the evaluations of Northern Spotted Owl Issues 1–4 

are not specific to northern spotted owl critical habitat, they are sufficient to address this consideration, 

because the conservation needs addressed by Northern Spotted Owl Issues 1–4, themselves, are not 

specific to critical habitat. With respect to Northern Spotted Owl Issues 6 and 8, which specifically 

address Recovery Actions 10 and 32, the BLM tabulated subsets, specific to critical habitat, of the data it 

developed for Northern Spotted Owl Issues 6 and 8. 
993 | P a g e

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Northern Spotted Owl Issue 6 contains background information on the evaluation of Recovery Action 10 

consistency in critical habitat. Currently, 1,554 known (including historic) northern spotted owl sites are 

associated with critical habitat on BLM-administered lands in the planning area (i.e., these sites occur on 

all land ownerships but their provincial home ranges include BLM-administered lands designated as 

critical habitat). Of these known sites, 1,144 sites (74 percent) meet Recovery Action 10 thresholds. (Only 

1,140 known sites currently meet Recovery Action thresholds under the Proposed RMP because, as 

explained at the beginning of Chapter 3, the BLM updated the baseline data for the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS to include the effects of wildfires during 2013.) In 30 years, according to the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis, 1,317 known sites (85 percent) would be capable of meeting Recovery Action 10 

thresholds; in 50 years, the number increases to 1,394 known sites (90 percent). According to the No 

Timber Harvest reference analysis, the remaining 10 percent of known sites are not capable of meeting 

Recovery Action 10 thresholds in 50 years due to the limited BLM-administered lands, slow habitat 

development of some BLM-administered lands because of poor site conditions, and competing land uses 

on other land ownerships. 

Figure 3-203 shows the number of northern spotted owl known sites that are associated with critical 

habitat on BLM-administered lands that would be at or above Recovery Action 10 habitat thresholds, 

during each decade, under Alternative C and the Proposed RMP. In 50 years, Alternative C would support 

1,259 northern spotted owl known sites at or above Recovery Action 10 thresholds, a 10 percent increase 

from the current 1,144 sites. In 50 years, the Proposed RMP would support 1,384 northern spotted owl 

known sites at or above Recovery Action 10 thresholds, a 21 percent increase from the current 1,140 sites. 

Under Alternative C, in 50 years BLM-administered lands would support 81 percent of the 1,554 northern 

spotted owl known sites associated with critical habitat on those lands at or above Recovery Action 

thresholds whereas the Proposed RMP would support 89 percent of those sites at or above those 

thresholds. The other alternatives (the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and Subalternatives B and C) would have the same relative outcomes on the number of northern spotted owl 

known sites that are associated with critical habitat on BLM-administered lands that would be at or above 

Recovery Action 10 habitat thresholds in comparison to Alternative C and the No Timber reference 

analysis as described in the Draft RMP/EIS, and that analysis is incorporated here by reference (BLM 

2015, pp. 820–822). 
994 | P a g e

Figure 3-203. Number of northern spotted owl known sites associated with critical habitat on BLMadministered lands that would be at or above Recovery Action 10 habitat thresholds during each decade 

Note: Potential change according to the No Timber Harvest reference analysis is included for comparison. 

Please see Northern Spotted Owl Issue 8 for background information on the evaluation of Recovery 

Action 32 consistency in critical habitat. Currently, BLM-administered lands in the planning area in 

critical habitat, support 346,200 acres of strongly-selected-for habitat. According to the No Timber 

Harvest reference analysis, these lands are capable of supporting 449,500 acres of strongly-selected-for 

habitat in 30 years and 500,700 acres in 50 years, which correspond to increases of 30 and 45 percent, 

respectively. 

Figure 3-204 shows changes in the acres of strongly-selected-for habitat, in critical habitat, on BLMadministered lands in western Oregon under Alternative C and the Proposed RMP.155 The results are 

similar to those for all BLM-administered lands, as discussed under Northern Spotted Owl Issue 8 

(Figure 3-201). Under Alternative C, BLM-administered lands would support 335,200 acres of stronglyselected-for habitat in 10 years, a 3 percent decrease from the current level, and then would support 

increasing acres of strongly-selected-for habitat each subsequent decade, reaching 434,900 acres in 50 

years, a 26 percent increase from the current level. Under the Proposed RMP, BLM-administered lands 

would support 352,100 acres of strongly-selected-for habitat in 10 years, a 2 percent increase from the 

current level, and then would support increasing acres of strongly-selected-for habitat each subsequent 

decade, reaching 496,800 acres in 50 years, a 44 percent increase from the current level. The other 

alternatives (the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and D, and Sub-alternatives B and C) would 

have the same relative outcomes on the acres of strongly-selected-for habitat in critical habitat in 

comparison to Alternative C and the No Timber reference analysis as described in the Draft RMP/EIS, 

and that analysis is incorporated here by reference (BLM 2015, pp. 822–823). 

 

155 As explained at the beginning of Chapter 3, the baseline data for the Proposed RMP includes the effects of large 

wildfires on BLM-administered lands during 2013, which are not included in the baseline data for Alternative C and 

the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. Thus, the results for Alternative C and the No Harvest reference analysis 

reflect the influence of 3,500 more acres of strongly-selected-for critical habitat in 2013 than were included in the 

baseline data for the Proposed RMP. 

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

2013 2023 2033 2043 2054 2063

Number of NSO Sites ≥ RA10 Habitat 

Thresholds for Critical Habitat 

Year 

Alt. C No Timber Harvest PRMP
995 | P a g e

Figure 3-204. Change in the acres of ‘strongly-selected-for’ habitat in critical habitat on BLMadministered lands in western Oregon 

Note: The No Timber Harvest reference analysis is shown for comparison. 

As verified by these analyses and those that address Northern Spotted Owl Issues 1–4, under all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would conserve older stands of northern spotted owl critical 

habitat that contain the conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy or high-value northern 

spotted owl habitat as described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32. However, the level of conservation 

would vary substantially by alternative and the Proposed RMP. 

Issue 2 

In accordance with Consideration (2) for the western Cascades, Coast Range and moist-forest portions of 

the Klamath Basin, would the alternatives manage northern spotted owl critical habitat to meet northern 

spotted owl recovery goals and long-term ecosystem restoration and conservation? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM evaluated its potential contributions to “northern spotted owl recovery goals and long-term 

ecosystem restoration and conservation” on all lands in western Oregon during its evaluations of Northern 

Spotted Owl Issues 1–4. Although those evaluations are not specific to northern spotted owl critical 

habitat, the evaluations of BLM contributions to a landscape in the planning area that meets the 

conservation needs of the northern spotted owl also evaluate if the BLM would manage critical habitat 

within that landscape to emphasize “northern spotted owl recovery goals and long-term ecosystem 

restoration and conservation.” Therefore, the BLM needs no additional analysis to address this issue. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As evidenced by the evaluations of Northern Spotted Owl Issues 1, 2, and 4, under all alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP, the BLM would manage its lands, including those in critical habitat, in a manner that 

contributes to a landscape in the planning area that meets northern spotted owl recovery goals and longterm ecosystem restoration and conservation. That said, current habitat conditions in the northern half of 

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Strongly-selected-for NSO Habitat in 

Critical Habiat (Acres) 

Year 

Alt. C No Timber Harvest P RMP
996 | P a g e

the Oregon Coast Range Physiographic Province, along with limited BLM-administered lands in that 

area, preclude the BLM from contributing to a landscape in that area that meets the conservation needs of 

the northern spotted owl. In addition, as describe under Northern Spotted Owl Issue 4, during the next 50 

years, the BLM, through the management of its lands in planning area, is incapable of moderating risks to 

northern spotted owl populations in portions of the planning area. 

Issue 3 

In accordance with Consideration (3) for the western Cascades, Coast Range and moist-forest portions of 

the Klamath Basin, would the alternatives manage northern spotted owl critical habitat for large, 

contiguous blocks of late-successional forest? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM evaluated its potential contributions to “large, contiguous blocks of late-successional forest” on 

all lands in the planning area during its evaluation of Northern Spotted Owl Issue 1. Although this 

evaluation is not specific to northern spotted owl critical habitat, due to land ownership patterns, large 

blocks do not form or function on BLM-administered lands in the planning area in isolation from lands 

outside of northern spotted owl critical habitat, making the Issue 1 analysis relevant to this consideration. 

Therefore, the BLM needs no additional analysis to address this issue. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As described under Northern Spotted Owl Issue 1, BLM-administered lands in the planning area, 

including those in critical habitat units, currently contribute to a western Oregon landscape that supports 

large blocks of contiguous late-successional forest (i.e., nesting-roosting habitat) in all areas except the 

northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Physiographic Province. In addition, under all alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP, during the next 50 years, the BLM would continue to contribute to the support and 

expansion of these large habitat blocks. That said, current habitat conditions in the northern half of the 

Oregon Coast Range Physiographic Province, along with limited BLM-administered lands in that area, 

preclude the BLM from contributing to a landscape that supports large blocks of late-successional forest 

in that area at any time during the next 50 years. 

Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail 

In accordance with Consideration (4) for the western Cascades, Coast Range and moist-forest portions of 

the Klamath Basin, and in areas that are not currently late seral forest or high-value habitat, and where 

more traditional forest management might be conducted, would the alternatives apply ecological forestry 

prescriptions to northern spotted owl critical habitat? 

The term ‘ecological forestry’ is interpreted broadly, as verified by the scientific publications cited by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its final rule, 

acknowledged the site-specific nature of applying ecological forestry: “Specifically prescribing such 

management is beyond the scope or purpose of this document, and should instead be developed by the 

appropriate land management agency at the appropriate land management scale (e.g., National Forest or 

Bureau of Land Management District)... through the land managing agencies’ planning processes and 

with technical assistance from the Service, as appropriate” (77 FR 71881).

The BLM concurs that some applications of ecological forestry depend on site-specific conditions and 

treatment design (i.e., they are too site-specific or fine-scale for collective evaluation during development 
997 | P a g e

of a RMP/EIS). In addition, the BLM cannot meaningfully evaluate some components of ecological 

forestry—such as increasing the amount of forest edge and creating stands that mimic early seral forest—

because there are no scientifically credible or consensus thresholds against which it could evaluate the 

alternatives or the Proposed RMP. Finally, the final rule provides no descriptive or quantitative link 

between “ecological forestry” practices and “those physical and biological features” that are both 

essential to northern spotted owl conservation and can be evaluated across the planning area. 

The BLM interprets “should consider applying” to mean that this consideration is advisory as opposed to 

one that might cause the BLM to reject an alternative due to an ESA Sec. 9 prohibition. 

The BLM determined that its evaluations of Northern Spotted Owl Issues 1–4 are more relevant to the 

question of northern spotted owl conservation, than a separate analysis of the means it would use (specific 

ecological forestry prescriptions) to foster conservation. Nor would a separate analysis generate results 

that would help the BLM evaluate its planning alternatives. Therefore, the BLM determined that this issue 

requires no additional analysis. 

In accordance with Consideration (2) for the Eastern Cascades and dry-forest portion of the Klamath 

Basin, would the alternatives emphasize vegetation management treatments in northern spotted owl 

critical habitat that is outside of northern spotted owl territories and highly suitable habitat? 

Although this consideration is confined to critical habitat in a portion of the planning area, it advocates 

locating timber harvest units so as to avoid the northern spotted owl habitat addressed by Recovery 

Actions 10 and 32 of the Revised Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 2011). As such, the BLM evaluated this 

consideration under Issue 1, above. Therefore, the BLM determined that this issue requires no additional 

analysis. 

In accordance with Considerations (3)–(8) for the Eastern Cascades and dry-forest portion of the 

Klamath Basin, would the BLM, in critical habitat, design and implement restoration treatments at the 

landscape level, retain and restore key structural components, including large and old trees, large snags, 

and downed logs, retain and restore heterogeneity within stands, retain and restore heterogeneity among 

stands, manage roads to address fire risk, and consider vegetation management objectives when 

managing wildfires, where appropriate? 

Resource management plans provide management direction to achieve long-term goals over relatively 

broad areas but typically defer site-specific (e.g., forest stand management) and landscape-level (e.g., 

HUC 10 watershed-scale activity plan) decision-making to subsequent implementation actions. For this 

reason, the alternatives and the Proposed RMP either do not address these considerations or address them 

indirectly. That said, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its narrative on the considerations in its final 

rule, stated: “Land managers should change from the practice of implementing many small, 

uncoordinated and independent fuel-reduction and restoration treatments. Instead, coordinated and 

strategic efforts that link individual projects to the larger objectives of restoring landscapes while 

conserving and recovering northern spotted owl habitat are needed” (77 FR 71910). As such, the BLM 

determined that its evaluations of Northern Spotted Owl Issues 1–4, 6, and 8, are directly pertinent to 

demonstrating, and sufficient to demonstrate, the emphasis of each alternative on conserving and 

recovering the northern spotted owl. Therefore, the BLM determined that this issue requires no additional 

analysis. 
998 | P a g e

References 

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/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf. 
999 | P a g e

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly 

Key Points 

 There are no observations of this species on BLM-administered lands, and potential habitat is 

likely unoccupied. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM added evaluation of the location of potential habitat on BLM-administered lands relative to 

dispersal capabilities of Oregon silverspot butterflies. 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and designated critical habitat on July 2, 1980 (45 

FR 44935). Habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly includes three types of grasslands: salt-spray 

meadows on coastal headlands, stabilized dunes, and coastal mountain meadows. Early blue violets (Viola 

adunca) or other species of Viola are an obligate food source. Violet abundance sufficient to support 

populations of Oregon silverspot butterfly occurs only in open grassland conditions; groups of violets in 

small forest clearings are inadequate to support the butterflies (USDI FWS 2001 and USDI FWS 2013). 

The Oregon silverspot butterfly is known or suspected to occur in five counties in Oregon, including 

Clatsop, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, and Yamhill (USDI FWS 2013). Although there are no observations 

of this species on BLM-administered lands (GeoBOB FaunaObs, March 6, 2013), Oregon silverspot 

butterflies are capable of dispersing five miles in the direction of prevailing winds (USDI FWS 2001, p. 

10). 

Threats to the Oregon silverspot butterfly include habitat loss due to commercial or residential 

development, public motorized vehicle use, excessive livestock grazing, fire suppression, ecological 

succession (USDI FWS 2001, p. 18 and USDI FWS 2013), small population size, and climate change 

(USDI FWS 2011, p. 9). In the absence of disturbance, open coastal grasslands favorable for abundant 

violets will develop into shrub land or forestlands through ecological succession and become unsuitable 

for Oregon silverspot butterflies. Historically, wind erosion, wildfires, fires set by Native Americans, and 

grazing by wildlife maintained habitat for the silverspot butterflies (USDI FWS 2001, pp. 15–16 and 

USDI FWS 2013). In addition, competition with invasive plants can reduce violet abundance and nectar 

sources, thereby reducing habitat quality for the Oregon silverspot butterfly (USDI FWS 2011, pp. 18–

19). 

The Revised Recovery Plan for the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly recommends four recovery actions: 

 Protect and enhance existing habitat in each of six habitat conservation areas (Long Beach 

Peninsula, Clatsop Plains, Coastal Mountains, Cascade Head, Central Coast, and Del Norte) 

 Determine ecological requirements, population constraints, and management needs of the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly 

 Monitor the butterfly’s status and its habitat

 Reduce take (USDI FWS 2001, pp. 42–68) 

Critical habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly is located on 438 acres administered by the Siuslaw 

National Forest (USDI FWS 2001). There is no designated critical habitat for this species on BLMadministered lands. Therefore, the BLM will not analyze effects to critical habitat for this species further. 
1000 | P a g e

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly to be coastal 

grasslands/dunes identified in the 2012 GNN as either California northern coastal grassland, 

Mediterranean California northern coastal dune, or north Pacific maritime coastal sand dune and strand 

ecological systems within Clatsop, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, and Yamhill counties. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are 19,302 acres of potential coastal grassland/dunes habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly in 

the planning area, of which, 167 acres occur on BLM-administered lands. The BLM does not have sitespecific data on habitat conditions of those 167 acres or information on their occupancy by the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly. There are 6,775 acres of coastal grassland/dunes habitat within five miles of known 

observations (based on ORBIC 2015) of the Oregon silverspot butterfly, but none of these acres are on 

BLM-administered lands. The 167 acres of habitat on BLM-administered lands is unlikely to be occupied 

by Oregon silverspot butterflies, because those habitat patches are beyond the reported dispersal 

capabilities of the species. 

Under the No Action alternative, all 167 acres of potential habitat would be within areas designated as 

closed for public motorized access. Under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, 55 percent of 

potential Oregon silverspot butterfly habitat would be within areas designated as closed for public 

motorized access, and 45 percent would be within areas designated as limited to designated roads and 

trails with possible timing or vehicle restrictions. The action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would 

designate 75–77 acres as limited for public motorized access. There are inaccuracies in this data 

associated with intersecting modeled habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly and public motorized 

access designations. These inaccuracies are likely similar in magnitude to the slight differences among the 

action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Therefore, the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

would increase the potential for habitat loss due to public motorized vehicle activities, since the 

designation on approximately 55 percent of habitat would change from closed to limited, but given the 

limitations of the data, there is not a meaningful difference in effects among the action alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP. In addition, effects to Oregon silverspot butterflies themselves would not be 

reasonably foreseeable, because this habitat is likely unoccupied. 

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would manage naturally occurring special 

habitats, such as natural meadows, to maintain their ecological function (Appendix B). In addition, all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP include management direction to implement measures to prevent, 

detect, and rapidly control new invasive species infestations and to use manual, mechanical, cultural, 

chemical, and biological treatments to manage invasive species infestations Appendix B).
1001 | P a g e

References 

GeoBOB. 2013. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot – March 6,2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR. 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2015. ORBIC_ISSSSP_20130912_ssc. http://inr.oregonstate.edu/orbic/datarequests. 

USDI FWS. 2001. Revised Recovery Plan for the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta). Portland, OR. 121 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/silverspot/default.htm. 

---. 2011. Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) 5-year review, summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Newport, OR. 30 pp. 

---. 2013. Species Fact Sheet: Oregon silverspot butterfly. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Last updated: December 2, 2013. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/OregonSilverspotButterfly/. 
1002 | P a g e

Oregon Spotted Frog 

Key Points 

 Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, implementation of management direction and 

associated rangeland health standards would prevent negative effects to Oregon spotted frog eggs, 

tadpoles, or adults at occupied sites. 

 All alternatives and the Proposed RMP would control invasive species infestations (e.g., reed 

canary grass) and avoid development in wetlands that would lead to Oregon spotted frog habitat 

loss. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM updated the analytical assumptions for Oregon spotted frog habitat based on information from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Background 

The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) has been lost from 48 of the 61 localities in which it historically 

occurred, and the species may no longer occur in 76–90 percent of its historical range (78 FR 53588). 

Historically, the spotted frog occurred from British Columbia, Canada, to northeastern California. It is 

currently found in five subbasins within the planning area: McKenzie River, Middle Fork Willamette, 

Upper Klamath, Upper Klamath Lake, and Williamson River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed

the Oregon spotted frog as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on August 29, 2014 

(79 FR 51658). 

Oregon spotted frog habitat includes perennial bodies of warm water such as ponds, reservoirs, wetlands, 

and irrigation canals (78 FR 53586). They inhabit available wetland sites up to 4,915 acres in size, 

although sites greater than 9 acres in size may be necessary to support stable, local populations. Spotted 

frogs lay their eggs in wetland areas with low amounts of herbaceous cover, but rarely at bare or rocky 

sites (USDI FWS 2011). Breeding and egg laying occurs during February to March at lower elevations 

and during early April to early June at higher elevations; tadpoles metamorphose into froglets during the 

first summer (79 FR 51660). The maximum movement distance for Oregon spotted frogs between 

habitats is 3.1 miles. 

Threats to Oregon spotted frogs include loss of wetland habitat due to human development, agriculture 

conversion, livestock grazing, and introduction of nonnative plant and animal species (78 FR 53593). 

Livestock can consume and trample riparian vegetation, compact soil in riparian and upland areas, and 

defecate in water sources. The resulting increases in temperature, sediment production, and changes in 

water quality can negatively affect Oregon spotted frog habitat (USDI FWS 2011). Infestations of 

invasive reed canary grass create dense areas of vegetation that would be unsuitable for spotted frog egg 

laying and reduce the biological and structural diversity of their habitat. Removal or reduction of reed 

canary grass can improve the quality of the breeding habitat for spotted frogs. 

On August 29, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate critical habitat for the 

Oregon spotted frog on 16,715 acres in the planning area, 8 acres of which occurs on BLM-administered 

lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office (78 FR 53538). A final rule is expected in 2016. 
1003 | P a g e

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the Oregon spotted frog would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Occupied and formerly occupied habitats are represented by the extent of proposed critical habitat for the 

spotted frog (B. White, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, Consultation Branch 

Manager, personal communication, Sept. 4, 2015). In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the BLM assumed that Oregon spotted frog habitat includes wetlands of any size within 3.1 

miles of habitats occupied, or formerly occupied, by spotted frogs. This assumption results in more 

habitat modeled as spotted frog habitat than is encompassed by proposed critical habitat. The BLM 

characterized wetlands smaller than 9 acres in size as small habitat patches, and wetlands at least 9 acres 

in size as large habitat patches. 

Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified livestock grazing as a threat, the BLM tabulated 

how much spotted frog habitat in the decision area was coincident with BLM-administered livestock 

grazing allotments. The BLM consulted the riparian portions of the rangeland health assessments (see the 

Livestock Grazing section of this chapter) to determine if livestock grazing management in those 

particular allotments would be contributing adverse effects to spotted frog habitat. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The BLM has documented Oregon spotted frogs in the Klamath Falls Field Office (GeoBOB 2013). 

There are 99,743 acres of Oregon spotted frog habitat within the planning area, and 99 percent of that 

habitat occurs in large habitat patches (Table 3-280). There are 286 acres of habitat on BLMadministered lands, and 67 percent of that habitat occurs in large habitat patches. The remaining 99,458 

acres of habitat in the planning area occur on lands managed by the private landowners (55 percent), U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (40 percent), U.S. Forest Service (4 percent), the Bureau of Reclamation (< 1 

percent), and other landowners (1 percent). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expects that habitat losses 

will continue on private lands but at much lower rates than in the past because of Federal and State 

regulations that pertain to wetlands (USDI FWS 2011). 

Table 3-280. Oregon spotted frog habitat in the decision and planning areas

Oregon Spotted Frog

Habitat

Decision Area

(Acres)

Planning Area

(Acres)

Small Habitat Patches 94 1,315

Large Habitat Patches 191 98,428

Totals 286 99,743

The BLM would not alter wetland habitat for the Oregon spotted frog through development or agriculture 

conversion under any alternative or the Proposed RMP. Similarly, under all alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP, the BLM would control invasive species infestations, which would benefit spotted frogs and their 

habitat through the removal of reed canary grass. Control of invasive species to benefit Oregon spotted 

frogs is consistent with conservation actions recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife in the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 338). 

There are 285 acres of spotted frog habitat within four livestock grazing allotments in the decision area 

(Buck Mountain [#00103], Buck Lake [#00104], Buck Point [#10114], and Keene Creek [#10115]). Of 

these four livestock grazing allotments, the BLM identified that all are meeting the rangeland health 
1004 | P a g e

standards (Appendix L). The season-of-use in these livestock grazing allotments varies, but begins in 

May and ends between August and October, depending on the individual allotment (Appendix L).

Under the No Action alternative, Alternative A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would 

manage livestock grazing in accordance with the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington included in Appendix L. 

Standard #5 of the rangeland health standards (Native, T&E, and Locally Important Species; 1.j.) includes 

guidance to provide for the life cycle requirements, and maintain or restore the habitat elements of native 

(including Threatened and Endangered, special status, and locally important species) and desired plants 

and animals. This guidance would allow the BLM to restrict the timing of livestock grazing to avoid 

effects to Oregon spotted frogs at occupied sites. In addition, the Proposed RMP specifically directs the 

BLM to manage livestock grazing at sites occupied by Oregon spotted frogs to prevent direct effects to 

eggs, tadpoles, or adults (Appendix B). Management of livestock grazing at sites occupied by spotted 

frogs is consistent with conservation actions recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife in the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 338). 

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would reduce the acreage available for 

livestock grazing by 27 percent (from 495,190 acres to 359,049 acres), but the acreage in allotments that 

is actively grazed would not change substantially. In 2013, there were 354,633 acres of allotments 

actively grazed, and the BLM assumes this approximate level of livestock grazing would continue under 

Alternatives A, B, and C and the Proposed RMP, and is roughly the same level of active livestock grazing 

currently under the No Action alternative (see the Livestock Grazing section of this chapter). Under 

Alternative D, the BLM would eliminate livestock grazing. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would manage naturally occurring special 

habitats, such as wetlands and natural ponds, to maintain their ecological function (Appendix B). In 

addition, all alternatives and the Proposed RMP include management direction to implement measures to 

prevent, detect, and rapidly control new invasive species infestations and to use manual, mechanical, 

cultural, chemical, and biological treatments to manage invasive species infestations (Appendix B). 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would control invasive species infestations (e.g., 

reed canary grass) and avoid development in wetlands that would lead to spotted frog habitat loss. 

Overall, under the No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, there would 

be no reasonably foreseeable effect of livestock grazing on Oregon spotted frogs or their critical habitat, 

because management direction, coupled with implementation of rangeland health standards, would—

 Provide for spotted frog eggs, tadpoles, and adults; 

 Maintain or restore habitat elements; 

 Avoid development of wetland habitat; and 

 Control invasive weeds that degrade habitat quality. 

In addition to guidance in the rangeland health standards, the Proposed RMP would expressly direct 

management for spotted frogs to prevent effects. Because there would be no discernable effect of 

livestock grazing on Oregon spotted frogs or their critical habitat under the No Action alternative, 

Alternatives A, B, C, or the Proposed RMP, the elimination of livestock grazing under Alternative D 

would have no meaningful difference in effects on Oregon spotted frogs or their critical habitat. 
1005 | P a g e

References 

Crumley, L. 2014. Personal communication. December 14, 2014 email re: acres of vacant allotments. USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Lakeview, OR. 

GeoBOB. 2013. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot – March 6, 2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem, OR. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.asp. 

USDI FWS. 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Oregon spotted frog 

(Rana pretiosa). May 9, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 60 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/cp-fws-candidate-ha-rana-pretiosa-2011-05.pdf. 
1006 | P a g e

Pacific Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Western 

Snowy Plover 

Key Points 

 Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, there would be no negative effects to designated 

critical habitat or to western snowy plover habitat due to protections provided by the New River 

ACEC and North Spit ACEC. 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM added discussion of the effect of ACEC designation on Western snowy plover habitat and 

designated critical habitat. 

Background 

Historically, western snowy plovers (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) nested in at least 29 locations on the 

Oregon coast (USFWS 2013). Currently, only nine locations in Oregon support nesting western snowy 

plovers (Lauten et al. 2013) and two of those areas are on BLM-administered lands (Coos Bay North Spit 

and New River). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Pacific Coast Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) of the western snowy plover as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on March 5, 

1993 (58 FR 12864). 

Nesting habitat for the Pacific Coast DPS of the western snowy plover includes coastal beaches 

comprised of unconsolidated sand with sparse vegetation, from southern Washington to southern Baja 

California. Threats to snowy plovers include recreational activities (including hikers with unleashed pets) 

near nesting habitat, habitat loss from the encroachment of European beach grass, and predation, 

particularly from avian predators (58 FR 12869 and 77 FR 36754). The main cause of nest failure for 

snowy plovers along the Oregon coast in 2013 was predation by avian predators, especially corvids 

(Lauten et al. 2013, p. 9). Re-sprouting and growth of European beachgrass continues to degrade nesting 

habitat. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated revised critical habitat for the Pacific Coast DPS of the 

western snowy plover on June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36728). The primary constituent elements of designated 

critical habitat for the snowy plover include sandy beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an active 

beach face, salt flats, mud flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, artificial salt ponds and adjoining levees, 

and dredge spoil sites, with—

 Areas that are below heavily vegetated areas or developed areas and above the daily high tides; 

 Shoreline habitat areas for feeding, with no or very sparse vegetation, that are between the annual 

low tide or low-water flow and annual high tide or high-water flow, subject to inundation but not 

constantly under water, that support small invertebrates, such as crabs, worms, flies, beetles, 

spiders, sand hoppers, clams, and ostracods, that are essential food sources; 

 Surf- or water-deposited organic debris, such as seaweed (including kelp and eelgrass) or 

driftwood located on open substrates that supports and attracts small invertebrates above for food, 

and provides cover or shelter from predators and weather, and assists in avoidance of detection 

(crypsis) for nests, chicks, and incubating adults; and 

 Minimal disturbance from the presence of humans, pets, vehicles, or human-attracted predators; 

this provides relatively undisturbed areas for individual and population growth and for normal 

behavior. 
1007 | P a g e

In the Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast DPS of the Western Snowy Plover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service establishes recovery goals to maintain 250 breeding adults along the Oregon and Washington 

coast for a 10-year period and a ratio of at least 1.0 fledgling per male for the 5-year period prior to 

delisting (USDI FWS 2007). 

Overall, the population of snowy plovers has been increasing since their time of listing in 1993 (Table 3-

281). Following the 2013 nesting season, the 10-year average for the number of breeding adults is 211–

216 adults. The number of breeding adults along the Oregon coast has increased between 1993 (55–61 

adults) and 2013 (190–191 adults) (Lauten et al. 2013) but is currently below the recovery goal of 250 

breeding adults. Lauten et al. (2013) suggest that the number of resident plovers is a better index of plover 

breeding than the number of breeding adults, given the difficulties in positively identifying breeding 

adults. Based on the number of resident plovers, the population in 2013 reached 250 breeding adults 

(Lauten et al. 2013). The 5-year average for the number of fledglings per male is 1.153 through the 2013 

nesting season, which meets the recovery goal of 1.0 fledglings per male (USDI FWS 2007, p. 147). 

Table 3-281. Designated critical habitat for the Pacific Coast DPS of the western snowy plover. 

Unit

Number Unit Name

Planning Area

Critical Habitat

(Acres)

Decision Area

Critical Habitat

(Acres)

OR 2 Necanicum River Spit 11 -

OR 4 Bayocean Spit 201 -

OR 6 Sand Lake South 5 -

OR 7 Sutton/Baker Beaches 276 -

OR 8a Siltcoos Breach 15 -

OR 8b Siltcoos River Spit 116 -

OR 8c Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit 383 -

OR 8d North Umpqua River Spit 59 -

OR 9 Tenmile Creek Spit 223 -

OR 10 Coos Bay North Spit 273 101

OR 11 Bandon to New River 541 282

OR 12 Elk River Spit 167 -

OR 13 Euchre Creek 9 -

Totals 2,279 383

Currently, the Coos Bay District implements various management actions on a recurring basis to restore 

snowy plover habitat in areas, which the BLM has mapped as Habitat Restoration Areas. The BLM 

maintains breeding and wintering habitat in the Habitat Restoration Areas by periodically plowing 

encroaching beach grass (80 acres in 2012) or augmenting nesting habitat by scattering oyster shells to 

attract plover nesting (USDI BLM 2012 Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary, p. 14). In addition, 

the Coos Bay District BLM cooperates with the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services to 

control predators of snowy plover nests. 
1008 | P a g e

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the Pacific Coast Distinct Population Segment of the western snowy plover 

would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered the Habitat Restoration Areas, as mapped by the Coos Bay District, 

to represent current habitat for the snowy plover. The BLM assumed that these Habitat Restoration Areas 

are representative of current plover habitat, based on discussion with Coos Bay District staff (K. Palermo, 

BLM, personal communication, 2014, and S. Fowler, BLM, personal communication, July 2014). 

The BLM did not quantify changes in plover population numbers, because other factors beyond the 

BLM’s control influence the population, such as predation by avian predators. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are currently 334 acres of snowy plover habitat in the planning area, of which, 230 acres are in the 

decision area on the Coos Bay District and the remaining 104 acres are located on lands managed by the 

Army Corps of Engineers on the Coos Bay North Spit adjacent to BLM-administered habitat (Table 3-

281). The BLM assumed in this analysis that habitat conditions and trends on the Coos Bay North Spit are 

comparable between lands administered by the BLM and Army Corps of Engineers. 

There are 2,279 acres of designated critical habitat for the snowy plover in the planning area (Table 3-

281). There are 383 acres of critical habitat in the decision area, all in the Coos Bay District. Under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, all snowy plover habitat and designated critical habitat would be 

within either the New River ACEC or the North Spit ACEC. 

Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, a portion of the New River ACEC would be designated as 

a closed for public motorized access and a portion would be designated as limited (Appendix F). The 

limited portion of the New River ACEC would include existing roads and trails that have already been 

designated. Similarly, the BLM has designated roads and trails for the North Spit ACEC (Appendix F). 

The Proposed RMP also specifically directs BLM to not authorize or construct additional roads or trails 

within snowy plover habitat or designated critical habitat (Appendix B).

In addition, the Proposed RMP would provide direction to continue activities that restore or maintain 

snowy plover nesting habitat as the Coos Bay District has been implementing historically (e.g., 

mechanical treatment of plowing of European beach grass and augmenting nesting grounds with oyster 

shells). The Proposed RMP would also include direction to avoid disruption of plover nesting behaviors 

through restricting the timing and location of beach access or activities (Appendix B). Under the 

Proposed RMP, the BLM would not approve, fund or carry out actions that would adversely affect snowy 

plover habitat or critical habitat 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 (Appendix B).

Overall, there would be no negative effects from recreational activities or public motorized vehicle use in 

snowy plover habitat or designated critical habitat due to the protections provided by the New River and 

North Spit ACECs. Effects from actions to restore or maintain snowy plover habitat would be consistent 

with the conservation needs of the species. The BLM would not authorize or construct additional trails or 

roads in snowy plover habitat under the alternatives or the Proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP would 

also avoid disruption of snowy plover nesting and would direct the restoration and maintenance of nesting 

habitat. ACEC management direction limiting public motorized vehicle activities and avoiding disruption 
1009 | P a g e

to snowy plover nesting is consistent with actions recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife in the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 12). 

References 

Fowler, S. 2014. Personal communication. July 10, 2014 email re: plover data?. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, North Bend, OR. 

Lauten, D. J.; K. A. Castelein, J. D. Farrar, M. F. Breyer, and E. P. Gaines. 2013. The distribution and reproductive success of the 

western snowy plover along the Oregon coast – 2013. The Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Portland, OR. 67 pp. 

http://orbic.pdx.edu/documents/2013-plover.pdf. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.asp. 

Palermo, K. 2014 (pers. com.). June 26, 2014 email re: plover data?. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, North Bend, OR. 

USDI BLM. 2012. Coos Bay District annual program summary and monitoring report fiscal year 2012. North Bend, OR. 97 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/coosbay/plans/files/aps-2012.pdf. 

USDI FWS. 2007. Recovery plan for the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines 

nivosus). Volume 1: Recovery Plan. Sacramento, CA. 292 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/070924_2.pdf. 

---. 2013. Species Fact Sheet: western snowy (coastal) plover. Last updated: 29 July 2013. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/WesternSnowyPlover/. 
1010 | P a g e

Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM updated information regarding localities and effects to habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly and 

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The BLM updated analysis of the effect of ACEC designation on vernal 

pool fairy shrimp habitat and designated critical habitat. Based on the updated analysis of effects to vernal 

pool fairy shrimp, the BLM moved the discussion to issues considered but not in analyzed in detail. 

What levels of habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly would be available under each alternative?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) as an 

endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3875). The West 

Eugene population, which is not within the decision area, includes almost all of the current BLMadministered Fender’s blue butterfly sites and critical habitat (USDI BLM 2012). Analysis of the 

Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides more information on the historic range 

and known populations of Fender’s blue butterflies (USDI BLM 2013, p. 135).

The Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington, which 

addresses the recovery of the Fender’s blue butterfly, recommends the following actions:

 Preserve, restore, and manage existing populations and habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly.

 Coordinate management with recovery efforts for Kincaid’s lupine, the larval host plant for Fender’s 

blue butterfly. 

 Implement a standardized population monitoring protocol. 

 Monitor prairie quality and diversity at all population sites. 

 Reintroduce populations and restore habitat, as necessary, to meet recovery goals. 

 Implement further research needed for the conservation of the species. 

 Develop a post-delisting monitoring plan prior to delisting (USDI FWS 2010, p. vi). 

Fender’s blue butterfly is found exclusively in prairie habitats containing its larval food plants, primarily 

Kincaid’s lupine, but also spur lupine, and occasionally sicklekeeled lupine (USDI FWS 2010, UDSI 

BLM 2012). These butterflies have limited dispersal ability and remain close to their natal lupine patches 

when foraging; more than 95 percent of Fender’s blue butterflies are found within 33 feet of lupine 

patches (Schultz 1998, p. 289, USDI BLM 2012, pp. 70–80). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly on October 31, 

2006 (71 FR 63862). There are 2,180 acres of designated critical habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly within 

the planning area, including on BLM-administered lands in the West Eugene Wetlands, which is outside 

of the decision area. However, there is no designated critical habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly within the 

decision area. Therefore, the BLM will not analyze effects to critical habitat for this species. 

In this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly to be native grassland and prairie 

vegetation within Benton, Lane, Polk, or Yamhill Counties. The BLM tabulated the amount of grassland 

and prairie habitat acres using the vegetation model output for forests on BLM-administered lands, 2012 

GNN structural condition for forest on non-BLM-administered lands, and 2012 GNN ecological systems 

for non-forest on all lands. 

There are 44,762 acres of Fender’s blue butterfly habitat within the planning area, 102 acres of which 

occur on BLM-administered in the Eugene and Salem Districts. There are three localities on BLMadministered lands in the decision area where Fender’s blue butterflies have been documented within the 

Eugene District, including the Oak Basin Prairie ACEC (USDI BLM 2011:2, pp. 17–18), Kelly Creek 
1011 | P a g e

(GeoBOB 2015), and the Low Down timber sale (GeoBOB 2015). Within the Oak Basin Prairie ACEC, 

the BLM and other cooperators have been monitoring Fender’s blue butterflies since 2006, and the 

population of adult Fender’s blue butterflies has ranged from 23–83 individuals between 2006 and 2010 

(USDI BLM 2011, pp. 17–18). 

The BLM did not analyze this issue in detail, because the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not 

differ in their effect on Fender’s blue butterfly. The BLM would designate the Oak Basin Prairie ACEC 

under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The BLM identified Fender’s blue butterflies as a relevant 

and important value of the Oak Basin Prairie ACEC and the BLM would manage the ACEC to maintain 

or restore relevant and important values. Management direction specific to the Oak Basin Prairie ACEC 

would direct forest management for maintenance and restoration of relevant and important values 

(Appendix F). This management direction would protect existing habitat for Fender’s blue butterflies 

within the Oak Basin Prairie ACEC. In addition, under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM 

would manage existing populations and establish new populations of Kincaid’s lupine (see the Rare 

Plants and Fungi section of this chapter). This management would maintain and increase the potential 

supply of the primary larval food source and host for Fender’s blue butterfly, depending on the proximity 

of Kincaid’s lupine populations to existing Fender’s blue butterfly populations. Maintaining and restoring 

prairie habitat and Kincaid’s lupine is consistent with conservation actions for Fender’s blue butterfly 

recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Oregon Conservation Strategy 

(ODFW 2006, p. 350). 

What levels of habitat for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander would be available under each alternative? 

The Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi) is a Bureau Sensitive species and a Survey and 

Manage species under the current Survey and Manage measures. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

received a petition to list the Siskiyou Mountains salamander as a threatened or endangered species on 

June 16, 2004. On January 24, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the listing of the 

Siskiyou Mountains salamander was not warranted (73 FR 4380). 

Habitat for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander includes talus (loose surface rock), rock slopes, or rock 

outcrops. This species of salamander may also occasionally use down woody debris for cover but only 

when moisture levels are high and it is in close proximity to other rocky substrates. Threats to the 

Siskiyou Mountains salamander include activities that disturb surface habitat components or the 

microclimate conditions of the habitat (e.g., timber harvest, road construction, rock pit mining, 

development of large recreation sites, and wildland fire) (USDA FS et al. 2007). The current, known 

range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander includes Jackson and Josephine Counties in Oregon, and 

Siskiyou County in California. Within Oregon, Siskiyou Mountains salamander occurs within the 

Applegate Valley watershed. 

On August 16, 2007, the BLM committed to implement a conservation strategy for the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander jointly with the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

described in 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 (73 

FR 4390; USFS et al. 2007). Objectives of this conservation agreement include: (1) establish the extent of 

known sites; (2) select high-priority known sites for salamander management; and (3) manage the 

selected high-priority sites in a manner that will provide viable, well-distributed populations. There are 

380 sites known for the species, and 201 of those sites occur on BLM-administered lands. Through 

development of the conservation agreement, a panel of scientists and resource managers selected 110 

high-priority sites (4,774 acres) for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, of which 44 (1,950 acres) are on 

BLM-administered lands. 
1012 | P a g e

The BLM did not analyze this issue in detail, because the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not 

differ in their effect on the Siskiyou Mountains salamander. Consistent with the conservation agreement, 

all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would manage high-priority sites to maintain a subpopulation of 

Siskiyou Mountains salamanders over the long-term (i.e., 100 years) (73 FR 4390, USDA FS et al. 2007). 

The conservation agreement established two strategies to provide for Siskiyou Mountains salamanders, 

which the BLM included in all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The first strategy would maintain 

habitat conditions for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander at sites without risk of high-intensity fire by 

restricting activities that would have adverse effects on substrate, ground cover, forest condition (e.g., 

canopy cover), or microclimate. Maintenance of substrate and microclimate for Siskiyou Mountains 

salamanders is consistent with conservation actions recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife in the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 340). The second strategy would manage 

sites identified in the conservation agreement with a risk of high-intensity fire to reduce fuel loadings 

within desired conditions to improve Siskiyou Mountains salamander habitat. 

In addition, under the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, there would be more BLM-administered 

lands, and therefore more Siskiyou Mountains salamander sites, protected within reserves. Out of 213 

Siskiyou Mountains salamander sites in the decision area, 46 sites would lie within reserves under the No 

Action alternative, 100–204 sites would lie within reserves under the action alternatives, and 184 sites 

would lie within reserves under the Proposed RMP (Appendix S). All alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

would result in an increase in habitat for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander over current conditions in 50 

years. 

Because the BLM would manage high-priority sites for the benefit of the salamanders and their habitat,

and there would be an increase in habitat for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander over time, the BLM 

concludes that there is no discernable difference in effects on the Siskiyou Mountains salamander among 

the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

What levels of habitat for Steller’s sea lion would be available under each alternative?

The National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Steller’s sea lion (Eumetopics jubatus) as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). The National Marine 

Fisheries Service designated critical habitat in August 27, 1993. The western Distinct Population Segment 

of Steller’s sea lion was listed as endangered on May 5, 1997 (62 FR 24345) but this Distinct Population 

Segment is located west of 144 °W longitude, which is approximately 1,000 miles offshore from the 

planning area. The planning area is within the range of the eastern Distinct Population Segment (east of 

144 °W longitude), and the eastern Distinct Population Segment of Steller’s sea lion was delisted on 

November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). 

The eastern Distinct Population Segment of Steller’s sea lion is not in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. The eastern population increased from 18,313 animals in 1979 to 

70,140 animals in 2010, an annual population growth of 4.18 percent. The National Marine Fisheries 

Service concluded that human disturbance of Steller’s sea lions on or near coastal habitats is not likely to 

cause the eastern distinct population segment of Steller’s sea lion to become in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a portion of its range within the foreseeable future. Coastal development, recreation, and 

human population growth may lead to more disturbances of Steller’s sea lions on terrestrial sites or in the 

water. However, protections against such disturbance exist, and will likely remain in place, under a 

variety of State and Federal statutes such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
1013 | P a g e

Although rookeries and haul-out sites for Steller’s sea lion could occur on BLM-administered lands 

adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, there is no basis to conclude that any BLM management under any of the 

alternatives or the Proposed RMP would affect Steller’s sea lions or their habitat.

What levels of habitat for the streaked horned lark would be available under each alternative? 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61452). The Analysis of 

the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides more information on the historic 

range and known populations, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2013). The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the streaked horned lark on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 

61506). All designated critical habitat in the planning area is on the Willamette Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, no BLM actions would 

have an effect on critical habitat for this species. 

In this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for the streaked horned lark to be open areas of non-forest at 

least 300 acres in size, within grassland and prairie vegetation, within Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, 

Columbia, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington, or Yamhill Counties (78 FR 61459). The 

BLM tabulated the amount of open habitat acres using vegetation model output for forests on BLMadministered lands, 2012 GNN structural condition for forest on non-BLM-administered lands, and 2012 

GNN ecological systems for non-forest on all lands. 

There are 1,400,297 acres of streaked horned lark habitat within the planning area, but none occurs in the 

decision area. There are no observations of this species on BLM-administered lands (GeoBOB FaunaObs, 

March 6, 2013). 

None of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP would create streaked horned lark habitat within the 

decision area. There is no management direction under any alternative or the Proposed RMP that would 

degrade streaked horned lark habitat outside of the decision area. Therefore, none of the alternatives or 

the Proposed RMP would affect streaked horned lark habitat quantity or quality. 

Appendix S contains additional information and supporting data on the streaked horned lark. 

What levels of habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly would be available under each alternative? 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydras editha taylori) as an 

endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61452). Within the 

planning area, the species was historically found throughout grasslands in the Willamette Valley but the 

current range in the planning area is reduced to Benton County (78 FR 61452, USDI BLM 2013, p. 144). 

Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides more information on 

the historic range and known populations (BLM 2013, p. 144). The primary threat to Taylor’s checkerspot 

butterfly is loss, conversion, and degradation of habitat due to agricultural and urban development, 

successional changes to grassland habitat, and invasive plants (78 FR 61473). Dispersal and nectaring 

distances for this species are poorly understood (Stinson 2005). The best available information estimates 

this species can disperse up to approximately 1.5 km (0.93 miles) between habitat patches (Benton 

County 2010, citing USDI FWS 2008b). There are 4 historic sites from the 1940s, approximately 1,800 

feet from BLM-administered lands, but subsequent surveys have not located the species (GeoBOB 2013). 
1014 | P a g e

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly on 

October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61506), including 20 acres in Oregon, but all are on privately owned lands. 

Therefore, the BLM will not analyze effects on critical habitat. 

The Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington, which 

addresses the recovery of the Taylor’s checkerspot, recommends the following actions for this species:

 Determine this species’ status in the area addressed by the Recovery Plan. 

 Protect and restore populations and habitats to preclude the further decline of this species (USDI 

FWS 2010, pp. IV-69, III-9). 

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is strongly associated with short-stature prairie and oak savanna habitats 

that have a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, low-density canopy cover (high solar exposure), 

and relatively undisturbed soils (USDI BLM 2011, p. 19). In this analysis, the BLM considered habitat 

for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to be grassland and prairie vegetation and oak woodlands within 

Benton County. The BLM tabulated the amount of grassland and prairie habitat acres using vegetation 

model output for forests on BLM-administered lands, 2012 GNN structural condition for forest on nonBLM-administered lands, and 2012 GNN ecological systems for non-forest on all lands. The BLM 

calculated the amount of oak woodland from a separate data layer used by the RMP interdisciplinary team 

to map forest site moisture conditions that included potential vegetation data. However, it is not possible 

for the BLM to determine how much of this potential habitat actually contains suitable host plants to 

provide nectar sources for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae.

There are 16,621 acres of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat within the planning area, of which only 

4.4 acres occurs on BLM-administered lands in the Salem District. The 4.4 acres is distributed amongst 

16 patches with a maximum patch size of 2.0 acres. There no observations of this species on BLMadministered lands (GeoBOB FaunaObs, March 6, 2013). 

The BLM identified the Oak Basin Prairie ACEC as containing habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot, 

and it theoretically could be present (USDI BLM 2011, p. 19). However, no surveys for this species 

have been conducted. Given the occurrence of only 2 populations in Oregon 25 miles away, the limited 

ability of this species to disperse, and the generally low amount of host and nectar plants in or near Oak 

Basin, the likelihood of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly occurring in Oak Basin Prairie is very low 

(USDI BLM 2011, p. 19). 

The BLM did not analyze this issue in detail, because the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not 

differ in their effect on Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. It is very unlikely that the species occurs on BLMadministered lands, and the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not differ in their effect on the very 

small acreage of potential habitat on BLM-administered lands. There is no management direction under 

any alternative or the Proposed RMP, in which the BLM would degrade grassland habitat for Taylor’s 

checkerspot butterfly. Given the narrow range of habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and its limited 

spatial extent on BLM-administered lands, habitat availability for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly would 

not vary among the alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 

Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would manage naturally occurring special 

habitats, such as oak savannah/woodlands, to maintain their ecological function (Appendix B). 

Maintenance of oak savannah and prairie habitat is consistent with conservation actions for Taylor’s 

checkerspot butterfly recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Oregon 

Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 352). 
1015 | P a g e

What levels of habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp would be available under each alternative? 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 48136). At the time 

of its listing, the species was known to occur only in California (USDI FWS 2014). In 1998, additional 

populations were discovered in vernal pools in Jackson County, Oregon, in the Table Rocks area north of 

Medford. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 5,153 acres of critical habitat for the vernal pool 

fairy shrimp in 2003 (68 FR 46684); 422 acres of critical habitat is on BLM-administered lands in the 

Table Rocks area of the Medford District. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified recreation as the 

primary threat (USDI FWS 2005, p. II-200). 

The Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon, which addresses the 

vernal pool fairy shrimp, recommends five recovery actions: 

 Protect vernal pool habitat in the largest blocks possible from loss, fragmentation, degradation, and 

incompatible uses. 

 Manage, restore, and monitor vernal pool habitat to promote the recovery of listed species and the 

long-term conservation of the species of concern. 

 Conduct rangewide status surveys and status reviews for all species addressed in this recovery plan to 

determine species status and progress toward achieving recovery of listed species and long-term 

conservation of species of concern. 

 Conduct research and use results to refine recovery actions and criteria, and guide overall recovery 

and long-term conservation efforts (USDI FWS 2005, pp. IV-1 – IV-72). 

Historically, there were 32,000 acres of vernal pool habitat in southern Oregon, but over 40 percent has 

been degraded (USDI FWS 2005, pp. II-192, II-199). Threats to vernal pool habitat in Oregon include 

commercial and industrial development, agricultural conversion, and utility construction/expansion. 

Specific threats to vernal pool habitat on BLM-administered lands in the Table Rocks area include 

trampling in the wet areas near pools from recreation and the potential change in subsurface or surface 

flow runoff patterns due to trail construction or trail improvement.

In this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp to be vernal pools as 

identified in the 2012 GNN as northern California claypan vernal pool ecological systems. 

There are 7,668 acres of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat within the planning area, of which 307 acres 

occur on BLM-administered lands. Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, all of the designated 

vernal pool fairy shrimp critical habitat on BLM-administered lands would be within the Table Rocks 

ACEC. Approximately 96 percent of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat (293 of 307 acres) would be within 

the Table Rocks ACEC; the 14 acres of habitat that would not be included in the Table Rocks ACEC 

would be allocated to the Riparian Reserve under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

A portion of the Table Rocks ACEC would be designated as a closed for public motorized access and a 

portion would be limited under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The portion that would be limited

is an existing administrative road providing access to adjacent lands (Appendix F). ACEC management 

direction would preclude effects from recreation and public motorized vehicle use on vernal pool fairy 

shrimp habitat. In addition, the Table Rocks ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP also specifically directs the BLM to not 

authorize or construct additional roads or trails within vernal pool fairy habitat or designated critical 

habitat (Appendix B).

Under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would manage naturally occurring special 

habitats, such vernal pools/ponds, to maintain their ecological function. Maintaining the ecological 
1016 | P a g e

function and quality of vernal pools/ponds is consistent with conservation actions for the vernal pool fairy 

shrimp recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Oregon Conservation 

Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 352). 

Overall, there would be no effects to any designated critical habitat or to 96 percent (293 acres) of vernal 

pool fairy shrimp habitat due to the protections provided by the Table Rocks ACEC under the alternatives 

and the Proposed RMP. There would be no effects to the remaining 4 percent (14 acres) of fairy shrimp 

habitat due to the protections provided by the Riparian Reserve management direction (Appendix B). 

There would not be any negative effect to designated critical habitat or to vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat 

due to protections provided by the Table Rocks ACEC, and effects would not vary among the alternatives 

or the Proposed RMP. 

What levels of habitat for the wolverine would be available under each alternative? 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed the wolverine (Gulo gulo) as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act on February 1, 2013 (78 FR 7864). Wolverine habitat is dependent on highelevation areas that are cold and receive enough winter precipitation to maintain snow late into the spring; 

wolverines are dependent on spring snow cover for successful reproduction. Wolverine habitat does not 

appear to be restricted to specific vegetation or other structural characteristics. 

Human use and disturbance may have an effect on wolverine behavior. However, little is known about the 

behavioral responses of individual wolverines to human presence, or about the species’ ability to tolerate 

and adapt to repeated human disturbance. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not consider stressors 

such as recreation, infrastructure development, or transportation corridors to pose a threat to wolverines. 

There is no evidence to suggest that land management activities are a threat to the conservation of the 

wolverine. 

Future climate change, with reduced snowpack, earlier spring thaw, and warmer summer temperatures, is 

the only projected threat to wolverine habitat. These changing conditions will reduce wolverine habitat 

and increase fragmentation of remaining habitat. 

The BLM considered habitat for the wolverine to be all lands at least 4,592 feet in elevation within the 

Cascades Province. There are 1,570,784 acres of wolverine habitat within the planning area, of which 

59,311 acres is in the decision area. There are no observations of this species on BLM-administered lands 

(GeoBOB FaunaObs, March 6, 2013). 

The BLM did not analyze this issue in detail, because the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would not 

differ in their effect on the wolverine or wolverine habitat. 
1017 | P a g e

References 

GeoBOB. 2013a. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot – March 6, 2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem, OR. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.asp. 

Schultz, C. B. 1998. Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare Oregon butterfly. Conservation Biology 

12(2): 284–292. https://research.vancouver.wsu.edu/sites/research.vancouver.wsu.edu/files/ConsBio%20April1998.pdf. 

Stinson, D. W. 2005. Status report for the Mazama pocket gopher, streaked horn lark, and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 129 + xii pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/WDFW%20Status%20Report%202005.pdf. 

USDA FS, USDI BLM, and USDI FWS. 2007. Conservation Agreement for the Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon 

stormi) in Jackson and Josephine Counties of Southwest Oregon; and in Siskiyou County of Northern California. Medford, 

OR. 56 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/cag-cs-ha-plst-2007-08-17.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2011. Oak Basin Restoration/RAC Project Environmental Assessment. Upper Willamette Resource Area, BLM 

Eugene District, Springfield, OR. DOI-BLM-OR-E060-2011-0005-EA. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/eugene/plans/files/OakbasinDR_sj.pdf. 

---. 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Statement West Eugene Wetlands Resource Management Plan. BLM Eugene District. 

Springfield, OR. 296 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/eugene/plans/files/Draft_RMP.pdf. 

---. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-western-oregon.pdf. 

USDI FWS. 2008b. Biological Opinion. Prairie conservation and restoration of federally listed plants and insects on non-federal 

lands in the Willamette Valley and Douglas County, Oregon. Ref: 8330.F0072(08). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 

1, Portland, OR. 

---. 2010. Recovery Plan for the prairie species of western Oregon and southwestern Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 1, Portland, OR. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/100629.pdf. 

---. 2005. Recovery Plan for vernal pool ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 

1, Portland, OR. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/060614.pdf. 

---. 2014. Species fact sheet: vernal pool fairy shrimp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. Last updated: 

April 28, 2014. http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/VernalPoolFairyShrimp/. 
1018 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
1019 | P a g e

Wild Horses 

Key Points 

 The Pokegama herd is currently 40 percent over the maximum appropriate management level of 

50 horses. 

 The Pokegama herd relies primarily on private land within the Herd Management Area for forage 

and water. 

 Alternative D, which would eliminate livestock grazing, would reduce competition for forage and 

provide the potential for increased growth of the Pokegama herd. Otherwise, the alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP would not differ in their effects on the Pokegama herd. 

Summary of Notable Changes from Draft RMP/EIS 

 Analysis for the Proposed RMP/EIS includes added data on herd numbers resulting from direct 

counts conducted in the summer of 2015. 

Background 

The Pokegama Herd Management Area (HMA) is the only HMA within the planning area. It 

encompasses a total of 85,022 acres in Oregon and California and includes private, state, and Federal 

lands. Approximately 83 percent of the HMA (70,550 acres) is within the planning area, with 23 percent 

of the HMA on BLM-administered lands managed by the Klamath Falls Field Office. The remainder of 

the HMA within the planning area is on private land. Most of the California portion of the HMA (95 

percent, or 13,016 acres) is located on private and state land; only 5 percent is located on BLMadministered lands (outside of the planning area). 

The Pokegama herd spends 94 percent of its time in meadows, open areas, and in tree cover on the edge 

of meadows (Gottlieb 1993). During the spring and summer, the horses are generally in the northern and 

central portions of the HMA. Due to the typically high winter snow accumulations in the northern and 

central portions of the HMA, the horses concentrate in the southern portion (California) from December 

through March, although they can be found in the northern and central areas at any time of the year. 

The diet of the Pokegama herd is predominantly grasses and grass-like species. Their primary water 

sources include creeks, springs, and reservoirs. Most developed water sources for the Pokegama herd (70-

80 percent) are on private land. The BLM and private landowners have constructed several exclosures to 

protect riparian areas from wild horses. 

The Pokegama Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan (USDI BLM 2002) identifies specific 

management objectives and actions for the management of the Pokegama HMA. 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect BLM’s ability to maintain the appropriate management level of 30 to 

50 wild horses within the Pokegama Herd Management Area? 
1020 | P a g e

Summary of Analytical Methodology 

The BLM qualitatively analyzed effects to wild horses within the Pokegama HMA, based on other 

resource management programs. Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, management of the 

Pokegama Herd and the HMA would continue as guided by the Pokegama Wild Horse HMA Plan (USDI 

BLM 2002). Wild horses in the Pokegama Herd would be managed the same under all alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP. 

This analytical approach is a change from the Planning Criteria, which described analyzing changes in 

forage availability based on changes in forest structural stages (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 170–171). The 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would result in negligible differences in the acreage of non-forested 

lands, and early successional and stand establishment stands within the HMA. In addition, a 2014 wildfire 

in the HMA has had a much greater influence on forest structure within the HMA than any changes that 

could occur under any of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 

Affected Environment 

The Pokegama herd is currently 40 percent over the appropriate management level (AML) of 30 to 50 

horses, based on the Pokegama Wild Horse HMA Plan. Since designation of the HMA in 1971, census 

counts of the Pokegama wild horse population have ranged from 25 in 1972 to 71 in 2015156 (Figure 3-

205). The BLM has periodically completed captures to reduce herd numbers to within AML when 

needed. In 1996 and 2000, the BLM removed 20 and 18 horses, respectively. Continued captures would 

occur under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP to manage herd AML as guided by the Pokegama 

Wild Horse HMA Plan. 

Figure 3-205. Pokegama herd census, 1972–2015 

The average growth rate for the Pokegama herd is typically 4-5 percent per year, which is below the 

average rate of 20 percent for other wild horse herds. The lower growth rate for the Pokegama herd may 

be related to a higher ratio of male to female horses than is normally found in wild horse herds (Gottlieb 

 

80 71 

70

55 55 55 55 55 

es

60 50 50 50 

ors

50 H

41 40 

of

35 35 40

umber

30 30 

25 25 30 24 

N

20 12 

10

0

Year

156 2015 data incorporated represents direct count numbers using simultaneous double-blind count methodologies. 

Census numbers are currently being processed for the 2015 data. The final census number may increase to account 

for horses obscured by canopy cover in forested habitats. 
1021 | P a g e

1993). The lower growth rate may also be related to young horses being killed by mountain lions during 

the winter or being illegally removed (USDI BLM 2002). The overall condition of the herd is excellent 

(USDI BLM 1996 and 2002). The current high population number may be attributed to a number of 

privately owned, unauthorized horses in the area being included in the wild horse count (personal 

communication, Alec Bryan, BLM, 2015). 

The portion of the HMA within the planning area lies within the boundaries of two grazing allotments: 

the Dixie and Edge Creek allotments. The BLM allocates forage for livestock, wild horses, deer, and elk 

(USDI BLM 1994), and there is abundant forage and available water within the two allotments in the 

HMA. The BLM currently allocates 150 animal unit months of forage on BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area to the Pokegama herd. The remaining forage needs for the herd within the planning area 

are provided for on private lands. The Oregon Gulch Fire (2014) occurred entirely within the HMA and 

burned 41 percent of the acres within the HMA, but did not reduce available forage for the herd. 

Environmental Consequences 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, management of the Pokegama Herd and the HMA would 

continue as guided by the Pokegama Wild Horse HMA Plan (USDI BLM 2002), which currently 

manages the Pokegama herd unit to maintain a viable herd of approximately forty healthy animals - the 

mid-point of the determined AML range of 30 to 50 head. Wild horses in the Pokegama Herd would be 

managed the same under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. As such, this analysis focuses on 

describing potential changes in forage availability based on changes in forest structural stages. 

Vegetation management actions under the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would have very little if 

any effect on wild horses in the HMA. The Proposed RMP and all alternatives would manage all or most 

of the forested areas in the HMA with uneven-aged management. Unlike the Proposed RMP and all other 

alternatives, Alternative C includes a small portion of the High Intensity Timber Area, totaling 2,330 

acres, within the HMA in which timber management actions would include clearcuts. This increased 

intensity of timber management under Alternative C could result in some increases in forage for a time 

within clearcut units within the High Intensity Timber Area. However, the small portions of the High 

Intensity Timber Area that would be within early-successional and stand establishment stages in any 

given decade would render these overall temporary increases in forage negligible in the context of the 

abundance of existing forage within the entire 85,022-acre HMA. 

Vegetation management actions, road maintenance and construction, recreation areas, and travel 

management designations for public motorized access could affect wild horse movements, the habitat 

they occupy, and associated available forage. These activities would have only temporary and localized 

effects on horse distribution and movement with the HMA, which cannot be quantified at this scale of 

analysis with the data available. 

The Alternatives A and D, and the Proposed RMP would designate the Upper Klamath River and Upper 

Klamath River Addition ACECs located within the herd management area. The designation of these 

ACECs would not affect the wild horse herd as the horses have little to no access to the areas. These 

ACECs are located within the steep confines of a canyon with limited access by horses. 

There are two BLM-managed recreation sites located along the eastern boundary within the Pokegama 

HMA: the Klamath River Campground and Spring Island River Access. Both of these sites are located 

within the Klamath River Wild and Scenic River ERMA and in the confines of the canyon where horses 

are not known to occur. Designation of these sites as Special Recreation Management Areas would have 

no effect to the Pokegama herd. 
1022 | P a g e

Alternative D would eliminate livestock grazing throughout the planning area, including the Dixie and 

Edge Creek allotments, and would reduce competition for forage within the HMA. Alternative D would 

increase the animal unit months of forage available to horses on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area by 627. This increase in forage would provide sufficient forage to support a horse 

population at the high end of the appropriate management level on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area alone. This elimination of direct competitions for forage within the HMA would provide for 

the potential for an increased growth rate of the Pokegama herd greater than the current long-term average 

of 20 percent. 

References 

Gottlieb, S. 1993. Habitat utilization and population characteristics of the Pokegama Wild Horse Herd. B.S. Thesis. State 

University of New York, Purchase, NY. 

National Research Council. 2013.Using science to improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A way forward. National 

Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 384 pp. 

USDI BLM. 1994. Klamath Falls Resource Area Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

---. 1996. Topsy/Pokegama Landscape Analysis. Klamath Falls Resource Area, Lakeview District, Klamath Falls, OR. 295 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/files/Topsy.pdf. 

---. 2002. Pokegama Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan. Klamath Falls Resource Area, Lakeview District, Klamath Falls, 

OR.10 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/files/PokegamaHMAP.pdf. 

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, 

OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 
1023 | P a g e

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Key Points 

 The 13 river segments found suitable for recommendation for inclusion into the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System through the previous western Oregon RMPs (1995) would be 

recommended under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

 Under the No Action Alternative, all 51 eligible Wild and Scenic River segments would continue 

to be managed as eligible, protecting the rivers and their associated values, until suitability 

determinations are made through subsequent land use planning processes. 

 Under Alternative A, the BLM would not recommend the 51 eligible Wild and Scenic River 

segments for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System and no protection 

management would be applied, which could result in effects to their associated values. 

 Under Alternatives B and C, and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would recommend for inclusion 

into the National Wild and Scenic River System the 6 Wild and Scenic River segments found 

suitable during 2015 evaluations, resulting in protection for those segments. There are 45 eligible 

river segments that the BLM did not find suitable; these segments would not continue to receive 

protections, which could result in effects to their associated river values. 

 Under Alternative D, the BLM would recommend all 51 eligible Wild and Scenic River segments 

for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System, resulting in the most protection for 

all eligible segments and their associated river values. 

Summary of Notable Changes from Draft RMP/EIS 

The Proposed RMP updated data on river segments that the BLM identified as meeting suitability criteria 

to identify only the river segment lengths on BLM-administered lands. 

Issue 1 

How would the proposed management actions in each alternative affect the free-flowing condition, water 

quality, identified outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification, and on eligible Wild and 

Scenic River segments in western Oregon? 

Background 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) are rivers or river segments designated by Congress for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System) under the authority of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act of 1968 (WSR Act; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). Congress designates rivers under this WSR Act 

for the purposes of preserving the river or river segment in its free-flowing condition, preserving water 

quality, and protecting identified outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). Examples of river segment 

ORVs may include scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, historical, cultural, or other similar values. 

Congress classifies all designated WSR segments as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational. The BLM, through the 

evaluation of rivers or river segments for possible inclusion into the National System, assigns these same 

classifications to all eligible rivers or river segments. Definitions of these classifications are the 

following: 

 Wild river segments—Wild river segments are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible, 

except by trail. Their watersheds or shorelines are essentially primitive and their waters 

unpolluted. 
1024 | P a g e

 Scenic river segments—Scenic river segments are free of impoundments. Their shorelines or 

watersheds are largely undeveloped, but their shorelines are accessible in places by roads. 

 Recreational river segments—Recreational river segments are readily accessible by road or 

railroad. They may have some development along their shorelines and may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Section 5(d)(1) of the WSR Act directs Federal agencies to evaluate rivers to determine suitability during 

the land use process; suitable rives can be recommended for potential inclusion into the National System. 

To fulfill this requirement, the BLM inventoried and evaluated rivers as part of this plan revision. 

The evaluation of a river for possible inclusion in the National System follows a three-step process: (1) 

determination of eligibility, (2) tentative classification (Wild, Scenic, or Recreational), and (3) 

determination of suitability. This process, outlined below, ultimately provides the basis for 

recommendations made to Congress, and provides guidance on interim management. 

In order to be eligible for inclusion into the National System, a river segment must be free-flowing and 

contain at least one river-related value considered to be outstandingly remarkable (USDI BLM 2012). An 

eligible river’s ORVs should be located in the river itself or on its immediate shore lands. As a part of this 

plan revision, the BLM evaluated 51 rivers for eligibility and found all 51 to meet the criteria to be 

eligible. The ORVs identified for these 51 rivers include values for scenery, recreation, geology, fish, 

wildlife, historical, cultural, and ecology. 

The BLM then assigned tentative classification to rivers found to be eligible. This tentative classification 

is based upon the condition of the river and adjacent lands at the time of study. This tentative 

classification also serves as a guideline for management until either a suitability determination is made or 

until a Congressional designation. Of the 51 eligible rivers evaluated as a part of this plan revision, none 

were tentatively classified as Wild, 4 were tentatively classified as Scenic, and 49157 were tentatively 

classified as Recreational. 

Once assigned a tentative classification, the BLM further evaluates each eligible river segment to 

determine whether it is suitable for inclusion into the National System. The suitability analysis provides 

the basis for determining which rivers to recommend to Congress as potential additions to the National 

System by determining if certain river segments meet criteria for designation as a component of the 

National System, as specified in Section 4(a) of the WSR Act. The following questions are addressed 

when evaluating suitability: 

 Should the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values be 

protected, or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant doing otherwise? 

 Will the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values be 

protected through designation? 

 Is designation the best method for protecting the river corridor? 

 Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any non-Federal entities that may be 

partially responsible for implementing protective management? 

The suitability assessments conducted as a part of this plan revision identified six river segments that are 

suitable for recommendation for potential inclusion into the National System. 

 

157 Two rivers, North Fork Clackamas River and North Santiam River, contain two river segments. Each of these 

rivers had one river segment the BLM tentatively classified as Scenic and one as Recreational. 
1025 | P a g e

Interim Management of Eligible and Suitable Rivers 

To the extent possible under legal authorities, the BLM’s goal in providing interim management for 

eligible and suitable rivers is to manage their free-flowing condition, water quality, any outstandingly 

remarkable values, and tentative classification. This interim management is required for eligible and 

suitable river segments, until either—

 The BLM determines, through a suitability study, that an eligible river segment is unsuitable for 

recommendation for inclusion into the National System; or 

 Congress adds or precludes the addition of a suitable river segment to the National System. 

Since the BLM, through this planning process, conducted suitability assessments on all eligible river 

segments, no further protection of eligible segments not found suitable would be required for these 

segments under the WSR Act under the No Action Alternative and Alternative D.158 In accordance with 

BLM policy (USDI BLM 2012), Alternative D would recommend all evaluated study segments for 

inclusion into the National System resulting in interim management for free-flowing condition, water 

quality, any outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification of these river segments until a 

Congressional decision was received. 

River Designations Not Affected by this Planning Effort 

There are currently 9 designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the planning area, and previous planning 

efforts (1995 RMPs) identified 13 river segments as suitable, which were recommended for potential 

inclusion in the National System. The status of these 22 river segments would be unchanged by any 

decisions made under this planning process. 

Designated Rivers in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

The BLM administers nine designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the planning area (Table 3-282). 

These rivers were designated by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior for the preservation of the freeflowing condition, water quality, any outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification, which 

the BLM manages in accordance with the management and protection identified in each river’s 

Comprehensive River Management Plan (USDA FS, USDI BLM, and OPRD 1992; USDI BLM and 

OPRD 1993, USDA FS and USDI BLM 1993; USDI BLM 1972, 1992, and 2004), which are 

incorporated by reference. 

 

158 The Nestucca River Segment B would continue to receive protections under an ‘eligible’ status awaiting a joint 

suitability study with the U.S. Forest Service under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 
1026 | P a g e

Table 3-282. Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the planning area 

Designated River Name Year Designated District/Field Office Classification River Miles

Clackamas 1988 Salem Recreational 0.5

Elkhorn Creek 1996 Salem Wild/Scenic 3.0

Klamath (upper reach) 1994 Klamath Falls Scenic 11.0

North Umpqua 1988 Roseburg Recreational 8.4

Quartzville Creek 1988 Salem Recreational 9.7

Rogue 1968 Medford Wild/Recreational 47.0

Salmon 1988 Salem Scenic/Recreational 8.0

Sandy 1988 Salem Scenic/Recreational 12.5

South Fork Clackamas 2009 Salem Wild 0.6

Totals 100.7

Note: The Fish Creek Wild and Scenic River, which is entirely on Forest Service lands within the planning area, was designated 

in 2009. The Forest Service is completing surveys of the designated Wild and Scenic River corridor, which may result in a small 

acreage of adjacent BLM-administered lands on the Salem District being included in the corridor. 

Previously Recommended Wild and Scenic River Segments

Under the 1995 RMPs, the BLM recommended 13 suitable river segments for inclusion in the National 

System (Table 3-283). The BLM currently manages these segments under interim protection until 

Congress designates the river segments or releases them for other uses. The BLM revalidated these

findings of suitability for these 13 river segments during this planning process. 

Table 3-283. 1995 RMPs suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers within the planning area 

River Segment Name District Wild and Scenic River

Tentative Classification River Miles

Big Windy Creek Segment A Medford Wild 1.6

Big Windy Creek Segment B Medford Wild 5.7

Dulog Creek Segment A Medford Wild 0.5

Dulog Creek Segment B Medford Wild 0.9

East Fork Big Windy Creek Segment A Medford Wild 0.2

East Fork Big Windy Creek Segment B Medford Wild 3.6

Howard Creek Segment A Medford Wild 0.7

Howard Creek Segment B Medford Wild 6.8

McKenzie River Segment A Eugene Recreational 11.0

Molalla River Segment B Salem Recreational 13.5

Nestucca River Segment A Salem Recreational 13.1

Siuslaw River Segment B Eugene Recreational 46.3

Siuslaw River Segment C Eugene Recreational 11.7

Total Mileage 115.6
1027 | P a g e

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM established impact indicators based on key resources to measure the effects that the 

management actions associated with each alternative and the Proposed RMP would have on the ORVs 

and tentative classification of eligible segments. 

The BLM originally included water quality as an impact indicator for this analysis, since it is an aspect of 

river values considered during eligibility and suitability assessments. However, the analysis conducted for 

this planning effort for water quality determined that no future implementation actions included in any of 

the alternatives or the Proposed RMP would result in changes to water quality within the decision area 

(see the Hydrology section in this chapter). That analysis has determined that there would be no changes 

under implementation actions included in any of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP; therefore, the 

indicator of water quality has been dropped from this discussion. 

The BLM originally included an impact indicator for changes to free-flowing characteristics, since it is an 

aspect of river values considered during eligibility and suitability assessments. However, no actions 

included in any of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP would change current free-flowing values of any 

of the 51 eligible segments. As there is no action upon which to measure differences for this indicator, it 

has been dropped from this discussion. 

The Planning Criteria provides additional information on analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, 

and geographic and temporal scales, which the BLM incorporates here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, 

pp. 120–122). 

Descriptions of Indicators Used for Analysis 

The effect of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on eligible river segments is assessed by considering 

the extent of protection of two factors: the ORVs and tentative classification. The BLM considers these 

factors protected for a given eligible segment when that segment is recommended for designation into the 

National System in an action alternative or the Proposed RMP. The BLM considers these factors 

unprotected when a particular segment is not recommended for potential inclusion into the National 

System. 

Where an alternative or the Proposed RMP does not protect a particular segment by recommending it for 

potential inclusion into the National System, the analysis considers the potential effect of other 

management (e.g., ACEC designations, RMA designations, and land use allocations) on the two factors. 

Other management designations or allocations have the potential to provide protections for or negatively 

affect river ORVs and tentative classifications. Several key resources will be used to determine effects to 

ORVs and tentative classifications. Impact indicators include: (1) RMAs, ACECs, land use allocations, 

allowable forest management, and visual resource management (VRM) designations; and (2) establishing 

limitations for land tenures and minerals resources (e.g., timing limitations, establishing no surface 

occupancy stipulations, and establishing right-of-way exclusion areas). 

Effects Analysis Assumptions 

 A no surface occupancy stipulation generally provides protection by prohibiting surface 

occupancy and surface-disturbing activities that might degrade or continue degradation of the 

ORVs, and by preventing projects that might affect the tentative classification (i.e., Wild, Scenic, 

or Recreational) or free-flowing nature of the segment. 

 Timing limitation stipulations provide a similar level of protection as no surface occupancy, but 

only during certain times of the year. These are especially important in protecting aquatic and 

terrestrial wildlife species and their habitat during critical times. 
1028 | P a g e

 Non-native invasive weed treatments in the short term may affect eligible segments’ ORVs or 

tentative classification as evidence of human activity may be seen. In the long term, weed 

treatment and eradication would benefit ORVs as riparian health improves. 

 Eligible segments with scenery ORVs, VRM Class I and II management would provide the most 

protection to the scenery ORV. VRM Class I and II management may also provide indirect 

protection for other ORVs or tentative classification by preventing certain types of development 

that would affect the ORVs or tentative classification. 

 For eligible segments with scenery ORVs, VRM Class III and IV management would most likely 

lead to effects on scenery ORVs by allowing development that would directly impair scenic 

quality. VRM Class III and IV management may also indirectly affect other ORVs or tentative 

classification by allowing certain types of development. 

 Increased recreation has the potential to affect ORVs associated with eligible segments. Building 

infrastructure to keep people away from sensitive resources could mitigate impacts. Closing areas 

to motorized travel would protect areas from impacts associated with public motorized travel 

activities. Designating routes for public motorized travel uses would help protect ORVs to a 

lesser degree. 

 Where eligible segments overlap ACECs, ACEC management would complement management 

for ORVs and tentative classification. 

 The corridor width for suitable or eligible rivers would not exceed an average of 320 acres per 

mile, which if applied uniformly along the entire river segment, is 0.25 mile on each side of the 

rivers. For analysis purposes, the affected river corridors are 0.25 mile on both sides of the river. 

Affected Environment 

Eligible River Segments and Associated Values 

Under the 1995 RMPs, the BLM found 51 river segments eligible (Table 3-284). These segments are 

currently managed under interim protection until the BLM makes land use plan decisions regarding their 

suitability. As part of the current planning effort, the BLM evaluated these 51 eligible segments for 

suitability. The BLM identified six segments that meet the suitability criteria for recommendation for 

potential inclusion in the National System (Table 3-285). The Suitability Report and subsequent 

determinations can be found in Appendix U are incorporated here by reference. 
1029 | P a g e

Table 3-284. All eligible river segments within the decision area 

Study River Name Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Tentative 

Classification

River 

Segment 

Length

(Miles)

BLMadministered 

Lands within 

WSR Corridors

(Acres)

Alsea River Recreation, Fish, Wildlife Recreational 1.1 404

Antelope Creek Fish Recreational 1.3 718

Applegate River Fish Recreational 1.3 839

Big Butte Creek Fish Recreational 2.0 706

Cheney Creek Fish Recreational 2.2 711

Clackamas River Recreation, Fish, Wildlife Recreational 0.0 30

Cow Creek Fish, Wildlife, Historical, 

Cultural Recreational 10.0 3,339

Drift Creek Fish Recreational 0.4 150

Elk Valley Creek Fish Recreational 1.6 464

Fall Creek - Eugene Recreation Recreational 0.4 87

Fall Creek - Salem Fish Recreational 2.4 670

Kilches River Recreation, Fish, Wildlife Recreational 0.0 66

Lake Creek Segment B Recreation, Fish Recreational 0.9 483

Left Fork Foots Creek Fish Recreational 0.1 131

Little Applegate River Fish Recreational 1.7 1,368

Little Luckiamute River Ecology Recreational 0.3 40

Little North Santiam 

River

Scenery, Recreation, Fish, 

Wildlife Recreational 3.5 1,205

Lobster Creek Segment B Fish Recreational 0.1 352

Luckiamute River Ecology Recreational 2.2 624

McKenzie River Segment 

B

Scenery, Recreation, Fish, 

Wildlife Recreational 1.0 56

Middle Santiam River Cultural, Ecology Recreational 0.6 193

Nehalem River Recreation Recreational 0.2 40

Nelson Creek Fish Recreational 2.6 833

Nestucca River Segment 

B*

Scenery, Recreation, Fish, 

Wildlife Recreational 0.6 212

North Fork Clackamas 

River Fish Scenic (Seg. 1),Recreational (Seg. 2) 1.4 389

North Fork Gate Creek Fish Recreational 0.6 199

North Fork Siletz River Fish, Wildlife, Ecology Scenic 3.5 990

North Fork Trask River Recreation, Fish Recreational 3.0 778

North Santiam River

Scenery, Recreation, Fish, 

Wildlife (Seg. A),

Recreation, Fish, Wildlife 

(Seg. B)

Scenic (Seg. A),

Recreational (Seg. B) 1.2 376

Quines Creek Fish Recreational 2.7 816

Riffle Creek Fish Recreational 1.9 762

Rogue River Recreation, Fish Recreational 2.1 754

Sams Creek Fish Recreational 1.5 497

Sandy River Scenery, Recreation, Fish, 

Cultural Recreational 7.3 1,519

Siletz River Scenery, Recreation, Fish,

Wildlife Recreational 0.7 54

Sixes River Fish, Wildlife, Historical Recreational 2.0 281

South Fork Coos River Recreation, Fish, Wildlife Recreational 1.4 551

South Fork Coquille Fish, Cultural Recreational 1.0 152

South Fork Gate Creek Fish Recreational 0.6 108
1030 | P a g e

Study River Name Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Tentative 

Classification

River 

Segment 

Length

(Miles)

BLMadministered 

Lands within 

WSR Corridors

(Acres)

South Fork Little Butte 

Creek Fish Recreational 1.4 452

South Fork Trask River Fish Recreational 0.0 69

South Umpqua Fish, Wildlife, Historical,

Cultural Recreational 1.4 602

South Yamhill River† Cultural, Ecology Recreational 0.0 0

Table Rock Fork –

Molalla River Scenery, Cultural Recreational 4.7 1,480

Trask River Recreation Recreational 0.4 444

Tualatin River Cultural Recreational 1.2 326

Umpqua River

Scenery, Recreation, 

Geology, Fish, Wildlife, 

Historical, Cultural, 

Ecology

Recreational 18.0 2,403

West Fork Illinois River Scenery Scenic 4.2 1,154

Willamette River

Recreation, Fish, Wildlife, 

Historical, Cultural, 

Ecology

Recreational 1.1 83

Wilson River Recreation, Fish, Wildlife Recreational 0.0 109

Yaquina River Fish, Wildlife Recreational 1.3 270

Totals 100.9 29,339

* The BLM concluded through the suitability assessment that a joint suitability study with the U.S. Forest Service is needed to 

make a determination about the segment’s suitability. This segment will continue to receive protection until completion of the 

joint study. 

† The BLM discovered through a revalidation of the eligibility determinations that were made in 1992 that the South Yamhill 

River corridor does not include any BLM-administered lands. Therefore, this segment that was previously determined eligible did 

not move forward for suitability evaluation as part of this RMP revision. 

Table 3-285. Eligible rivers within the decision area that the BLM identified as meeting suitability 

criteria 

River Segment Name District Outstandingly

Remarkable Values

Suitable River Tentative

Classification

River

Miles

Little North Santiam River Salem Scenery, Recreation, Fish, 

Wildlife Recreational 3.5

North Fork Siletz Salem Fish, Wildlife, Ecology Scenic 3.5

Rogue River Medford Recreation, Fish Recreational 2.1

Sandy River Salem Scenery, Recreation, Fish, 

Cultural Recreational 7.3

Table Rock Fork Molalla Salem Scenery, Cultural Recreational 4.7

West Fork Illinois Medford Scenery Scenic 4.2

Total Miles 25.3
1031 | P a g e

Environmental Consequences 

This section analyzes the environmental impacts to eligible river segments within the decision area that 

could result from the implementation of the management actions proposed under the alternatives or the 

Proposed RMP in relation to other resources and resource uses. This analysis is two-part: (1) effects to 

ORVs and tentative classifications that would result from recommendation for inclusion into the National 

System under each alternative and the Proposed RMP; and (2) effects to ORVs and tentative 

classifications of segments that would not be recommended for inclusion into the National System under 

each alternative and the Proposed RMP. 

Effects to Eligible River ORVs and Tentative Classifications 

Resulting from Recommendation for Inclusion in the 

National System 

As described in more detail below, the No Action alternative and Alternative D would provide the most 

protection for the 51 current eligible river segments. Both of these alternatives fulfill regulation that 

requires analysis of a No Action alternative (where suitability assessments would not be considered 

completed and eligible rivers would continue with interim management based upon the tentative 

classification and ORVs), and analysis of an alternative that includes recommendation for national 

designation of all eligible segments, regardless of suitability determinations. The BLM would continue to 

manage all 51 eligible segments based upon the ORVs and tentative classifications under both of these 

alternatives. Alternative A fulfills regulation that requires analysis of an alternative that would not 

recommend any eligible river segments for inclusion into the National System, and no management for 

ORVs or tentative classification would occur. Alternatives B and C and the Proposed RMP would 

recommend the six eligible rivers found suitable through assessment for inclusion into the National 

System. Table 3-286 compares the miles and acres of eligible river segments that would be protected in 

the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Table 3-286. Eligible river segment protection totals within the decision area 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

Eligible Rivers 

Determined Suitable 

(Number of Segments)

Protected River Miles 

(Total Miles)

Protected River Acres 

(Total Acres)

No Action 51 100.9 29,339

Alt. A - - -

Alt. B 6 25.3 7,102

Alt. C 6 25.3 7,102

Alt. D 51 100.9 29,339

PRMP 6 25.3 7,102

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the BLM would continue to manage the 51 segments identified as 

eligible during the 1995 RMP process to protect their ORVs, water quality, free-flowing characteristics, 

and tentative classification as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational until suitability is determined during 

subsequent land use planning efforts on the 100.9 river miles and 29,339 acres within the study river 

corridors. Under this protective management, the BLM would not approve any action that would 

adversely affect the 51 segments’ ORVs or tentative classification, and the BLM assumes that these 

characteristics would persist. 
1032 | P a g e

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would not recommend any of the 51 eligible river segments in the 

planning area for inclusion into the National System. The BLM would not continue to manage these 

100.9 river miles and 29,339 acres of land for river ORVs and tentative classification. While management 

under the guidance of the WSR Act would not occur, the BLM assumed that this change in management 

would only negatively affect miles and acres of eligible rivers that occur in land use allocations or special 

management areas where management direction would be in conflict with retention of the ORVs and 

tentative classification. The specific actions and acres that could result in long-term adverse impacts to the 

ORVs and tentative classification identified during the eligibility assessments are discussed below. 

Alternatives B and C, and the Proposed RMP

Under Alternatives B and C, and the Proposed RMP, the BLM would recommend six segments for 

potential inclusion into the National System (Table 3-285). The BLM would continue to manage these 6 

segments, totaling 25.3 river miles and 7,102 acres of land, to ensure the continued protection of their 

ORVs and tentative classification until Congress makes a determination whether to designate the 

segment(s) as part of the National System. The BLM would not recommend 45 segments for inclusion 

into the National System. While management under the guidance of the WSR Act would not occur, the 

BLM assumed that this change in management would only negatively affect miles and acres of eligible 

rivers that occur in land use allocations or special management areas where management direction would 

be in conflict with retention of the ORVs and tentative classification. The specific actions and acres that 

could result in long-term adverse impacts to the ORVs and tentative classification identified during the 

eligibility assessments are discussed below. 

Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the BLM would recommend all 51 eligible segments for inclusion into the National 

System. The BLM would continue managing the segments to protect the ORVs and tentative 

classification. Implementation of Alternative D would result in effects similar to or the same as those 

described under the No Action alternative, as the BLM would provide interim protection to these river 

segments (Appendix B). The BLM assumes that these characteristics would persist. 

Effects to Eligible Segment ORVs and Tentative 

Classifications from Management for Other Resources 

In accordance with the WSR Act, the BLM would release some or all eligible river segments from interim 

protective management where they are not recommend for potential inclusion into the National System 

under Alternatives A, B, and C, or the Proposed RMP. Management of BLM-administered lands within 

these released river corridors would occur in conformance with the applicable land use allocations, of 

which some would result in effects that would potentially degrade released values. However, portions of 

these same segments would also receive indirect protection for their ORVs and tentative classification 

from management intended to protect other resources. These potential effects and indirect protections are 

detailed below. 

The No Action alternative and Alternative D are not included in this section of the analysis. By 

continuing existing management, under the No Action alternative, study river corridors would continue to 

receive protective management under existing eligible determinations. In Alternative D, the BLM would 

recommend all river corridors for inclusion into the National System and, therefore, the BLM would 

continue to provide adequate protections to ORVs and tentative classifications within these study river 

segments. 
1033 | P a g e

Effects from Riparian Management 

Fish have been identified as an ORV on 85 percent of BLM-administered acres within the eligible river 

corridors. Fish have been identified as the sole ORV on 19 river segments (37 percent of all eligible 

segments). Under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, there would be no impact to fish-related ORVs 

for any of the 41 currently eligible segments with fish as an ORV, regardless of whether they are 

recommended for inclusion in the National System. As stated in the Fisheries and Hydrology sections of 

this chapter, the riparian management strategies would all have similar consequences in that they would 

be protective of stream shade and would not increase stream temperatures for any of the alternatives or 

the Proposed RMP. Absent any affect to stream temperature, there would be no affect to fish ORVs 

resulting from any of the alternatives or the Proposed RMP. However, the discussions below on the 

effects to ORVs from resource management do not exclude these 19 eligible stream segments only 

containing fish ORVs. As such, the discussions of effects from various programs to ORVs, outside of the 

specific discussions to recreation and scenery ORVs, are overstated. 

Effects from Minerals and Right-of-Way Management 

Development of leasable and locatable minerals has the potential to affect some ORVs and the tentative 

classification segments not recommended for inclusion into the National System. Similarly, the granting 

of rights-of-way along segments not recommended for inclusion in the National System could have 

adverse effects to, for example, tentative classifications through changes in access to river segments 

where low to no access is an element of the tentative classification. Mineral or right-of-way development 

along the segments not recommended for inclusion into the National System could result in a 

substantially higher level of surface disturbance, access changes, and visual effects. Table 3-287 shows 

the incidental protection of river segments not recommended for inclusion into the National System from 

minerals and rights-of-way restrictions. 

Table 3-287. River segments not recommended for inclusion in the National System receiving incidental 

protection from mineral and right-of-way management 

Alternative/

Proposed 

RMP

River 

Segments Not 

Recommended 

for National 

System 

Inclusion

(Number)

Stipulation Right-of-way Recommended 

for 

Withdrawal 

from

Locatable 

Mineral Entry

(Acres)

Closed to 

Salable 

Mineral 

Development

(Acres)

No Surface 

Occupancy, 

Controlled 

Surface Use, 

Timing 

Limitation

(Acres)

Exclusion

(Acres)

Avoidance

(Acres)

Alt. A 51 4,401 1,467 7,507 4,096 1,870

Alt. B 45 1,567 - 4,138 1,330 1,618

Alt. C 45 1,948 - 6,196 1,504 1,706

PRMP 45 3,348 444 3,063 976 1,389

Where alternatives and the Proposed RMP require leasable mineral stipulations for the protection of other 

resources along non-suitable river segments these stipulations would provide some level of protection for 

certain ORVs. In Alternative A, 15 percent of river segments not recommended for inclusion into the 

National System would receive incidental protection from mineral stipulations, compared to 7 percent in 

Alternative B, 9 percent in Alternative C, and 15 percent in the Proposed RMP. 

River segments not recommended for inclusion in the National System may also receive incidental 

protection from being within right-of-way avoidance or exclusion areas designated for the protection of 
1034 | P a g e

other resources. Right-of-way exclusion would provide the most protection to ORVs and tentative 

classification by not permitting new discretionary rights-of-way in the area. In Alternative A, 5 percent of 

river segments not recommended for inclusion in the National System would receive incidental protection 

from right-of-way exclusion and 25 percent from right-of-way avoidance. In Alternative B, 19 percent of 

segments not recommended for inclusion in the National System in Alternative would receive incidental 

protection from right-of-way avoidance compared to 28 percent in Alternative C. The 22,237 acres of 

river segments not recommended for inclusion in the National System in Alternatives B and C would 

receive no incidental protection from right-of-way exclusion but 14 percent would from right-of-way 

avoidance. Compared to Alternatives A, B, and C, the Proposed RMP protects fewer acres. 

Effects from Visual Resource Management 

Variations in VRM classes relative to the location of river segments not recommended for inclusion in the 

National System would potentially allow for impacts to the scenic quality and potential loss of a 

qualifying ORV. Rivers with a scenery ORV would be impacted if visual resources were degraded. VRM 

Class designations I and II preserve and retain the existing character of the landscapes, respectively. VRM 

Class III and IV partially retain and allow for major modification of the existing character of the 

landscape. Table 3-288 identifies the nine river segments not recommended for inclusion under at least 

one alternative in the National System with scenery as a qualifying ORV in VRM Class I and II. 

Table 3-288. Eligible river segment corridors with overlapping scenery ORVs and VRM Class I or II, 

where the river segment is not recommended for inclusion into the National System 

Eligible River Segments

with Scenery ORVs*

BLMadministered 

Lands within

WSR Corridors

(Acres)

BLM-administered Lands within WSR

Corridors Managed as VRM Class I or II

Alt. A

(Percent)

Alt. B†

(Percent)

Alt. C*

(Percent)

PRMP*

(Percent)

Little North Santiam River 1,205 <1% Recommended for Inclusion

McKenzie River Segment B 56 100% 100% 100% 64%

North Santiam River 376 - - - 100%

Sandy River 1,519 100% Recommended for Inclusion

Siletz River 54 - - - -

Table Rock Fork–Molalla River 1,480 21% Recommended for Inclusion

Umpqua River 2,403 1% 1% 1% 1%

West Fork Illinois River 1,154 8% Recommended for Inclusion

Totals 8,459 24% 3% 3% 14%

* In addition to the rivers listed, the Nestucca River Segment B would continue to receive protections under an ‘eligible’ status 

awaiting a joint suitability study with the U.S. Forest Service under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

† Total acre percentages are the percentage of the remaining five rivers’ 3,101 corridor acres that would not be recommended for 

inclusion into the National System. 

The extent to which management under a VRM Class III or IV designation could impact scenery ORVs to 

the point that they would no longer be present within the river segment corridor is unknown and not 

possible to assess at the scale of the planning area. While some river segments not recommended for 

inclusion into the national system do include acres managed as VRM Class III or IV, all river segments 

would also contain the Riparian Reserve land use allocation within the first 50 to one site-potential tree 

height distance from the river under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Because the Riparian 

Reserve allows for limited forest management, depending on site-specific vegetation, slope, and terrain, 

the management direction of the Riparian Reserve could protect existing scenery ORVs to the extent that 

they would not be lost. Additionally, the location of land management resulting in a change in visual 

resources within the river segment corridor (i.e., visibility of the harvested stand or constructed road from 
1035 | P a g e

the river) would greatly determine the magnitude of the effect of the change in visual resources on the 

river segment and existing ORVs. 

Under Alternative A, no river segments would be recommended for inclusion into the National System. 

Of the nine river segments with scenery ORVs, Mackenzie River Segment B and Sandy River would 

receive incidental protection of scenery ORVs on all BLM-administered lands within the WSR corridor. 

Little North Santiam River, Table Rock Fork–Molalla River, Umpqua River, and West Fork Illinois River 

would receive minimal incidental protection of the BLM-administered corridor, and the North Santiam 

River and Siletz River would receive no incidental protection of their corridors. 

Alternatives B and C and the Proposed RMP would recommend all rivers found suitable for inclusion into 

the National System. The Little North Santiam River, Sandy River, Table Rock Fork – Molalla River, and 

West Fork Illinois River would all be recommended for inclusion into the National System and would be 

managed as VRM II. Alternatives B and C would provide incidental protection of scenery ORVs on all 

BLM-administered lands within the WSR corridor of Mackenzie River Segment B, and minimal 

incidental protection of the BLM-administered corridor for Umpqua River. The North Santiam River and 

Siletz River segments not recommended for inclusion into the National System with scenery ORVs would 

receive no incidental protection to their river corridors. 

The Proposed RMP would provide incidental protection of scenery ORVs on all BLM-administered lands 

within the WSR corridor of the North Santiam River segment, incidental protection to more than half of 

the acreage of the BLM-administered corridor for McKenzie River Segment B, and incidental protection 

on a minimal acreage of the BLM-administered corridor for the Umpqua River. The Siletz River segment 

not recommended for inclusion into the National System with scenery ORVs would receive no incidental 

protection to their river corridors. Compared to the alternatives, the Proposed RMP provides the most 

level of protection to eligible rivers with scenery ORVs when compared to the action alternatives because 

it would manage the four segments with scenery ORVs found suitable and recommended for inclusion 

into the National System as VRM II and would provide incidental protection to 14 percent of the 

remaining eligible rivers that would not be recommended for inclusion. 

In addition to scenery ORVs, VRM could have affects to management of scenic tentative classifications 

on eligible rivers not recommended for inclusion in the National System. In Alternatives A, B and C, 8 

percent of the 4 eligible rivers (North Fork Clackamas, North Fork Siletz, North Santiam, and West Fork 

Illinois) with scenic classifications that would not be recommended for inclusion into the National 

System, would receive incidental protection to the scenic classification through VRM Class I or II 

designation. In the Proposed RMP, the four eligible rivers with scenic classifications would receive 

incidental protection to the scenic classification through VRM Class I or II designation, except where 

these acres overlap the Harvest Land Base. Approximately 220 acres of the total 2,909 BLM-administered 

lands within the corridors for these 4 rivers overlap the Harvest Land Base and would be managed as 

VRM Class III. 

Effects from ACEC Management 

The relevant and important values for an ACEC are often identical to ORVs identified for an eligible river 

that occurs in the same area. In such cases, overlapping ACEC management for that relevant and 

important value would also directly maintain or enhance that ORV. Management for overlapping ACECs 

may also indirectly maintain or enhance an eligible river’s ORVs, even if the ORV is not also an ACEC 

relevant and important value. Table 3-289 displays acres of the 13 eligible river segments with 

overlapping ACEC designations. 
1036 | P a g e

Table 3-289. Eligible river segment corridors with overlapping ACEC designations where the river 

segment is not recommended for inclusion in the National System 

Eligible River Segments

with ACEC Overlap

BLM-administered 

Lands within

WSR Corridors

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Big Butte Creek 706 33 33 33 33

Cow Creek 3,339 138 138 138 138

Fall Creek – Salem 670 11 11 11 11

Lake Creek Segment B 483 54 54 54 54

Little Applegate River 1,368 10 10 10 10

McKenzie River Segment B 56 47 47 47 44

Middle Santiam River 193 172 172 172 172

North Fork Siletz River 990 353 Recommended for Inclusion

Riffle Creek 762 9 9 9 2

Rogue River 754 47 Recommended for Inclusion

Sandy River 1,519 1,516 Recommended for Inclusion

Umpqua River 2,403 20 20 20 20

West Fork Illinois River 1,154 897 Recommended for Inclusion

Total BLM-administered Lands

within WSR Corridors that Overlap 

with ACECs (Acres)

14,397 3,307 494 494 484

In Alternative A, 13 eligible rivers not recommended for inclusion into the National System would 

overlap with ACECs with complementary management. The majority of this overlap is a relatively low 

percentage of each eligible river’s corridor. The highest percentage of overlap occurs on the Sandy River 

segment (99.8 percent overlap), West Fork Illinois segment (77 percent overlap), and McKenzie River 

(72 percent overlap). Management of public lands to maintain or enhance relevant and important values 

within these ACECs would effectively maintain or enhance eligible river ORVs and tentative 

classification on these three segments under Alternative A. Since all other eligible river segments have 

relatively low percentages of corridor overlap, it is unlikely ACEC management would influence 

retention or maintenance of ORVs or tentative classification. 

In Alternatives B and C, and the Proposed RMP, nine eligible rivers not recommended for inclusion into 

the National System overlap with ACECs with complementary management. Since all other eligible river 

segments have relatively low percentages of corridor overlap, it is unlikely ACEC management would 

influence retention or maintenance of ORVs or tentative classification. 

Effects from Recreation and Visitor Services Management 

Management of recreation outcomes and setting characteristics within Recreation Management Areas 

(RMAs) would generally be complementary to management for study river values where Recreation was 

identified as an ORV. In such cases, overlapping recreation management for recreation values would also 

directly maintain or enhance that ORV. Table 3-290 identifies the eligible segments with recreation as a 

qualifying ORV and the acres that overlap with RMAs for all eligible river segments. 
1037 | P a g e

Table 3-290. Eligible river segments with recreation ORVs and overlapping Recreation Management 

Area designations, where the river segment is not recommended for inclusion into the National System. 

Eligible River Segments

with Recreation ORVs*

BLM-administered Lands 

within WSR Corridors

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Alsea River 404 3 3 3 3

Clackamas River 30 - - - -

Fall Creek – Eugene 87 - - - -

Kilchis River 66 - - - 66

Lake Creek Segment B 483 2 2 2 2

Little North Santiam River 1,205 104 Recommended for Inclusion

McKenzie River Segment B 56 3 3 3 3

Nehalem River 40 - - 14 14

North Fork Trask River 778 - - - -

North Santiam River 376 150 148 148 148

Rogue River 754 12 Recommended for Inclusion

Sandy River 1,519 33 Recommended for Inclusion

Siletz River 54 - - - -

South Fork Coos River 551 - - - -

Trask River 444 - - - -

Umpqua River 2,403 53 52 269 481

Willamette River 83 68 - - -

Wilson River 109 - - 48 61

Totals 9,654 428 208 487 778

* In addition to the rivers listed, the Nestucca River Segment B would continue to receive protections under an ‘eligible’ status 

awaiting a joint suitability study with the U.S. Forest Service under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Alternative B has 208 acres, Alternative A has 428 Acres, Alternative C has 487 acres, and the Proposed 

RMP has 778 acres of eligible river segments not recommended for inclusion in the National System with 

recreation ORVs that are incidentally protected by RMAs. Compared to Alternative B, Alternative A has 

double the acreage of eligible with complimentary RMA designation and Alternative C has a slightly 

higher acreage than Alternative A. The Proposed RMP protects the largest acreage of eligible rivers not 

recommended for inclusion into the National System with recreation ORVs through complimentary RMA 

designation. The Proposed RMP provides the largest level of protection for recreation ORVs associated 

with non-suitable rivers when compared to all action alternatives. 

Based on the tentative classification criteria for recreational river segments, some development and 

substantial evidence of human activity is present within 93 percent of eligible rivers. Lands within river 

areas with tentative recreational classifications are characterized by historical active management, 

including the full range of agricultural and forestry uses, showing evidence of past and ongoing timber 

harvest activities. Additional development, including that which supports increased recreation use along 

the non-suitable segments could result in slightly higher levels of surface disturbance and visual impacts 

then would occur under the No Action alternative. However, other resource protection measures for 

water, riparian areas, and wildlife would add protections that would indirectly protect segments found not 

suitable for inclusion into the National System from land and realty impacts. 
1038 | P a g e

Effects from Forest Management 

The No Action alternative and Alternative D are not included in this section of the analysis. By 

continuing existing management, under the No Action alternative, study river corridors would continue to 

receive protective management under existing eligible determinations. In Alternative D, the BLM would 

recommend all river corridors for inclusion into the National System and, therefore, the BLM would 

continue to provide adequate protections to ORVs and tentative classifications within these study river 

segments. 

For those eligible rivers not recommended for inclusion into the National System, ORVs could be 

negatively impacted where eligible river segment corridors overlap with the Harvest Land Base. Table 3-

291 displays acres of eligible river segment not recommended for inclusion in the National System that 

have corridor overlap with the Harvest Land Base. 

Table 3-291. Eligible river segments that have corridor overlap with the Harvest Land Base land use 

allocation where the river segment is not recommended for inclusion into the National System 

Alternative/

Proposed RMP

River Segments Not 

Recommended for Inclusion 

in the National System

(Number)

Harvest Land Base 

within WSR Corridors

(Acres)

Total BLMadministered Lands in 

River Corridors

(Acres)

Alt. A 51 2,469 29,339

Alt. B 45 3,882 22,236

Alt. C 45 5,442 22,236

PRMP 45 3,723 22,236

Alternative A would have 8 percent of eligible river segment corridors not recommended for inclusion in 

the National System within the Harvest Land Base, the fewest when compared to Alternatives B and C 

and the Proposed RMP (17 percent, 24 percent, and 17 percent, respectively). Effects from forest 

management activities on ORVs for eligible segments not recommended for inclusion into the National 

System would be the least under Alternative A and the most under Alternative C, with Alternatives B and 

the Proposed RMP having similar effects. 

Forest management could affect ORVs, specifically scenery, wildlife, botany, ecology, and recreation. 

However, the extent to which forest management could affect ORVs to the point that they would no 

longer be present within the river segment corridor is unknown and not possible to assess at the scale of 

the planning area. While some river segments not recommended for inclusion into the national system do 

include acres of the Harvest Land Base land use allocation, all river segments would also contain the 

Riparian Reserve land use allocation within the first 50 to one site-potential tree height distance from the 

river under all action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Depending on site-specific vegetation, slope, 

terrain, and segment ORVs, the management direction of the Riparian Reserve could protect existing 

ORVs to the extent that they would not be lost. Additionally, the location of the Harvest Land Base 

within the river segment corridor (i.e., visibility of the stand from the river) would greatly determine the 

magnitude of the effects of forest management on the river segment and existing ORVs. 

Effects from Comprehensive Trail and Transportation Management 

Eligible river segments not recommended for inclusion in the National System could be affected by 

public motorized access designations. See the Trails and Travel Management section of this chapter 

(Issue 1) for more details on public motorized access designations. Designating areas as closed or limited

for public motorized access would reduce effects in the corridors of the eligible segments. Damage to 

vegetation would be reduced or eliminated, which would protect ORVs, specifically historical, ecology, 
1039 | P a g e

scenic, wildlife, and botany. Table 3-292 displays public motorized access designations for river 

segments not recommended for inclusion into the National System by alternative and the Proposed RMP. 

Table 3-292. Public motorized access designation designations for eligible river segments 

Public Motorized Access Designations 

within River Segments

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

PRMP

(Acres)

Closed 327 1,760 3,243 1,398

Limited to Designated 110 218 1,501 -

Limited to Existing 29,052 27,619 26,136 28,614

Open - - - -

Totals 29,489 29,597 29,880 30,012

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, and the Proposed RMP, the majority of acres within eligible river 

segment corridors not recommended for inclusion into the National System are designated as limited for 

public motorized access. The remainder of the acres under these alternatives and the Proposed RMP are 

designated as closed. No acres would be designated as open for public motorized access under these 

alternatives. By shifting to limited from an open designation, the ORVs for eligible river segments not 

recommended for inclusion in the National System would be better protected from effects of public 

motorized access. 

References 

USDA FS. 1993. Clackamas National Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway – Environmental Assessment and 

Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 188 pp. 

http://www.rivers.gov/documents/plans/clackamas-plan-ea.pdf. 

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 1993. Salmon National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Portland, OR, and USDI BLM Salem District, Salem, OR. 188 pp. 

http://www.rivers.gov/documents/plans/salmon-oregon-plan.pdf. 

USDA FS, USDI BLM, and Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. 1992. North Umpqua National Wild and Scenic 

River Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umpqua National Forest, BLM Roseburg 

District, Roseburg, OR, and Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Salem, OR. 110 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/files/NoUmpRvr.pdf. 

USDI BLM and Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. 1993. Sandy Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway 

Management Plan – Environmental Assessment. BLM-OR-PT-92-29-1792. A cooperative river management planning 

document developed by USDI BLM Salem District Clackamas Resource Area in cooperation with Oregon State Parks and 

Recreation Department, Salem, OR. 174 pp. https://archive.org/details/sandywildscenicr5601ratc. 

USDI BLM. 1972. Rogue River National Wild and Scenic River-Revised River Management Plan. In: Federal Register, Vol. 37, 

No. 131—Friday, July 7, 1972. BLM Medford District, Medford, OR. http://www.rivers.gov/documents/plans/rogueplan.pdf. 

---. 1992. Quartzville Creek National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. BLM-OR-PT-93-03-1792. BLM Salem District, 

Salem, OR. 102pp. https://archive.org/details/managementplanq5180unit. 

---. 2004. Upper Klamath River Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement and Resource Management Plan 

Amendments. http://soda.sou.edu/awdata/031014y1.pdf. 

---. 2012. BLM Manual 6400 – Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, Planning, 

and Management. Washington D.C. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.76771.File.dat/64

00.pdf. 

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, 

OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 
1040 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
1041 | P a g e

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 

Summary of Notable Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS 

Chapter 4 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS has—

• Updated the description of public involvement and cooperator meetings; 

• Added a summary of the comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS; 

• Added a discussion of the protest process; and 

• Added a discussion of the Governor’s consistency review.

Introduction 

This chapter describes the public involvement and collaboration that occurred during the preparation of 

this Proposed RMP/Final EIS. That collaboration includes government-to-government relationships with 

Tribes, formal cooperators in the planning process, and consultation with Federal and State agencies. This 

chapter also includes a list of staff involved in the RMPs for Western Oregon. 

Public Involvement 

Formal scoping for the RMPs began with the publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on 

March 9, 2012 (77 FR 14414). The BLM initially requested that the public submit comments in response 

to the Notice of Intent by July 5, 2012. The BLM continued to accept public scoping comments for an 

additional 90 days. By October 5, 2012, the BLM had received 584 comment letters. During the scoping 

period, the BLM held public meetings in Medford, Grants Pass, Klamath Falls, Salem, Springfield, Coos 

Bay, Roseburg, and Portland.159 At each of these meetings, the BLM provided a brief overview of the 

planning process and a list of questions to prompt feedback, and then opened the meeting for discussion. 

The BLM prepared a scoping report, which contains a summary of this scoping process. The scoping 

report and other scoping documents are available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/scoping.php. 

During the winter of 2013, the BLM initiated a multi-phase outreach strategy to engage the public 

specifically on recreation management issues. The BLM sought to gain a better understanding of the 

social values associated with recreational users across western Oregon. This strategy included an 

interactive website and four regional workshops in Medford, Roseburg, Springfield, and Portland. The 

regional workshops included the participation of the National Park Service-Rivers, Trails and 

Conservation Assistance program, the Association of O&C Counties, the Outdoor Alliance, Travel 

Oregon, the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Mazamas. The BLM designed this 

recreation outreach to answer planning questions, collect quantitative and qualitative data specific to 

recreation management area delineation, and to understand better the role, value, and importance that 

recreation plays within each planning region. Outreach also yielded data related to public demand for 

specific types of recreation activities, experiences, beneficial outcomes, and the desired character of 

BLM-administered recreation settings. A Recreation key findings report contains a summary of the results 

of this outreach effort and is available at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/keyfindings.pdf. 

 

159 The BLM has listed the cities in this chapter in order by meeting date. 
1042 | P a g e

In June of 2013, the BLM released the Purpose and Need Statement for the RMPs for Western Oregon. 

While this is not a typical step in the planning process, the BLM shared the Purpose and Need Statement 

earlier than usual in order to augment dialogue on the direction of the planning process. The Purpose and 

Need Statement is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/purpose.pdf. 

In August of 2013, the BLM released the Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for 

Western Oregon (USDI BLM 2013). The BLM managers use the Analysis of the Management Situation 

as a snapshot to understand the status of the BLM resources and management opportunities in western 

Oregon, and the BLM shared this document for informational purposes. The Analysis of the Management 

Situation is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-western-oregon.pdf. 

During December of 2013, the BLM conducted four community listening sessions on elements of the 

RMP. The BLM held public meetings in Corvallis, Medford, Coos Bay, and Roseburg. The community 

listening sessions included BLM updates on the planning process, and attendees had a chance to share 

their input with the BLM and each other through small group discussions. A report (USDI BLM 2014a) 

on the community listening sessions is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/comm-listen-report.pdf. 

On February 24, 2014, the BLM released the Planning Criteria (USDI BLM 2014b), which provided an 

in-depth look at guidance, policy, analytical methodology, and preliminary alternatives. The comment 

period for the Planning Criteria continued until March 31, 2014. The BLM received approximately 3,000 

comments during this comment period. During March 2014, the BLM conducted seven public meetings 

about the Planning Criteria and the preliminary alternatives. The BLM held public meetings in Portland, 

Springfield, Salem, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and Klamath Falls. The BLM also held an additional 

public meeting in Roseburg with invited elected officials. The Planning Criteria is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/rmp-criteria.pdf. 

Additionally, the BLM has provided information to the public through various digital media outlets, 

including the BLM’s public website, Twitter, and Facebook. The public can send inquiries to the agency 

at any time through a publicly available email address, BLM_OR_RMPs_WesternOregon@blm.gov. 

On April 24, 2015, the BLM released the Draft RMP/EIS, announcing, at that time, a 90-day comment 

period that would conclude on July 23, 2015. On July 13, 2015, the BLM extended the comment period 

on the Draft RMP/EIS until August 21, 2015. During the comment period, the BLM held 17 scheduled 

public meetings in May and June of 2015. These meetings included open houses in Roseburg, 

Springfield, Salem, Klamath Falls, Medford, Coos Bay, and Portland. These public meetings also 

included workshops on socioeconomics in Salem and Roseburg, workshops on recreation in Roseburg, 

Grants Pass, Salem, and Springfield, workshops on forest management and wildlife in Salem and 

Medford, and a workshop on riparian management in Springfield. The BLM also held a public meeting 

with an invitation for elected officials in Salem. The BLM announced these public meetings through the 

BLM website and news releases. The Report on Public Outreach Sessions is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/Public_Outreach_Report_Aug2015.pdf. 

The BLM received approximately 4,500 comments on the Draft RMP/EIS during the comment period. 

The BLM has compiled, analyzed, and summarized all comments received during the comment period on 

the Draft RMP/EIS. Appendix W presents a summary of substantive comments the BLM received during 

the comment period and provides a response indicating how the BLM modified the document or why the 

comment did not warrant a change to the document. Comment letters submitted during the comment 

period are available at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/comments.php. 
1043 | P a g e

List of Recipients of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

The BLM will distribute the Proposed RMP/Final EIS to a mailing list of those agencies, organizations, 

Tribes, and individuals that have requested copies. This mailing list, which includes approximately 750 

mailings of the document, is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2016b).

Protest Process 

Pursuant to BLM’s planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5–2, any person who participated in the planning 

process for this Proposed RMP and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the planning 

decisions may protest approval of the planning decisions within 30 days from the date the Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Protests must comply with 

the requirements described in the BLM’s planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5–2. Interested parties 

should take care to document all relevant facts. As much as possible, specific planning documents or 

available planning records (e.g., meeting minutes or summaries, and correspondence) should be 

referenced or cited. 

Emailed protests will not be accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also provides the 

original letter by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period. Under 

these conditions, the BLM will consider the emailed protest as an advance copy and will afford it full 

consideration. If you wish to provide the BLM with such advance notification, please direct emailed 

protests to the attention of the BLM protest coordinator at protest@blm.gov. 

All protests, including the follow-up letter (if emailing), must be in writing and mailed to one of the 

following addresses: 

Regular Mail:

Director (210)

Attn: Protest Coordinator

P.O. Box 71383

Washington, D.C. 20024-1383

Overnight Delivery:

Director (210)

Attn: Protest Coordinator

20 M Street SE, Room 2134LM

Washington, D.C. 20003

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in 

your protest, be advised that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your protest to withhold from public 

review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

The BLM Director will make every attempt to render a decision on each protest promptly. The decision 

will be in writing and will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The 

decision of the BLM Director shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior. 

Upon resolution of all land use plan protests, the BLM will issue two Records of Decision/Approved 

RMPs (RODs/RMPs). The Approved RODs/RMPs will be mailed to parties who have requested hard 

copies or email notifications the documents are available online. 

Government-to-Government Relationships 

Federally recognized Tribes have a unique relationship with the Federal government in that they are 

sovereign nations and retain inherent powers of self-government. They interact with the United States on 

a government-to-government level. 
1044 | P a g e

When preparing RMPs, the BLM consults with Tribes to provide Tribes with an opportunity to identify 

any issues or concerns that Tribes may have with the management of lands and resources in the decision 

area; to identify places of religious or cultural significance (and if any issues exist with access to places 

needed for the practice of traditional religions); and whether there are other Indian individuals or 

traditional cultural leaders who the BLM should also contact. 

There are nine federally recognized Tribes located within, or that have interests within, the planning area: 

• The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde: www.grandronde.org

• The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians: www.ctsi.nsn.us

• The Coquille Indian Tribe: www.coquilletribe.org

• The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians: www.ctclusi.org

• The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs: www.warmsprings.com

• The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians: www.cowcreek.com

• The Klamath Tribes: www.klamathtribes.org

• The Quartz Valley Indian Reservation: www.qvir.com

• The Karuk Tribe: www.karuk.us

The BLM invited all of the above federally recognized Tribes to be formal cooperators in the RMP 

revisions because of their special expertise. The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, the Confederated 

Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Klamath Tribes are formal 

cooperators in the RMP revisions, in addition to their government-to-government status. These Tribes 

along with other agencies that participated as formal cooperators made up the Cooperating Agencies 

Advisory Group (CAAG). The Tribal representatives along with BLM staff formed a Tribal Working 

Group. Details of the CAAG and working groups are in the following section “Formal Cooperators.”

In 2013, the BLM offered all Tribes within, or that have interests within, the planning area an opportunity 

to schedule individual Tribal listening sessions. The BLM met with five Tribes on different dates 

spanning from May 14, 2013, to December 13, 2013. A summary of these listening sessions can be found 

in Appendix R along with biographies and maps for the six Tribes who have participated as formal 

cooperators in the planning process. These listening sessions and subsequent consultation also served to 

inform the Tribal Interests section of Chapter 3. 

In October 2014, the BLM invited all nine Tribes to consult on the Draft RMP/EIS. Tribes wished to meet 

after the release of the Draft RMP/EIS. From May 18, 2015, to November 5, 2015, the BLM met with the 

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Coquille Indian 

Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, the Cow Creek Band of 

Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Klamath Tribes. Some Tribes met with the BLM more than once 

during this timeframe. 

In addition to formal consultation and participation in the CAAG and the Tribal Working Group, Tribal 

representatives maintained frequent email and phone dialogue with BLM managers and the BLM Tribal 

liaison. 

The Coquille Indian Tribe has a representative on the Westside Steering Committee, as noted below, in 

addition to their government-to-government relationship and their role as a formal cooperator. The BLM 

has also met regularly with the Coquille Indian Tribe to facilitate open and recurring communication. The 

Coquille Indian Tribe is directly engaged in the planning process, because the management of the 

Coquille Forest is subject by law (25 U.S.C. 715c(d)) to the standards and guidelines of forest plans for 

adjacent or nearby Federal forestlands. Title V of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 (Public 

Law 104-208) included the creation of the Coquille Forest to be held in trust for the benefit of the 
1045 | P a g e

Coquille Indian Tribe. The Act states that the Coquille Forest shall be managed “under applicable State 

and Federal forestry and environmental protection laws, and subject to critical habitat designations under 

the Endangered Species Act, and subject to the standards and guidelines of Federal forest plans on 

adjacent or nearby Federal lands, now and in the future.” This Act also requires the Secretary of the 

Interior, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to take the Coquille Forest lands into trust for the benefit of 

the Coquille Indian Tribe. For the purposes of interpreting Title V of this Act, the management direction 

that will be described within the eventual RMP is synonymous with the “standards and guidelines” 

referenced in this Act. 

Formal Cooperators 

The FLPMA and NEPA provide direction regarding the coordination and cooperation of Federal agencies 

with other agencies and local and state governments and tribes. The FLPMA specifically emphasizes the 

need to ensure coordination and consistency of the BLM’s proposed actions with the plans and policies of 

other relevant jurisdictions. The Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA 

specifically requires cooperative relationships between lead and cooperating agencies. 

Cooperating agency status provides a formal framework for governmental units (including local, State, 

Federal, and Tribal) to engage in active collaboration with a lead Federal agency to implement 

requirements of NEPA. For these RMP revisions, the BLM has worked with cooperators from many 

agencies. With all formal cooperators, the BLM has signed a memorandum of understanding, identifying 

the roles and responsibilities of the BLM and the cooperating agency in the planning process. Table 4-1

contains a list of the formal cooperators for these RMP revisions. 
1046 | P a g e

Table 4-1. Formal cooperators 

Government Type Cooperator

County Governments*

Benton County

Clackamas County

Columbia County

Coos County

Curry County

Douglas County

Klamath County

Lane County

Lincoln County

Linn County

Marion County

Multnomah County

Polk County

Tillamook County

Washington County

Yamhill County

State Government State of Oregon†

Federal Government

Environmental Protection Agency

National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

Tribes

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw Indians

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

Coquille Indian Tribe

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians

Klamath Tribes

* With the exception of Benton County, all of the listed counties have authorized the Association of O&C Counties to act as the 

counties’ agent and representative in their role as cooperating agencies in this planning process. Occasionally, some counties 

represented by the Association of O&C Counties have had a county commissioner participate in the activities of the planning 

process. When that has happened, the county commissioner, rather than the Association of O&C Counties, has represented the 

county. 

† Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Forestry are the Oregon State 

agencies actively engaged in the planning process. 

Working through a robust engagement process with neutral facilitation, the cooperators have provided 

expertise on much of the subject matter the BLM is addressing in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, as well as 

advice based on experience with similar planning efforts. The cooperators have provided feedback on 

public outreach sessions, data sources and analytical methods, and components of the alternatives. They 

have provided oral and written feedback and ideas throughout the process of developing the Draft 

RMP/EIS and Proposed RMP/Final EIS. DS Consulting, working through Oregon Consensus, has 

facilitated all meetings of the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group and the five individual working 

groups described below. 

The Cooperating Agency Advisory Group first met in the summer of 2012, when the facilitators led them 

through an orientation to the cooperating agency task and assisted the group in defining its desired 

outcomes. In the fall and winter of 2012, the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group met five times to 

provide and review RMP scoping comments and to discuss the RMP process. They also met three times 
1047 | P a g e

to provide comments and review documents developed by the BLM for the planning effort, including the 

purpose and need for action and the planning criteria, in addition to providing written comments on the 

BLM’s methodology for analyzing the effects of the alternatives. The Cooperating Agency Advisory 

Group met once to provide feedback on the public meetings held in 2013 and 2014. The BLM conducted 

a rehearsal of the public meetings with the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group, which provided 

feedback on the content and format, leading the BLM to make improvements to the outreach sessions. 

The Cooperating Agency Advisory Group also met five times to discuss the results of the analysis and to 

provide feedback to the BLM on the identification of a preferred alternative. After the publication of 

Draft RMP/EIS, the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group met twice to provide feedback to the BLM on 

the development of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

In addition to meeting as a full group periodically throughout the development of the Draft RMP/EIS and 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group also created five working groups 

in the winter of 2013 in order to facilitate a more detailed level of engagement with the BLM. These 

groups focused, respectively, on the following topics: aquatics, outreach, terrestrial, socio-economics, and 

Tribal issues. 

The Aquatics Working Group met six times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM 

updated the group on the status of alternative development. The working group provided comments on the 

development of the riparian management strategies and the methodology for analyzing impacts of the 

alternatives on aquatic habitat and water quality. 

The Outreach Working Group met six times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. The group 

discussed outreach planning and goals and provided input on the outreach timeline. During the winter of 

2013, they met to revisit ideas for outreach during the planning criteria comment period. 

The Terrestrial Working Group met five times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM 

updated this group on the development of the terrestrial components of the alternatives (e.g., alternative 

approaches for the large block reserve design). The group reviewed and provided input on the 

methodology for analyzing the impacts of the alternatives on terrestrial resources and met to discuss and 

provide feedback on components of the alternatives related to timber harvest, northern spotted owl 

conservation, marbled murrelet conservation, and fire and fuels management. 

The Socio-Economic Working Group met eight times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

This group reviewed and refined the methodology for analyzing the socio-economic analysis of the 

alternatives, including working with BLM and its contractors on the development of a method to analyze 

impacts to community capacity and resiliency. Members of this group assisted the BLM in obtaining 

county economic data and identifying city officials for information-collection interviews. 

The Tribal Working Group met seven times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. This group 

provided input on the process by which the BLM conducted Tribal listening sessions and consultation. 

They also provided input on aspects of the alternatives and analytical methodology that address resources 

of concern to the Tribes represented in the group. Members of the group also reviewed and provided 

content for appendices to the Tribal Interests section of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Additionally, the Coquille Indian Tribe, in their capacity as a cooperating agency, suggested to the BLM a 

riparian strategy. The BLM worked with the Coquille Indian Tribe to develop this suggestion in detail and 

include it among the alternatives in the Draft RMP/EIS, in addition to the riparian strategies developed by 

the Riparian Technical Team described below. 
1048 | P a g e

The BLM district managers and planning personnel have met with individual county commissioners on 

an ongoing basis to provide updates on progress and key milestones. As noted above, several county 

governments are formal cooperators in the planning process. While the Association of O&C Counties 

represents most of the counties at the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group meetings, BLM district 

managers also maintain relationships with local county representatives. 

Documenting Disagreement or Inconsistencies with Cooperating 

Agencies160

The Cooperating Agency Advisory Group and its working groups have provided the BLM with a unique 

opportunity to share the BLM’s thinking early in the planning process and for the BLM to hear the ideas 

and concerns cooperating agencies have with how the BLM has been planning and analyzing thus far. At 

this point in the process, all cooperators have had numerous opportunities to express their opinions about 

content and process, and to make suggestions about how the BLM might improve its plan. Largely, most 

disagreements that have arisen have been resolved through dialogue at meetings of the full group and its 

work groups. Nearly all cooperators have been positive about the level of engagement and the general 

direction of the planning process. However, the Association of O&C Counties (which is the designated 

representative of 15 counties) has continued to express a high level of concern about the BLM’s planning 

process. 

Specifically, the Association of O&C Counties continues to assert that the BLM’s Purpose and Need 

statement was fatally flawed by failing to place sustained-yield timber production as the primary purpose 

of the planning effort. In letters to the BLM Director, State Director, and Project Manager, and at nearly 

all Cooperating Agency meetings, the Association of O&C Counties representatives have maintained that 

the BLM should have placed sustained-yield timber production as the primary focus of the planning effort 

with all other actions required by other laws and treaties falling secondary to that purpose. As a result, the 

Association of O&C Counties has expressed disagreement with the purpose and need, the planning 

criteria, and the range of alternatives. The Association of O&C Counties maintains that the O&C Act and 

legal opinions that have stemmed from its mandate that the BLM should first provide a minimum of 500 

million board feet of sustained yield timber harvest per year, then balance all other needs after that has 

been provided. The Association of O&C Counties and its member counties have stated that, because the 

BLM has sought to analyze what a balanced approach between the competing laws, treaties, and needs of 

all cooperating agencies might look like, the BLM has created a range of alternatives that is too narrow to 

achieve the primary purpose and the level of sustained yield required by law and court decisions. 

That said, the Association of O&C Counties continues to attend and actively participate in the 

Cooperating Agency Advisory Group and its working groups, making certain that all members are aware 

of this fundamental disagreement and requesting that the BLM broaden the range of alternatives by 

including the alternative developed in the 2008 Western Oregon Plan Revision (USDI 2008). 

Coordination with the Regional Interagency Executive 

Committee 

The Regional Interagency Executive Committee serves as the senior regional entity to assure the prompt, 

coordinated, and successful implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan at the regional level. The 

Regional Interagency Executive Committee is composed of regional directors from the various land 

 

160 This summary documenting disagreement or inconsistencies with cooperating agencies was provided to the BLM 

by the outside, impartial facilitation team from Oregon Consensus after reviewing meeting summaries and letters 

from the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group. In their comments on the Draft RMP/EIS, the Association of O&C 

Counties states that they reject this summary, asserting that it misrepresents their position (Appendix W).
1049 | P a g e

management, regulatory, research, and other relevant agencies in the Federal government located in 

northern California, western Oregon, and western Washington, including the following: 

• Army Corps of Engineers 

• BLM 

• Bureau of Indian Affairs 

• Environmental Protection Agency 

• Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Research Division 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• U.S. Forest Service 

• U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 

• U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station 

• U.S. Geological Survey, Western Research Region 

• National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region 

• National Park Service 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service 

The BLM has coordinated with the Regional Interagency Executive Committee throughout this RMP 

revision process. As noted in Chapter 1, the BLM has considered the concepts contained in the 

Framework to Guide Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plan Revisions and 

Amendments (RIEC 2011) in developing the action alternatives for this RMP revision. The BLM met 

with the Regional Interagency Executive Committee eight times from 2012 to 2016 to provide 

information and to coordinate on the RMP revision process. 

Governor’s Consistency Review

Pursuant to BLM’s planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3–2(e), the BLM has submitted this Proposed 

RMP to the Governor of Oregon for review. The Governor shall have 60 days in which to identify 

inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs and provide recommendations in writing to 

the BLM. If recommendations of the Governor recommend changes in the Proposed RMP which were not 

raised during the public participation process, the BLM will provide the public with an opportunity to 

comment on the recommendations. 

Consultation 

Endangered Species Act 

Before signing a Record of Decision on the RMP revisions, the BLM will complete consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7(a)(2) of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries 

Service are conducting these consultations consistent with the final rule amending the incidental take 

statement provisions of the implementing regulations for Section 7 of the ESA (80 FR 26832–26845). 

The BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service signed an ESA 

Consultation Agreement, which identifies responsibilities for each agency and defines the processes, 

products, actions, timeframe, and expectations for the consultation process. The ESA Consultation 

Agreement, signed June 18, 2013, is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/esa-consult-agree.pdf. 

As part of this consultation, the BLM has prepared biological assessments of the potential effects of 

implementing the Proposed RMP. The BLM submitted these biological assessments to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on February 1, 2016. In these biological 

assessments, the BLM has described the Proposed RMP, the geographic area addressed by the RMP, and 
1050 | P a g e

the manner in which the Proposed RMP would affect threatened, endangered, and proposed species and 

their designated and proposed critical habitats. 

As part of this consultation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

will provide their biological opinions. These biological opinions will include assessments of the status of 

the species and critical habitats involved, contain reviews of the potential effects of the Proposed RMP on 

these species and habitats, and provide evaluations of whether the Proposed RMP would be likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitats. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service will prepare separate biological 

opinions dealing with terrestrial and aquatic species under their respective ESA jurisdiction. Additional 

information on the biological assessments and biological opinions is available in the ESA Consultation 

Agreement. 

In addition to their role as formal cooperators, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service have met with the BLM repeatedly throughout the RMP revision in preparation for the 

ESA consultation on the Proposed RMP. As part of that work, and consistent with the ESA Consultation 

Agreement, the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have met as a Terrestrial Technical Team in 

April 2013, September 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and March 2014 to discuss the analytical 

methodology for evaluating the effects of the alternatives on ESA-listed species and producing analytical 

information for the biological assessments. The BLM also met directly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in April 2014 to discuss specifically the forest management approach for northern spotted owl 

critical habitat in Alternative D considered in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

The BLM convened a group including representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

Environment Protection Agency in April and May 2013 to develop a strategic proposal for riparian 

management. The Environmental Protection Agency has participated in these meetings in the capacity of 

their technical expertise related to water quality. The BLM, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency met as a Riparian Technical Team to develop 

that strategic proposal in detail to be included among the alternatives in the Draft RMP/EIS. DS 

Consulting facilitated all meetings of the Riparian Technical Team. The Riparian Technical Team met 

seven times from August 2013 to January 2014 and presented their work to the Cooperating Agency 

Advisory Group on January 30, 2014. During the preparation of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the 

Riparian Technical Team met four times to explore development of the riparian management strategy for 

the Proposed RMP. 

In June 2015, the BLM submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a conservation assessment, based 

on the preferred alternative identified in the Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM prepared that conservation 

assessment to provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with early identification of the data and 

analytical methodology the BLM would use to describe effects in its biological assessment, to ensure that 

its biological assessment met the needs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consultation under 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and to provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with an opportunity to 

provide advice or technical assistance to the BLM on how the eventual Proposed RMP could best 

contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed species. On December 17, 2015, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service provided the BLM with a conservation review in response to the conservation 

assessment. As part of that conservation assessment and conservation review process, the BLM met 

directly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service repeatedly throughout the summer and fall of 2015 to 

address the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service advice to the BLM on how the eventual Proposed RMP could 

best contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed species. 

The BLM met directly with the National Marine Fisheries Service in March 2014, April 2014, and June 

2014 to discuss analytical methodology for evaluating the effects of the alternatives on ESA-listed fish 
1051 | P a g e

species and producing analytical information for the biological assessments. The BLM met again in 

December 2014 with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to continue discussions on the biological needs of ESA-listed fish species. The 

BLM conducted an ‘early review’ process with the National Marine Fisheries Service to facilitate section 

7(a)(2) consultation under the ESA. In this early review process, the BLM provided the National Marine 

Fisheries Service with early identification of the data and analytical methodology the BLM would use to 

describe effects in its biological assessment, to ensure that its biological assessment met the needs of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service for consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and to provide the 

National Marine Fisheries Service with an opportunity to provide advice or technical assistance to the 

BLM on how the eventual Proposed RMP could best contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESAlisted species. The BLM met repeatedly with National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service throughout summer and fall of 2015 to discuss the format and information for the 

biological assessments for ESA-listed fish species. The BLM has documented the meetings and 

correspondence of the early review process and that documentation is incorporated here by reference 

(USDI BLM 2016). 

On December 18, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service sent the BLM a letter to clarify their 

comments on the Draft RMP/EIS (USDC NMFS 2015). In that letter, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service stated that they believe the best available science can support the concepts of an aquatic 

conservation strategy that they have discussed with the BLM, and that Alternatives A and D provide the 

building blocks of such a strategy. The National Marine Fisheries Service also identified portions of their 

comments on the Draft RMP/EIS that were in error and asked that those comments be ignored. That letter 

is incorporated here by reference. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

The BLM complies with the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.) through the 

State Protocol with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (USDI BLM 2015) as directed by the 

National Programmatic Agreement (USDI BLM 2012). In accordance with the national Programmatic 

Agreement and the State Protocol, the BLM sent the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office a letter to 

initiate consultation on the RMP revision. The BLM did not receive a response to this letter. In the spring 

of 2015, the BLM sent the Draft RMP/EIS to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. The BLM 

did not receive comments from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office on the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Upon implementation of the approved RMP, the BLM will consult with the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office on Federal undertakings with the potential to effect cultural resources in accordance 

with the 2015 State Protocol in order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Water and Air Quality Management 

As part of these RMP revisions, the BLM has been concurrently coordinating with various agencies on 

water and air quality management. The BLM will continue to coordinate with the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (the federally designated 

management agency) on water quality standards and other requirements of the federally designated 

management agency as authorized by the Clean Water Act. Similarly, the BLM will continue to 

coordinate with the Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 

and U.S. Forest Service when authorizing implementation actions to minimize the impacts of the 

emissions from prescribed burns. 
1052 | P a g e

List of Preparers 

Westside Steering Committee 

The Westside Steering Committee is comprised of BLM Oregon/Washington Deputy State Director - 

Division of Resources, the six BLM district managers represented in the RMP revisions, and a 

representative from the Coquille Indian Tribe. This committee provides leadership and direction to the 

RMP revisions planning process. 

Key Project Staff 

An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists and managers from the BLM districts and state office, 

and contract personnel prepared the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS for the RMPs for 

Western Oregon. Table 4-2 lists the staff, the organization where each staff member works, and their area 

of responsibility, followed by brief biographies for each BLM interdisciplinary team member. 
1053 | P a g e

Table 4-2. List of key project staff 

Name BLM Office Area of Responsibility

Michael Allen Oregon State Office Management and Program Analyst

Stewart Allen Oregon State Office Socioeconomics

Peter Broussard Coos Bay District Sustainable Energy

Mark Brown Oregon State Office Project Manager

Dan Carpenter Coos Bay District Hydrology

Susan Carter Roseburg District Rare Plants and Fungi

J. Byron Clayton Oregon State Office Lands and Realty

John Colby Coos Bay District Hydrology

Lori Crumley Lakeview District Grazing and Wild Horses

Craig Ducey Oregon State Office Inventory Data Support

Louisa Evers Oregon State Office Air Quality and Climate Change

Paul Fyfield Oregon State Office Cartography

Eric Greenquist Oregon State Office Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

Richard Hardt Oregon State Office Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Claire Hibler Salem District Invasive Species and Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern

Eric Hiebenthal Oregon State Office GIS Data Management

Aimee Hoefs Coos Bay District Writer, Editor, and Records

Carolina Hooper Oregon State Office Vegetation Modeling

Zach Jarrett Salem District Recreation, Visual Resource Management, and the 

National Landscape Conservation System

Racheal Jones Coos Bay District Assistant Editor

Craig Kintop Roseburg District Forest Management

Sarah Levy Oregon State Office Public Affairs Officer

Rex McGraw Roseburg District Wildlife – All but the Northern Spotted Owl

Arthur Miller Oregon State Office GIS and Data Analysis

Diane Parry Medford District Minerals

Heather Partipilo Coos Bay District Assistant Editor

Panchita Paulete Oregon State Office Associate Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Lauren Pidot Oregon State Office Associate Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Cory Sipher Roseburg District Fisheries

Dale Stewart Oregon State Office Soils

Brian Thauland Oregon State Office Roads

Shelli Timmons Oregon State Office Management Analyst

Heather Ulrich Eugene & Salem Districts Cultural Resources and Tribal Interests

Jena Volpe Medford District Fire and Fuels

Abe Wheeler Roseburg District Forest Management

Mike Allen – Management and Program Analyst. Mike earned a Bachelor of Science in Wildlife 

Management at Humboldt State University. Mike started his 38-year career with the BLM as a wildland 

firefighter on the Lakeview District. That led to wildlife biologist positions in Lakeview and Prineville. 

He worked 16 years on the Salem District as a Natural Resource Specialist performing wildlife surveys, 

timber sale preparation, and public outreach. Mike has been a Management and Program Analyst in the 

Oregon State Office for 4 years. 

Stewart Allen – Socioeconomics. Stewart earned a Bachelor of Arts in Mass Communications and a 

Bachelor of Arts in Psychology at the University of Utah, a Master of Arts in Social/Environmental 
1054 | P a g e

Psychology at Claremont Graduate School, and a Ph.D. in Forestry (with a minor in Psychology) at the 

University of Montana. He has 35 years of experience in the human dimensions of natural resources 

including 21 years with the Federal Government and 1.5 years with the BLM as Socioeconomic 

Specialist, a zoned position shared by Oregon/Washington, California, and Alaska. 

Peter Broussard – Sustainable Energy. Pete earned a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at 

the University of Southwestern Louisiana. Registered as a professional engineer for 37 years, he currently 

holds professional engineering licenses in 3 states. Most of his private-sector career has been in the 

electric utility, gas pipeline, and petroleum industries. His public service includes 8 years in the military 

as a combat engineer, and 6 years with the BLM as the Engineering Supervisor in the Coos Bay District. 

Mark Brown – Project Manager. Mark Brown currently serves as the RMPs for Western Oregon Project 

Manager in the BLM Oregon State Office. He previously served as the BLM Partnership Coordinator. His 

Federal career began as a Presidential Management Fellow with the National Park Service and U.S. 

Forest Service before joining the BLM in 2002. He earned a Master of Environmental Management from 

Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and a Master of Public Administration at 

Portland State University, Hatfield School of Government. 

Dan Carpenter – Hydrology (2012-2015). Dan earned a Bachelor of Science in Soil Conservation from 

Washington State University. He has worked as a professional hydrologist for the past 36 years with the 

U.S. Forest Service and the BLM on the Oregon Coast, Western Cascades, and Great Basin in Nevada. At 

the time of the preparation of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, he was the District Hydrologist in the Coos 

Bay District. He has since retired from the BLM. 

Susan Carter – Rare Plants and Fungi. Susan earned a Bachelor of Arts in Botany and Environmental 

Biology (double major) from Humboldt State University and has 26 years of experience working as a 

botanist with the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service. She is currently the District Botanist in the Roseburg 

District. 

J. Byron Clayton – Lands and Realty. Byron earned a Bachelor of Arts in Geography at Appalachian 

State University and a Master of Science in Geography at Portland State University. He began work for 

the BLM in 2001 as a student cartographer with the Land Records Team in the Branch of Lands and 

Minerals. He is currently the Supervisory Geographer of the Land Records Team in the Branch of 

Geographic Sciences in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

John Colby – Hydrology (2016). John earned a Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources and 

Environmental Studies with an emphasis in Water Resources from the University of Minnesota. For the 

past 13 years, he has been a hydrologist in the Umpqua Field Office of the Coos Bay District BLM. 

Lori Crumley – Grazing and Wild Horses. Lori earned a Bachelor of Science in Range Ecology and a 

Master of Science in Plant Science at the University of Idaho. She has 8 years of experience working for 

the Federal Government as a Range Management Specialist. For the last 4 years, she has been a Range 

Management Specialist in the Lakeview Field Office of the Lakeview District. 

Craig Ducey – Inventory Data Support. Craig earned a Bachelor of Science in Botany at the University of 

Wyoming and a Master of Science in Geography at Portland State University. He has 15 years of 

experience as a GIS/Remote Sensing Specialist in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Louisa Evers – Air Quality and Climate Change. Louisa earned a Bachelor of Science in Forestry from 

the University of Tennessee, a Master of Science in Forestry with an emphasis in Fire Ecology from the 

University of Idaho, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Science with an emphasis in Rangeland Ecology from 
1055 | P a g e

Oregon State University. She has 29 years of experience with BLM and the U.S. Forest Service in fuels 

and fire management, fire ecology, vegetation ecology, and climate change. She is currently the Research 

Liaison and Climate Change Coordinator in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Paul Fyfield – Cartography. Paul earned a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Science in Geography at 

Portland State University. He has worked for the BLM Oregon State Office in Portland since 2001. He is 

currently a Cartographer in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Eric Greenquist – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl. Eric earned a Bachelor of Arts in Biology at the 

University of Missouri and a Master of Science in Wildlife Ecology at Ohio University. He has worked as 

a professional wildlife biologist for 38 years, including 35 years with the BLM with the past 23 years in 

western Oregon. At the time of the preparation of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, he was a wildlife 

biologist in the BLM Oregon State Office. He has since retired from the BLM. 

Richard Hardt – Interdisciplinary Team Leader. Richard earned a Bachelor of Arts in Natural Sciences at 

the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Landscape Architecture at Harvard University, and a Ph.D. in 

Forest Resources at the University of Georgia. He has 21 years of experience working for the BLM and is 

currently a planner in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Claire Hibler – Invasive Species and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Claire earned a Bachelor 

of Science in Forest Management at Oregon State University and a Bachelor of Arts in General Biology 

at Humboldt State University. Claire is a founding member of, and participates on, the steering committee 

for the Western Invasives Network, which spans northwest Oregon, part of southwest Washington, and 

the Columbia River Gorge. She has worked in the Salem District for more than 26 years, serving as the 

District Botanist since 2001. 

Eric Hiebenthal – GIS Data Management. Eric earned a Bachelor of Science in Geography at Oregon 

State University. He has 19 years of experience with the BLM working with GIS, specializing in GIS 

Data Management. He is currently a GIS Data Management Specialist in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Aimee Hoefs – Writer, Editor, and Records. Aimee earned a Bachelor of Arts in Molecular Biology at 

Colgate University. She has worked for the BLM for 20 years and has been a NEPA specialist for the past 

8 years. She is formerly the Myrtlewood Field Office Planning and Environmental Coordinator in the 

Coos Bay District. 

Carolina Hooper – Vegetation Modeling Lead. Carolina earned a Bachelor of Science in Forestry at 

Humboldt State University and a Master of Science in Forestry at Oregon State University. She has 

worked in forest inventory and planning for the last 21 years with the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM. 

She is currently a Forester/Resource Information Analyst in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Zach Jarrett – Recreation, Visual Resource Management, and the National Landscape Conservation 

System. Zach earned a Bachelor of Science in Recreation Resource Management at Oregon State 

University and a Master of Science in Natural Resource Planning at Humboldt State University. He has 

14 years of experience working for the BLM in western Oregon and is currently an outdoor recreation 

planner in the Oregon State Office working on regional recreation and travel planning projects. 

Racheal Jones – Assistant Editor. Racheal earned a Bachelor of Arts in Geography at Western 

Washington University and a Master of Science degree in Water Science and Management at New 

Mexico State University. She has 9 years in of experience in planning. She is currently the Planning and 

Environmental Coordinator for the Myrtlewood Field Office in the Coos Bay District. 
1056 | P a g e

Craig Kintop – Forest Management. Craig earned a Bachelor of Science in Forest Resources Management 

at the University of Minnesota. He has more than 39 years of experience working for the U.S. Forest 

Service and the BLM and is currently the District Forester/Silviculturist in the Roseburg District. 

Sarah Levy – Public Affairs Officer. Sarah earned a Bachelor of Arts at the University of Southern 

California, and a Master of Science in Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, 

School of Natural Resources and Environment. Sarah has 6 years of experience with the U.S. Forest 

Service working in public affairs, recreation, and research and is currently a Public Affairs Officer in the 

BLM Oregon State Office. 

Rex McGraw – Wildlife. Rex earned a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in Wildlife Biology 

at the University of Montana, Missoula. He has 17 years of experience with the BLM and is currently the 

District Wildlife Biologist in the Roseburg District. 

Arthur Miller – GIS and Data Analysis Lead. Arthur earned a Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts 

in Geography at Oregon State University. He has over 26 years of experience working with the BLM in 

Oregon, with an emphasis on the use of geographic information systems for resource and land use 

planning. He is currently a Geographic Information Specialist in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Diane Parry – Minerals. Diane earned a Bachelor of Arts in Geology at Humboldt State University. She 

has 29 years of experience as a geologist with the BLM and is currently the Lead Geologist in the 

Medford District, zoned to the west side of Oregon. 

Heather Partipilo – Assistant Editor. Heather earned a Bachelor of Science in Botany and Plant Pathology 

and a Master of Science in Botany and Plant Pathology from Oregon State University. She has worked on 

the Lakeview District as a botanist and is currently a Planning and Environmental Coordinator in the 

Umpqua Field Office of the Coos Bay District. 

Panchita Paulete – Associate Interdisciplinary Team Leader (2015 – 2016). Panchita has a Bachelor of 

Arts in Professional Writing and Rhetoric from Elon University and a Master of Science in Forestry from 

Michigan Technological University. She has more than 9 years of experience as a NEPA specialist and is 

currently a planner in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Lauren Pidot – Associate Interdisciplinary Team Leader (2013 – 2014). Lauren earned a Bachelor of Arts 

in Government at Wesleyan University and a Master of Science in Natural Resource Policy at the 

University of Michigan. She has over 7 years of experience with the BLM and is currently a planner in 

the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Cory Sipher – Fisheries. Cory earned a Bachelor of Science in Biology at the State University of New 

York at Cortland and a Master of Science in Fishery Biology at Colorado State University. Cory has been 

with the BLM for 13 years, starting his career as a Fisheries Biologist in the South River Field Office of 

the Roseburg District. He has served as the District Fisheries Biologist in the Roseburg District since 

2012. 

Dale Stewart – Soils. Dale earned a Bachelor of Science in Forestry and a Master of Science in Biological 

Sciences at Michigan Technological University. He has over 36 years of experience working in the 

forestry, soil, and hydrology disciplines with the BLM and U.S. Forest Service in Oregon. He is currently 

the Soil, Water, and Air Program Lead in the BLM Oregon State Office. 
1057 | P a g e

Brian Thauland – Roads. Brian earned a Bachelor of Science in Forest Management at Iowa State 

University. He has 37 years of experience with the BLM in forest engineering and currently provides 

transportation program support in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Shelli Timmons – Management Analyst (2012 – 2014). Shelli earned a Bachelor of Arts in Business 

Communication at the University of Phoenix. Shelli has over 15 years of experience in the administration 

and management fields, the last 4 of which have been in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Heather Ulrich – Cultural Resources and Tribal Interests. Heather earned a Bachelor of Arts and Master 

of Science in Anthropology at the University of Oregon. She has been with the BLM since 2007 and 

currently works as the District Archaeologist and Tribal Liaison in both the Salem and Eugene Districts. 

Jena Volpe – Fire and Fuels. Jena earned a Master of Science in Biology/Fire Ecology from Southern 

Oregon University. She has 13 years of experience in fire ecology and fuels management with the 

National Park Service and the BLM in southwest Oregon and is currently a Fire Ecologist in the Medford 

District. 

Abe Wheeler – Forest Management. Abe earned an Associate of Arts in Business Administration at Linn 

Benton Community College, and a Bachelor of Science in Forest Management at Oregon State 

University. He has 8 years of experience with the BLM in field forestry, timber sale contract preparation, 

sale planning, and project leadership. Abe was also a key player in the recent design, analysis, and 

implementation of Roseburg District’s Secretarial Pilot Project, as well as other more recent ecological 

forestry projects. He is currently the O&C Forester in the Oregon State Office. 

Several contract efforts support the work of the interdisciplinary team: 

• A team of specialists at Mason, Bruce, & Girard, Inc., under the project management of Mark 

Rasmussen (Mason, Bruce, & Girard, Inc.), has conducted vegetation modeling of the alternatives 

using the Woodstock Optimization Platform model (Woodstock). Carolina Hooper of the 

interdisciplinary team has directed this work. 

• A team of specialists at Environmental Resources Management (ERM) and subcontractors, under 

the project management of Clive Graham and Benjamin Sussman, ERM, has conducted 

socioeconomic analysis of the alternatives. Stewart Allen of the interdisciplinary team has 

directed this work. 

• David W. LaPlante of Natural Resource Geospatial in Yreka, California, and Jeffrey R. Dunk of 

Humboldt State University in Arcata, California, have assisted the BLM with its evaluation of the 

northern spotted owl. They used the MaxEnt computer model to forecast how northern spotted 

owl habitat conditions would change on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon under 

different management scenarios. They used the spatially explicit, individual-based population 

model HexSim to forecast how northern spotted owls would respond demographically to such 

changes. Eric Greenquist and Craig Ducey of the interdisciplinary team have directed this work. 

• A team of specialists at ECONorthwest assisted the BLM with its evaluation of recreation supply 

and demand throughout the project area. ECONorthwest collected recreation supply and demand 

data to identify particularly valuable recreation activities or resources for development, and 

estimate the value of recreation use and improvements. Zach Jarrett of the interdisciplinary team 

has directed this work. 
1058 | P a g e

References 

USDC NMFS. 2015. Letter from Kim W. Kratz, Assistant Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, to Jerome 

E. Perez, State Director, BLM. December 18, 2015. On file with the BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon. 

USDI BLM. 2012. Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which the BLM 

Will Meet Its Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act. 20 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/coop_agencies/cr_publications.Par.51382.

File.dat/PA_Signed_Package.pdf. 

---. 2015. State Protocol Between the Oregon-Washington State Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Regarding the Manner In Which The Bureau of Land Management Will 

Meet Its’ Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Programmatic Agreement Among 

the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and The National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers. Oregon BLM-Oregon SHPO. Portland, OR. http://www.achp.gov/blm/OR%20PROTOCOL%20SIGNED.pdf. 

---. 2016. Early Review with the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Draft Progress Tracking. 

Unpublished document on file with the BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon. 

---. 2016. Proposed RMP/Final EIS mailing list. Unpublished document on file with the BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, 

Oregon.
1059 | P a g e

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

This section provides the main acronyms and abbreviations used in the document. 

μg micron 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

AM annual maintenance 

ASQ allowable sale quantity 

AUM animal unit month 

bf board foot or board feet 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

BTU British thermal unit 

C carbon 

CAAG Cooperating Agencies Advisory Group 

CBWR Coos Bay Wagon Road 

CDP Census Designated Place 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMAI culmination of mean annual increment 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

COLE Carbon OnLine Estimator 

CVS Current Vegetation Survey 

CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

DBH diameter at breast height 

DM deferred maintenance 

DOGAMI Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

DPS distinct population segment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ENSO El Niño-Southern Oscillation 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU evolutionarily significant unit 

FEIS final environmental impact statement 

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FOI Forest Operations Inventory 

FR Federal Register 

FRI fire return interval 

FS U.S. Forest Service 

FTE full-time equivalent 

FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites 

FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GFMA General Forest Management Area 

GIS geographic information system 
1060 | P a g e

GNN gradient nearest neighbor

ha hectare

HITA High Intensity Timber Area

HLB Harvest Land Base

HMA herd management area

HUC hydrologic unit code (e.g., HUC-10 watershed)

ILAP Integrated Landscape Assessment Project 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IWG Interagency Working Group

km kilometer

LEMMA Landscape, Ecology, Modeling, Mapping, and Analysis

LITA Low Intensity Timber Area

LSR Late-Successional Reserve

m meter

Mbf thousand board feet

Mg megagram

MITA Moderate Intensity Timber Area

Mbf thousand board feet

MMbf million board feet

MMT million metric tons

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NLCS National Landscape Conservation System

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx nitrogen oxides

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan

O3 ozone

O&C Act Oregon and California Lands Act

OAR Oregon Administrative Rules

OBRA Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODF Oregon Department of Forestry

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OHTA Owl Habitat Timber Area

OHV off-highway vehicle

ONA Outstanding Natural Area

ORBIC Oregon Biodiversity Information Center

ORV outstandingly remarkable value

PCT Pacific Crest Trail

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation

PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes

PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers

PM10 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

PRMP Proposed RMP

QMD quadratic mean diameter

RCP representative concentration pathway
1061 | P a g e

RD relative density

RMA recreation management area

RMIS Recreation Management Information System

RMP resource management plan

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD record of decision

ROW right-of-way

SCC social cost of carbon

SDI Stand Density Index

SFP special forest product

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SPTH site-potential tree height

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

SRS Secure Rural Schools

SSRA Smoke Sensitive Receptor Area

SYU Sustained Yield Unit

TDSA Tribal Designated Statistical Area

Tg teragram

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TMP travel management plan

TPA trees per acre

TPCC Timber Productivity Capability Classification

TTM travel and transportation management

UTA Uneven-aged Timber Area

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDC United States Department of Commerce

USDOE United States Department of Energy

USDI United States Department of Interior

USC United States Code

VRI visual resource inventory

VRM visual resource management

WARSEM Washington Road Surface Erosion Model

WSR Wild and Scenic River

WTP willingness to pay

WUI Wildland Urban Interface
1062 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
1063 | P a g e

Glossary

1954 Boundary – The reservation that was home to the Klamath Tribes after the signing of the 1864 

treaty ceding their lands until 1954 when the Tribe was terminated from Federal recognition and the 

reservation was removed.

Aboriginal homelands – Lands referenced in treaties and or legislation, although not officially ceded by 

a ratified treaty. It can also describe an area where people originated from prior to being relocated to 

reservations.

Acquired lands – Public lands that the Federal government has obtained by purchase, condemnation, 

gift, or exchange, as distinguished in the decision area from Coos Bay Wagon Road lands, O&C lands, 

and public domain lands.

Active crown fire – A solid flame consistently maintained in the canopy of the stand of trees or shrubs.

Age class – A system that categorizes forest stands by interval of years. For this analysis, the interval is 

10-year increments. For example, a stand of ten-year age class of 60 includes ages 56–65.

Aggregated retention – See variable-retention regeneration harvest.

Air quality attainment area – A geographic area with air quality as good as or better than the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards as defined in the Clean Air Act. An area may be in attainment for one or 

more criteria pollutants but also be in nonattainment for one or more other criteria pollutants.

Air quality maintenance area – A geographic area that had a history of nonattainment, but are now 

consistently meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Maintenance areas have been redesignated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from “nonattainment” to “attainment 

with a maintenance plan,” or designated by the Environmental Quality Commission.

Air quality nonattainment area – A geographic area that has not consistently met the clean air levels set 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Allotment – An area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments 

generally consist of BLM-administered lands but may include other federally managed, state-owned, and 

private lands.

Allowable Sale Quantity – The timber volume that a forest can produce continuously under the intensity 

of management described in the RMP for those lands allocated for permanent timber production. The 

terms ‘annual productive capacity,’ ‘annual sustained yield capacity,’ ‘sustained yield capacity,’ and 

‘allowable sale quantity’ are synonymous.

Anadromous fish – Fish that are born and reared in freshwater, move to the ocean to grow and mature, 

and return to freshwater to reproduce.

Ancestral territory – Homelands and traditional territory of ancestral Tribes. Lands that may or may not 

have been formally ceded by a Tribe. May reference lands from which Tribes were forcibly removed and 

may or may not have been compensated for later. May also reference reservation lands that were taken 

back later.
1064 | P a g e

Animal Unit Month (AUM) – The amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its 

equivalent for 1 month.

Annual productive capacity – See allowable sale quantity.

Annual sustained yield capacity – See allowable sale quantity.

Aquatic habitat – Habitat that occurs in free water.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) – Lands where special management attention is 

needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish, 

and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes or to protect life and provide safety from 

natural hazards.

Basal area – The cross-sectional area of a single plant stem, of all stems of a species in a stand, or of all 

plants in a stand (including the bark) that is measured at breast height (about 4.5 feet up from the ground) 

for larger plants (like trees) or measured at ground level for smaller plants.

Bed load – Coarse sediment particles with a relatively fast settling rate that move by sliding, rolling, or 

bouncing along the streambed in response to higher stream flows.

Beneficial use – In water use law, reasonable use of water for a purpose consistent with the laws and best 

interest of the people of the state. Such uses include, but are not limited to, the following: instream, out of 

stream, and ground water uses, domestic, municipal, industrial water supply, mining, irrigation, livestock 

watering, fish and aquatic life, wildlife, fishing, water contact recreation, aesthetics and scenic attraction, 

hydropower, and commercial navigation.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Methods, measures, or practices designed to prevent or reduce 

water pollution. Usually, BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice.

Bioclimatic envelope – The range of climatic conditions in which a species can survive and reproduce.

Bioengineering – Techniques combining the biological elements of live plants with engineering design 

concepts for slope protection and erosion reduction.

Biological legacies – An organism, a reproductive portion of an organism, or a biologically derived 

structure or pattern inherited from a previous ecosystem. Biological legacies often include large trees, 

snags, and down logs left after harvesting to provide refugia and to enrich the new stand structurally. See 

variable-retention harvest.

Biological Opinion – The document resulting from formal consultation that states the opinion of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service as to whether or not a Federal action is likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species or results in destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat.

Biomass – Plant materials used as a source of renewable combustible fuel. Also includes woody material 

ground up into fiber and used in secondary wood products.

Board foot (bf) – A lumber or timber measurement term. The amount of wood contained in an unfinished 

board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide.
1065 | P a g e

Breeding, nesting, roosting, foraging habitat – The vegetation with the age class, species composition, 

structure, sufficient area, and adequate food source to meet some or all of the life needs of specific 

species.

British thermal unit (BTU) – A common unit of measuring energy in the English Inch-Pound (vs. 

Metric) system; the amount of heat required to raise 1 pound of water 1 °F.

Broad based dip – Shallow gradual dips in the constructed road grade with a higher than road surface 

embankment angled across the road in the direction of water flow. The dip portion is used to drain ditch 

flows to the other side of the road where drainage can dissipate at ground level or exit upon an erosion 

resistant surface, if needed, to prevent erosion. 

Broadcast burn(ing) – A prescribed burning activity where fire is applied generally to most or all of an 

area within well-defined boundaries for reduction of fuel hazard, as a resource management treatment, or 

both. Canopy is generally either non-existent or not an objective to retain.

Bureau Sensitive species – Plant or animal species eligible for ESA-listed or candidate, state listed, or 

state candidate (plant) status, are on list 1 in the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base, or are approved for 

this category by the BLM State Director.

Cable yarding – The movement of cut trees or logs from the area where they are felled to the landing on 

a system composed of suspended cables.

Candidate species – Taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient information on 

their status and threats to propose the species for listing as endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act, but for which issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. Separate lists for plants, vertebrate animals, and invertebrate animals are published 

periodically in the Federal Register.

Canopy – The area consisting of branches and foliage formed collectively by adjacent trees and other 

woody species in a forest stand. Where significant height differences occur between trees within a stand, 

formation of a multi-layered condition can result.

Canopy base height – The average distance (height) from the ground level to the lower branches of the 

trees that form the main forest canopy where there is sufficient crown loading in needle and 1-hour fuels 

for a certain level of surface fire intensity to transition into the crown.

Canopy bulk density – The mass of available canopy fuel per unit canopy volume.

Canopy cover – A measure of the percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection of the tree 

crowns.

Canopy closure – The proportion of the sky hemisphere obscured by vegetation when viewed by a single 

point.

Ceded lands – Tribal lands acquired by the United States government that a tribe ceded, granted, 

relinquished, sold, or lost rights to under a treaty or other agreement or law of the United States in 

exchange for rights or benefits (or both).

Channel migration zone – the area along low-gradient alluvial shifting channel(s) within which the 

channel(s) can be reasonably predicted to migrate over time as a result of natural and normally occurring 
1066 | P a g e

hydrological and related processes when considered with the characteristics of the channels and their 

surroundings.

Checkerboard ownership – A land ownership pattern in which every other section (square mile) is in 

Federal ownership as a result of Federal land grants to early western railroad companies.

Clearcut – A timber harvesting method that removes essentially all trees in an area, producing a fully 

exposed microclimate over the majority of the harvested area.

Climatype – A population defined primarily by the temperature and precipitation ranges to which it is 

presumably adapted genetically.

Climax stage – See seral stages.

Closed canopy – The degree to which the canopy (forest layers above one’s head) blocks sunlight or 

obscures the sky. It can only be accurately determined from measurements taken under the canopy to 

account for openings in the branches and crowns.

Coarse woody debris – See down woody debris.

Conditional crown fire – A crown fire that will not initiate within the stand under given conditions, but 

canopy fuels are sufficiently dense to support an active crown fire entering from an adjacent stand.

Commercial forest land base – Forestlands declared suitable for producing timber and having a 

minimum level of productivity of 20 cubic feet/acre/year. Contrast with Harvest Land Base.

Commercial thinning – 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 stand thinning 

in which all the cut trees are left in the stand or some of the cut trees are moved 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 and stewardship agreements or contracts.

Commercial use (of roads) – The primary purpose for development and use of the BLM road system is 

access for forest management activities and the transportation of forest products. Commercial use of 

BLM’s road system typically includes log hauling and aggregate hauling and is authorized by either 1) 

perpetual reciprocal right-of-way agreements between the United States and private timberland owners, or 

2) BLM timber sale contracts.

Condition class (fire regimes) – Fire regime condition classes are a measure describing the degree of

departure from historical fire regimes, possibly resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components,

such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. One or more

of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire suppression, timber harvesting, livestock

grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plan species, introduced insects or disease, or other

management activities.

Conservation strategy – A management plan for a species, group of species, or ecosystem that 

prescribes standards and guidelines that if implemented provide a high likelihood that the species, groups 

of species, or ecosystem, with its full complement of species and processes, will continue to exist well

distributed throughout a planning area.
1067 | P a g e

Consultation – A formal interaction between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and another Federal 

agency when it is determined that the agency’s action may affect a species that has been ESA-listed as 

threatened or endangered or its critical habitat

Convection – Transfer of heat by the automatic circulation of fluids.

Cooperating agency – A Tribe or Federal, State, or local government agency that assists a lead Federal 

agency in developing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. These can be any 

agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 1501.6).

Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) Lands – Public lands that were granted to the Southern Oregon

Company for construction of a military road, but were subsequently reconveyed to the United States.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) – An advisory council to the President of the U.S. that was 

established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal programs to analyze 

and interpret environmental trends and information.

County service area – Refers to those counties where tribal members reside that all tribally operated 

programs and services are available to them. The particular number and specific counties vary from Tribe 

to Tribe.

Criteria pollutants – Six principle pollutants considered most harmful to public health and the 

environment and that can be monitored effectively. They include carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), and particulate matter of two different 

aerodynamic diameters (PM10 and PM2.5).

Critical habitat – Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat is defined as: (1) the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by an ESA-listed species on which are found physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by an ESA-listed 

species, when it is determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Cross drain culvert – Culverts strategically installed to pass ditch runoff or drain seeps and springs 

safely under the road prism (often referred to as relief culverts).

Crown (of road) – The center of the road being higher than the outer edges, creating a nearly flat Ashape with a normal cross slope of 1⁄2” to 3⁄4” per foot.

Crown (of tree) – Upper part of a tree or other woody plant that carries the main system of branches and 

the foliage.

Crown fire – A fire in the upper tree or shrub canopy. Crown fires are sometimes classified as 

independent (conditional) or dependent (active or passive) to distinguish the degree of independence from 

the surface fire.

Cubic foot – A unit of solid wood one foot square and one foot thick.

Culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) – The age in the growth cycle of a tree or stand at 

which the mean annual increment (MAI) for which some attribute (e.g., wood volume of a tree or stand 

growth) is at maximum. At culmination, MAI equals the periodic annual increment.
1068 | P a g e

Cultural resources – Locations of human activity, occupation, or use. Cultural resources include

archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public and scientific

uses, and locations of traditional cultural or religious importance to specified social or cultural groups.

Culvert – Enclosed channels of various materials and shapes designed to convey stream or ditch water 

under and away from the roadway.

Cumulative effect – The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, 

but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) – BLM’s regional permanent plot inventory. Each sampling point 

has a series of nested concentric sub-plots, in which trees of different diameter classes are measured. Live 

and dead trees, down woody debris, and understory vegetation are measured. The plots are located on a 

1.7-mile grid, on BLM land, if at least one subplot is forested.

Debris flow – A rapid moving mass of rock fragments, soil, and mud, with more than half of the particles 

being larger than sand size

Decision area – The lands within the planning area of this RMP revisions for which the BLM has 

authority to make land use and management decisions. In general, the BLM has jurisdiction over all 

BLM-administered lands (surface and subsurface) and over mineral estate in areas of split estate (i.e., 

areas where the BLM administers Federal mineral estate, but the surface is not owned by the BLM).

Deciview – A unit of visibility proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction; a measure of 

how hazy the atmosphere is over a period; the smaller the number, the clearer the air

Decommissioning (of roads) – See road closure.

Desired future condition – For rangeland vegetation, the condition of rangeland resources on a

landscape scale that meet management objectives. It is based on ecological, social, and economic

considerations during the land planning process. It is usually expressed as ecological status or

management status of vegetation (species composition, habitat diversity, and age and size class of

species) and desired soil qualities (soil cover, erosion, and compaction). In a general context, desired

future condition is a portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and

objectives are fully achieved.

Detrimental soil disturbance – The limit where the naturally occurring soil properties change to a 

reduced state and the inherent soil capacity to sustain growth of desired vegetation is reduced.

Detrimental soil disturbance generally represents any one or all of the following; unacceptable levels of 

erosion (i.e., formation of rills, gullies, pedestals, or soil deposition), loss of organic matter (removal of 

more than half the organically enriched upper horizon), soil compaction (increase in natural bulk density

that restricts root growth or wheel (or track) ruts > 2” deep), soil heating (physical and biological changes 

to the soil resulting from elevated temperatures of long duration), or soil displacement (removal of ≥ 1” of 

any surface horizon from a contiguous area greater than 100 sq. ft.).

Diameter breast height (DBH) – The diameter of the stem of a tree measured at 4.5 feet above the 

ground level on the uphill side of the stem. See quadratic mean diameter.
1069 | P a g e

Dispersal habitat (northern spotted owl) – Forest stands with average tree diameters of greater than11 

inches, and conifer overstory trees having closed canopies (greater than 40 percent canopy closure) with 

open space beneath the canopy to allow owls to fly.

Dispersed retention – See variable-retention harvest system.

Disposal – Transfer of public land out of Federal ownership to another party through sale or exchange as 

authorized by the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, Desert Land Entry or other land law 

statutes

Distinct population segment (DPS) – a discrete population of a species and the smallest portion of a 

vertebrate species that can be protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Disruption (ESA-listed wildlife) – 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). Disruption is a subset of 

disturbance. 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).

Disturbance (ESA-listed wildlife) – 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.

Disturbance (natural) – A force that causes significant change in structure or composition through 

natural events such as fire, flood, wind, or earthquake, mortality caused by insect or disease outbreaks, or 

by human-caused events such as the harvest of forest products.

Down woody debris/coarse woody debris – Portion of a tree that has fallen, or been cut and left in the 

woods. Usually refers to pieces at least 20 inches in diameter.

Durable rock surfacing – Durability is an indicator of the relative quality or competence of an aggregate 

to resist abrasion, impact or grinding to produce clay like fines when subjected to commercial hauling. 

Durable rock surfacing will support commercial timber or rock haul in the winter with a minimal level of 

fines produced due to wear.

Dry season (for roads) – An annually variable period of time, starting after spring rains cease and when 

hillslope subsurface flow declines; drying intermittent streams and roadside ditches. Generally June 

through October, but may start or end earlier depending on seasonal precipitation influences.

Effective depth of decompaction – The depth to which the soil is tilled or loosened to provide 

infiltration capacity that is near to the adjacent undisturbed forest floor. Measured depth is from road 

surface to bottom of evidence of platy soil or increased bulk density that impedes water transmission.

Eligible river – A river or river segment found to meet criteria found in Sections 1(b) and 2(b) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of being free flowing and possessing one or more outstandingly remarkable

value.
1070 | P a g e

Endangered species – Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species Act as 

being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and published in the 

Federal Register.

Energy dissipater – Any device or installation of material used to reduce the energy of flowing water.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – A detailed statement prepared by the responsible official in 

which a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment is described, 

alternatives to the proposed action are provided, and effects are analyzed.

Even-aged management – A silvicultural system, which creates forest stands that are primarily of a 

single age or very narrow range of ages. See even-aged stand.

Even-aged stand – A stand composed of a single distinct age class managed as a discrete operational 

unit. See even-aged management.

Fire frequency – The number of times that fires occur within a defined area and time period.

Fire hazard – A fuel complex, defined by volume, type condition, arrangement, and location, that 

determines the degree of ease of ignition and of resistance to control.

Fire regime – Description of the patterns of fire occurrences, frequency, size, severity, and sometimes 

vegetation and fire effects as well, in a given area or ecosystem. A fire regime is a generalization based on 

fire histories at individual sites.

Fire resilient forest – A forest having characteristics that limit fire severity and increase the resistance of 

the forest to mortality

Fire return interval – The time between fires in a defined area, usually at the scale of a point, stand or 

relatively small landscape area. This is called Mean Fire Interval (MFI) in the LANDFIRE system, where 

it refers to the average number of years between fires in representative stands.

Fire suppression – Fire management actions taken to extinguish a fire or confine fire spread.

Fifth-field watershed – Individual watershed within a Hydrologic Unit as defined by the U.S. Geological 

Survey, typically averages 87,000 acres in size.

Floodplain – Level lowland bordering a stream or river onto which the flow spreads at flood stage.

Forage – All browse and herbaceous foods available to grazing animals, including wildlife and domestic 

livestock

Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) – An intensive inventory that provides managers with information 

regarding age, species, stand location, size, silvicultural needs, and recommended treatment based on 

individual stand conditions and productivity.

Forestland – Land at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, and including land that formerly 

had such tree cover and capable of redeveloping forested conditions.

Fluid minerals – Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources.
1071 | P a g e

Fuel loads – The amount of combustible material present per unit area.

Full decommissioning (of roads) – See road closure.

Genetic gain – The average improvement of a specific trait in a population of progeny over the average 

of the parental population (e.g., height growth increase).

Geographic Information System (GIS) – A system of computer hardware, software, data, people, and 

applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and display a potentially wide array of geospatial

information.

Geotextile – A geosynthetic fabric or textile manufactured from synthetic plastic polymers, not 

biodegradable, in woven or non-woven types, and used for various purposes ranging from reinforcement 

and separation to drainage filtration and sediment control.

Geothermal energy – Natural heat from within the Earth, captured for production of electric power,

space heating or industrial steam.

Grade break – A long, gradual break in grade on a road with a relatively gradual downhill slope that 

improves drainage. Grade breaks limit water flow by decreasing concentration and velocity from a 

reduced area of road section.

Gradient Nearest Neighbor – A method to characterize forest vegetation across a region that integrates 

vegetation measurements from regional networks of field plots, mapped environmental data, and Landsat 

TM data. The method applies direct gradient analysis (canonical correspondence analysis) and nearestneighbor imputation to ascribe detailed ground attributes of vegetation to each patch in a regional 

landscape.

Gravel interstitial space – The pockets between pieces of gravel.

Green tree – A live tree.

Green-tree retention – A stand management practice in which live trees are left within harvest units to 

provide a legacy of habitat components over the next management cycle. See Variable-retention harvest.

Ground-based yarding – The movement of cut trees or logs from the area where they are felled to the 

landing through the use of mechanical equipment or animals that move along the ground.

Group selection harvest – Areas in a commercial thinning or selection harvest entry where trees are 

harvested in groups of varying sizes. Synonymous with ‘patch cut,’ and ‘gap creation.’ See also group 

selection opening.

Group selection opening – The resulting forest condition, which exists after group selection harvesting

is employed. An area in the stand with a low level of canopy cover and relatively few remaining 

overstory trees. Synonymous with ‘gap.’

Growth and yield modeling – Simulated projections of forest stand growth and development, from 

which timber volume estimates and other stand attributes expected to be produced per unit area under a 

certain set of conditions are derived.

Hand pile – Piling of fuels by hand.
1072 | P a g e

Harvesting – The process of cutting and removing of merchantable trees from a forested area.

Harvest Land Base – Those lands on which the determination and declaration of the Annual Productive 

Capacity/Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) is based. The ASQ is based on implementing a set of specific

timber management activities and assumes those practices will be repeated over time and results in a 

sustainable harvest level.

Helicopter yarding – The movement of cut trees or logs from the area where they are felled to the 

landing through the use of helicopters.

Herbaceous vegetation – Seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial vegetation that does not develop 

persistent woody tissue, but dies down at the end of a growing season.

Herd Management Area – Public land under the jurisdiction of the BLM that has been designated for

special management emphasizing the maintenance of an established wild horse or burro herd.

High intrinsic potential streams – streams with the habitat features that are known to be highly 

productive for an individual fish species.

High sediment producing roads – Roads whose physical characteristics and rights of way vegetation, in 

combination with precipitation in the watershed and traffic result in high erosion rates.

High-severity fire – Greater than 75 percent of the total canopy cover, or basal area, is killed by the sum 

of all fire effects.

Insloping – Constructing and maintaining the entire surface of the road toward the cutslope side of the 

road.

Intermittent stream – A non-permanent drainage feature with a dry period, normally for three months or 

more. Flowing water forms a channel feature with well-defined bed and banks, and bed-forms showing 

annual scour or deposition, within a continuous channel network.

Intrinsic potential (stream) – A stream’s inherent ability to provide high quality habitat for salmonids.

Integrated vegetation management – A combination of silviculture treatments, fire and fuels 

management activities, and harvest methods. Activities include planting, prescribed fire, thinning, singletree selection harvest, and group selection harvest.

Invasive species – A non-native species whose introduction does, or is likely to, cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health.

Ladder fuel – Fuel that provides vertical continuity between forest strata, thereby allowing fire to carry 

from surface fuels into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease.

Landing – A cleared area in the forest to which logs are yarded for loading onto trucks for transport.

Landscape – A heterogeneous land area with interacting ecosystems that are repeated in similar form 

throughout.
1073 | P a g e

Land Use Allocation – The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable development 

that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based on desired future 

conditions.

Lead-off ditch – A formed channel that diverts ditch water away from the road, usually angled in the 

direction of water flow and placed at locations to empty into vegetative filtering areas.

Leasable minerals – Minerals generally found in bedded deposits and include oil, gas, coal, chlorides, 

sulfates, carbonates, borates, silicates, and nitrates of potassium (potash) or sodium and related products; 

sulfur; phosphate and its associated and related minerals; asphalt; and gilsonite.

Locatable minerals – Metallic minerals (e.g., gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, and nickel) and nonmetallic 

minerals (fluorspar, mica, certain limestone and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form and 

gemstones) in land belonging to the United States that are open to citizens of the United States for 

exploration, discovery, and location which conveys the possessory right to extract the locatable minerals 

upon receiving all required authorizations in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 3802 for lands in 

wilderness review and 43 CFR 3809 for other public lands.

Lop and scatter – The cutting of branches, tops, and unwanted boles into lengths that will lie close to the 

ground and spreading debris more or less evenly.

Low-severity fire – Less than 25 percent of the total canopy cover or basal area is killed by the sum of all 

fire effects.

Low volume road – A road that is functionally classified as a resource road and has a design average 

daily traffic volume of 20 vehicles per day or less.

Machine pile – The piling of activity fuels with machinery.

Management direction – Rules in an RMP that identify 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.

Management objective – 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.

Mass wasting – The downslope movement of earth materials caused by gravity. This is an all-inclusive 

term that includes, but is not limited to landslides, rock falls, debris avalanches, and creep; however, it 

does not include surface erosion by running water.

Mean annual increment (MAI) – the total cumulative quantity produced over time of some attribute of a 

tree or stand growth (e.g., wood volume divided by the total age of the tree or stand).

Mechanical mastication – The mechanical crushing, grinding, shredding of shrubs, small trees, and 

downed woody material, leaving a low profile, matted, continuous surface fuel bed.

Merchantable – Trees or stands having the size, quality, and condition suitable for marketing under a 

given economic condition, even if not immediately accessible for logging.
1074 | P a g e

Mineral estate – The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration,

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations.

Mining claim – A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having acquired the

right of possession by complying with the Mining Law and local laws and rules. A mining claim may

contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. There are four categories of mining

claims: lode, placer, millsite, and tunnel site.

Mitigation – The act of reducing or eliminating an adverse environmental impact.

Mixed-severity fire – The severity of fires varies between nonlethal understory and lethal standreplacement fire with the variation occurring in space or time. The result may be a mosaic of young, 

older, and multiple-aged vegetation patches as a function of landscape complexity or vegetation 

patterning. Typically, more than 25 percent and less than 75 percent of the total canopy cover or basal 

area is killed by the sum of all effects. Fires may also vary over time between low-intensity surface fires 

and longer-interval stand replacement fires.

Modeling – A scientific method that operates by a structured set of rules and procedures to simulate

current conditions and predict future conditions.

Monitoring – The review on a sample basis, of management practices to determine how well objectives 

are being met, as well as the effects of those management practices on the land and environment.

Multi-layered canopy – Forest stands with two or more distinct canopy layers.

Multi-aged stand – Two-aged and uneven-aged stands.

National Landscape Conservation System – Special Congressional or Presidential land use 

designations such as National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Areas.

Non-commercial thinning (management) – Cutting merchantable trees but not removing them from the 

stand.

No Surface Occupancy – A fluid minerals leasing major constraint that prohibits occupancy or

disturbance on all or part of the lease surface to protect special values or uses. Lessees may exploit the

fluid mineral resources under the leases restricted by this constraint through use of directional drilling

from sites outside the No Surface Occupancy area, or application of waivers, exceptions, or 

modifications.

O&C lands – Public lands granted to the Oregon and California Railroad Company and subsequently

revested to the United States.

Occupied stand (marbled murrelet) – 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.

ODFW in stream work period – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife designated guidelines that 

identify periods of time for in-water work that would have the least impact on important fish,
1075 | P a g e

wildlife and habitat resources. Work periods are established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of fish 

including migration, spawning and rearing. Work periods are established for the named stream, all 

upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within a watershed (ODFW 2008, Oregon Guidelines for 

Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources).

Obliteration (of roads) – See road closure.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) – Any motorized track or wheeled vehicle designed for cross-country 

travel over any type of natural terrain.

Ordinary high water line – The line on the stream bank or shore to which the high water ordinarily rises 

each year and is the waterward limit of upland vegetation and soil. This line is not established based on 

the level to which the water rises during major floods.

Outsloping – Constructing and maintaining the entire surface of the road toward the fillslope side of the 

road.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values – Values among those listed in Section 1(b) of the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act of 1968: “scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or other similar

values...” Other similar values that may be considered include ecological, biological, or botanical.

Overstory – That portion of trees forming the uppermost canopy layer in a forest stand and that consists 

of more than one distinct layer.

Paleontological resource – Any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved in or on 

the earth's crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life 

on earth.

Particulate matter (PM) – A complex mixture consisting of varying combinations of dry solid 

fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid, typically measured in 

micrometers (e.g., PM2.5 – particular matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

2.5 micrometers).

Passive crown fire – A fire that initiates from the surface fuels, up through the ladder fuels, and into the 

aerial fuels in the crowns of trees in which individual trees or groups of trees torch.

Peak flow – The highest amount of stream or river flow occurring in a year, or from a single storm event.

Peak to Peak Boundary – The boundary the Klamath Tribes identified as their intended reservation upon

ceding their lands to the Federal government. The 1954 boundary is what was established as the actual 

reservation.

Perennial stream – A stream that typically has running water on a year-round basis. Their base level is 

at, or below, the water table.

Periodic annual increment – the difference in a stand attribute at two successive measurements, divided 

by the number of years between measurements. Periodic annual increment is an approximation to current 

annual increment, which is not directly measurable.

Physiographic province – A geographic area having a similar set of biophysical characteristics and 

processes due to effects of climate and geology, which result in patterns of soils and broad-scale plant 
1076 | P a g e

communities. Habitat patterns, wildlife distributions, and historical land use patterns may differ 

significantly from those of adjacent provinces.

Pile burning – Activity fuels, once piled by machine or by hand, are burned in place.

Pioneer road – Temporary access ways, within the path of the permanent road, used to facilitate 

construction and equipment access. When building permanent roads, pioneer roads exist within the 

template of the finished road.

Planning area – All lands within the geographic boundary of this RMP revision regardless of 

jurisdiction.

Planned ignition – The intentional initiation of a wildland fire by hand-held, mechanical or aerial device 

where the distance and timing between ignition lines or points and the sequence of igniting them is 

determined by environmental conditions (weather, fuel, topography), firing technique, and other factors 

which influence fire behavior and fire effects.

Plant association group – A vegetation classification including five to ten closely related plant 

associations, or groupings of plants that occur together in similar environments, typically defined by their 

climates (temperature and moisture), soils, and history of natural disturbances, such as wildfires, diseases 

and insect outbreaks.

Pre-commercial thinning (PCT) – The practice of reducing the density of trees within a stand by manual 

cutting, girdling, or herbicides to maintain or promote growth increases of desirable tree species. The 

trees killed are generally not merchantable and not removed from the treated area.

Preferred Alternative – Term used in the Council on Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and BLM planning regulations. Guidance from the 

Council on Environmental Quality explains that the preferred alternative is the alternative that the agency 

believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, considering economic, environmental, 

technical, and other factors.

Prescribed fire – A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives 

identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements have been met prior 

to ignition. See planned ignition.

Progeny test site – A test area for evaluating parent seed trees by comparing the growth of their offspring 

seedlings.

Public domain lands – Original holdings of the United States never granted or conveyed to other 

jurisdictions, or reacquired by exchange for other public domain lands.

Public land – Land or interest in land owned by the U.S. and administered by the Secretary of the Interior 

through the BLM without regard to how the U.S. acquired ownership, except lands located on the Outer 

Continental Shelf and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.

Public motorized access designation – Designation of lands made in a land use plan for public 

motorized travel activities:

Open—All types of public motorized travel activities are permitted at all times, anywhere in the 

area, subject only to certain operating regulations and vehicle standards.
1077 | P a g e

Limited—Public motorized travel activities are restricted at certain times, in certain areas, to 

certain routes, or to certain types of motorized vehicular use.

Closed—Public motorized travel activities are prohibited anywhere in the area.

Quadratic mean diameter – The diameter of the tree of average basal area in a stand at breast height. 

See diameter breast height.

Recovery plan – A plan for the conservation and survival of an endangered species or a threatened 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, for the purpose of improving the status of the species to 

the point where listing is no longer required.

Regeneration – (n.) Tree seedlings or saplings existing in a stand. (v.) The process of re-establishing 

trees on a tract of forestland where harvest or some natural event has removed existing trees.

Regeneration harvest(ing) – Any removal of trees intended to assist regeneration already present or 

make regeneration possible.

Relative density (RD) – A means of describing the level of competition among trees or site occupancy in 

a stand, relative to some theoretical maximum based on tree density, size, and species composition.

Relative density percent is calculated by expressing Stand Density Index (SDI) (Reineke 1933) as a 

percentage of the theoretical maximum SDI, which varies by tree species and range. Curtis’s relative 

density (Curtis 1982) is determined mathematically by dividing the stand basal area by the square root of 

the quadratic mean diameter. See also Stand Density Index. 

Relevant and important resource value – Criteria used to evaluate nominated Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern.

Renewable energy – See sustainable energy.

Renovation (of roads) – Work done to an existing road, restoring it to its original design standard

Resource Management Plan (RMP) – A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act that establishes, for a given area of land, land-use allocations, management objectives, 

and management direction.

Resource road – Roads that provide a point of access to public lands and connect with local or collector 

roads.

Right-of-way – Authorization to use public lands for certain specified purposes, commonly for pipelines, 

roads, telephone lines, electric lines, reservoirs, and so on; also, the lands covered by an easement or 

permit.

Riparian area – A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and adjacent upland areas that 

directly affect it.

Road closure – Closing roads to use in any of the following categories:

 Temporary/Seasonal/Limited Access – These are typically resource roads, closed with a gate or 

barrier. The road will be closed to public vehicular traffic but may be open for BLM/Permittee 

commercial activities. The road may or may not be closed to BLM administrative uses on a 

seasonal basis depending upon impacts to the resources. Drainage structures will be left in place.
1078 | P a g e

 Decommission (long-term) –The road segment will be closed to vehicles on a long-term basis, 

but may be used again in the future. Prior to closure the road will be left in an erosion-resistant 

condition by establishing cross drains, eliminating diversion potential at stream channels, and 

stabilizing or removing fills on unstable areas. Exposed soils will be treated to reduce sediment

delivery to streams. The road will be closed with an earthen barrier or its equivalent. This 

category can include roads that have been or will be closed due to a natural process 

(abandonment) and may be opened and maintained for future use. 

 Full Decommission (permanent) – Roads determined to have no future need may be subsoiled (or 

tilled), seeded, mulched, and planted to reestablish vegetation. Cross drains, fills in stream 

channels, and unstable areas will be removed, if necessary, to restore natural hydrologic flow. 

The road will be closed with an earthen barrier or its equivalent. The road will not require future 

maintenance. This category includes roads that have been closed due to a natural process 

(abandonment) and where hydrologic flow has been naturally restored. 

 Obliteration (full site restoration/permanent) – Roads receiving this level of treatment have no 

future need. All drainage structures will be removed. Fill material used in the original road 

construction will be excavated and placed on the subgrade in an attempt to reestablish the original 

ground line. Exposed soil will be vegetated with native trees or other native vegetation. Road 

closure by obliteration is rarely used.

Rotation [age] – The planned number of years between the establishment of an even-aged or two-aged 

forest stand and its regeneration harvest.

Salable minerals – Minerals including but not limited to petrified wood and common varieties of sand, 

stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinder, clay, and rock.

Salvage harvest(ing) – Removal of dead trees or of trees damaged or dying because of injurious agents 

other than competition, to recover their economic value.

Sediment – Fine particles of inorganic or organic matter carried by water.

Seed orchard – A plantation of clones or seedlings from selected trees; isolated to reduce pollination 

from outside sources, weeded of undesirables, and cultured for early and abundant production of seed.

Selection harvest(ing) – A method of uneven-aged management involving the harvesting of single trees 

from stands (single-tree selection) or in groups up to four (4) acres in size (group selection) without 

harvesting the entire stand at any one time.

Seral stages – The series of relatively transitory plant communities that develop during ecological 

succession from bare ground to the climax stage.

Shelterwood harvest(ing) – A regeneration harvest method under an even-aged silvicultural system. 

With this method a portion of the mature stand is retained as a source of protection during the 

regeneration period. The retained trees are removed when protection requirements have been met.

Shotgun culverts – Ditch relief or stream culverts where the outlet extends beyond the natural ground 

line.

Silvicultural practices (or treatments or system) – The set of field techniques and general 

methods used to modify and manage a forest stand over time to meet desires conditions and objectives. 

Examples include reforestation, pre-commercial thinning, and commercial thinning.
1079 | P a g e

Silvicultural prescription – A planned series of treatments designed to change current stand structure to 

one that meets management goals.

Silvicultural system – A planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and reestablishing a stand. 

The system name is based on the number of age classes managed within a stand (e.g., even-aged, twoaged, and uneven-aged).

Site class – A classification of an area’s relative productive capacity for tree growth commonly expressed 

in terms of the heights of the largest trees in a stand at a common ‘index’ age, usually 50 or 100 years old. 

Site classes are numbered from 1 (most productive) to 5 (least productive).

Site potential tree height – The average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or 

older) for a given site class. Site-potential tree heights generally range from 140 feet to 240 feet across the 

decision area, depending on site productivity.

Skips – Portions of a stand generally left untreated after a commercial thinning or selection harvest. Skips 

are used to increase variability of forest conditions in the post-harvest stand, and to create desirable 

habitats and ecological conditions.

Slash – The branches, bark, tops, cull logs, and broken or uprooted trees left on the ground after logging 

has been completed.

Slope stability – The resistance of a natural or artificial slope, or other inclined surface, to failure by 

landsliding (mass movement).

Snag – Any standing dead, partially dead, or defective (cull) tree at least 10 inches in diameter at breast 

height and at least 6 feet tall. A hard snag is composed primarily of sound wood, generally merchantable. 

A soft snag is composed primarily of wood in advanced stages of decay and deterioration, generally not 

merchantable.

Soil compaction – An increase of the soil bulk density (weight per unit volume) compared to undisturbed 

soil, and a decrease in porosity (particularly macropores) resulting from applied loads, vibration or 

pressure.

Soil productivity – Capacity or suitability of a soil, for establishment and growth of a specified crop or 

plant species.

Soil quality – The capacity of a soil to function for specific land uses or within ecosystem boundaries. 

This capacity is an inherent characteristic of a soil and varies from soil to soil. Indicators such as organicmatter content, salinity, tilth, compaction, available nutrients, and rooting depth help measure the health 

or condition of the soil-its quality-in any given place.

Special forest products – Those plant and fungi resources that are harvested, gathered or collected by 

permit, and have social, economic, or spiritual value. Common examples include mushrooms, firewood, 

Christmas trees, tree burls, edibles and medicinals, mosses and lichens, floral and greenery, and seeds and 

cones, but not soil, rocks, fossils, insects, animal parts, or any timber products of commercial value.

Special status species – Plant or animal species in any of the following categories:

 Threatened or endangered species

 Proposed threatened or endangered species

 Candidate species
1080 | P a g e

 State-listed species

 Bureau sensitive species

Stand – An aggregation of trees occupying a specific area managed as a discrete operational or 

management unit. A stand may be composed of trees and groups of trees of a variety of ages, species, and 

conditions, or it may be relatively uniform. A stand may also contain multiple land use allocations.

Stand conversion – Converting one type of forest stand to another type. Typically refers to changing 

areas dominated by hardwood species to one dominated by conifer species.

Stand Density Index (SDI) – Reineke’s (1933) stand density index is a function of quadratic mean 

diameter and number of trees per unit area. SDI can be interpreted as the number of 10 inch trees that 

would experience approximately the same level of inter-tree competition as the observed number of trees 

with the observed mean diameter. See also Relative Density.

Stand replacement fire – A fire that is lethal to most of the dominant above ground vegetation and 

substantially changes the vegetation structure. Stand replacement fires may occur in forests, woodlands 

and savannas, annual grasslands, and shrublands. They may be crown fires, high-severity surface fires, or 

ground fires.

State-listed species – Plant or animal species listed by the State of Oregon as threatened or endangered 

pursuant to ORS 496.004, ORS 498.026, or ORS 564.040.

Storm-proof – Roads having a self-maintaining condition, allowing unimpeded flows at channel 

crossings and surface conditions that reduce chronic sediment input to stream channels.

Stream reach – An individual first order stream or a segment of another stream that has beginning and 

ending points at a stream confluence. Reach end points are normally designated where a tributary 

confluence changes the channel character or order. Although reaches identified by BLM are variable in 

length, they normally have a range of 0.5 mile to 1.5 miles in length unless channel character, confluence 

distribution, or management considerations dictate variance. See also Turbidity.

Structural stage classification – Forest stand classification system based on quantitative stand metrics 

used to evaluate changes in forest conditions through time. Classifications include:

1. Early Successional 

 Moist: forests that are ≤ 30 years old, with < 30 percent canopy cover.

 Dry: forests that are ≤ 50 years old, with < 30 percent canopy cover.

2. Stand Establishment

 Moist: forests that are ≤ 30 years old, with ≥ 30 percent canopy cover.

 Dry: forests that are ≤ 50 years old, with ≥ 30 percent canopy cover.

3. Young

 Moist: forests that are over 30 years old, with < 24 trees per acre ≥ 20 inches diameter at 

breast height.

 Dry: forests that are over 50 years old, with < 12 trees per acre ≥ 20 inches diameter at 

breast height. 

4. Mature

 Moist: forests that are over 30 years, with ≥ 24 trees per acre ≥ 20 inches diameter at 

breast height.

 Dry: forests that are over 50 years, with ≥ 12 trees per acre ≥ 20 inches diameter at breast 

height.

5. Structurally-complex
1081 | P a g e

5.1 (SC-Dev) Developed Structurally-complex

 Moist: forests that are over 30 years old, ≥ 24 trees per acre that are ≥ 20 inches diameter 

at breast height, and ≥ 4.7 trees per acre ≥ 40 inches diameter at breast height. The 

coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10 inches ≥ 0.35

 Dry: forests that are over 50 years old, ≥ 12 trees per acre that are ≥ 20 inches diameter at 

breast height, and ≥ 2.1 trees per acre ≥ 40 inches diameter at breast height. The 

coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10 inches ≥ 0.34.

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

Stumpage price – The value of standing timber.

Suitable River – An eligible river segment found through administrative study to meet the criteria for 

designation as a component of the National System, as specified in Section 4(a) of the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act.

Surface fire – A fire that burns on the surface of the ground and consumes surface fuels.

Surface fuel – Fuels lying on or near the surface of the ground, consisting of leaf and needle litter, dead 

branch material, downed logs, bark, tree cones, and low stature living plants.

Sustainable energy – Energy that comes from resources that are naturally replenished on a human 

timescale such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat, as opposed to ‘fossil energy’

which comes from resources replenished on a geological timescale.

Sustained yield – The board foot volume of timber that a forest can produce in perpetuity at a given 

intensity of management; the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular 

periodic output of the various renewable resources. 

Sustained yield capacity – See allowable sale quantity.

Sustained yield unit (SYU) – An administrative unit for which an allowable sale quantity is calculated; 

in western Oregon, the six sustained yield units correspond to the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg,

and Salem Districts, and the western portion of the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Temporary Road – A short-term use road authorized for the development of a project that has a finite 

lifespan (e.g., a timber sale spur road). Temporary roads are not part of the permanent designated 

transportation network and must be reclaimed when their intended purpose has been fulfilled.

Thinning – A silvicultural treatment made to reduce the density of trees primarily to improve tree/stand

growth and vigor, or recover potential mortality of trees, generally for commodity use. See precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, variable-density thinning.

Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) – The process of partitioning forestland within 

the sustained yield unit into major classes based on the biological and physical capability of the site to 

support and produce forest products on a sustained yield basis using operational management practices.

Timber volume – Amount of timber contained in a log, a stand, or a forest, typically measured in board 

feet or cubic feet.
1082 | P a g e

Threatened species – Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species throughout all 

or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and 

defined in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register.

Torching – The burning of the foliage of a single tree or a small group of trees, from the bottom up. See 

passive crown fire.

Tree-tipping – Mechanically tipping or pulling over trees with root wads attached, generally into or near 

a stream, to simulate natural wood recruitment.

Tribal fee land – Lands in which a Tribe has acquired title to through purchase or donation but the 

Federal government has not put into trust, therefore state and local laws apply including payment of 

property and timber harvest taxes.

Trust land – Land in which the Federal government holds title to for the use and benefit of a Tribe.

Turbidity – The cloudiness exhibited by water carrying sediment; the degree to which suspended 

sediment interferes with light passage through water.

Two-aged stand – A stand composed of two (2) distinct age classes intimately mixed or in aggregated 

groups producing a two-story structure managed as a discrete operational unit.

Two-aged system – A silvicultural system intended to regenerate and maintain stands with two distinct 

age classes.

Underburn – A fire that consumes surface fuels but not the overstory canopy.

Underburning – Prescribed burning under a forest canopy.

Underdrain – Culverts installed to convey water from springs, and seeps encountered during road 

construction, under the road.

Understory – That portion of trees or other woody vegetation, which form the lower layer in a forest 

stand, which consists of more than one distinct layer.

Uneven-aged management – A silvicultural system that simultaneously maintains high degree of tall 

forest cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, and the orderly growth and development of trees 

through a range of diameter or age classes. Harvesting methods that develop and maintain uneven-aged

stands are single-tree selection, group selection, and thinning.

Uneven-aged stand – A stand composed of at least three (3) distinct age classes intimately mixed or in 

aggregated groups producing a multi-layered canopy structure managed as a discrete operational unit.

Use of wildland fire – Management of either wildfire or prescribed fire to meet resource objectives.

Usual and accustomed areas – Areas regularly utilized and accessed by antecedent tribes or bands prior 

to treaty signing.
1083 | P a g e

Variable-density thinning (VDT) – A thinning method where two or more densities of retained trees are 

used to promote stand heterogeneity through the development of multi-layered canopies. Provision of 

conditions conducive to the initiation and growth of regeneration is usually an objective of VDT.

Variable-retention regeneration harvest or variable retention harvest (VRH) – An approach to 

regeneration harvesting that is based on the retention of structural elements or biological legacies from the 

harvested stand for integration into the new stand to achieve various ecological objectives. The resultant 

stand is generally two-aged or multi-aged. The major variables in variable- retention harvest systems are 

the types, densities and spatial arrangement of the retained structures; (1) aggregated retention is the 

retention of structures as (typically) intact forest patches within or adjacent to the harvest unit; (2) 

dispersed retention is the retention of structures or biological legacies in a more or less scattered pattern. 

Variable-retention regeneration harvest is synonymous with green-tree retention, retention harvest, 

retention forestry.

Visual Resource Management (VRM) – The inventory and planning actions to identify values and 

establish objectives for managing those values and the management actions to achieve those objectives

Visual Resource Management classes – Categories assigned to public lands based on scenic quality, 

sensitivity level, and distance zones. There are four classes. Each class has an objective that prescribes the 

amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape.

Water drafting site – Site to provide a short duration, small pump operation that withdraws water from 

streams or impoundments to fill conventional tank trucks or trailers.

Water quality – The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to its 

suitability for a particular use.

Water harvesting pond – Ponds constructed to capture and store rainwater or snowmelt.

Waters of the State – Includes lakes, bays, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, rivers, streams, 

creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the Pacific Ocean within the territorial limits of the State of 

Oregon and all other bodies of surface or underground waters, natural or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh 

or salt, public or private which are wholly or partially within or bordering the State or within its 

jurisdiction. ORS 468B.005(10).

Watershed – An area in which all surface waters flow to a common point.

Wet season (for roads) – An annually variable period of time, starting after precipitation amounts 

saturate soils. This occurs after the onset of fairly continuous fall rains, which result in seasonal runoff in 

ephemeral and intermittent stream channels and from the road surface and ditches. Generally November 

through May, but could start or end earlier depending on seasonal precipitation influences.

Wetland – Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation 

typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, as defined by the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. 

These wetlands generally meet the jurisdictional wetland criteria.

Wild and Scenic Rivers system – A system of nationally designated rivers and their immediate 

environments that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or 

other similar values and are preserved in a free-flowing condition.
1084 | P a g e

Wilderness – An area defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, and formally designated by 

Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Wilderness characteristics – These attributes include the area’s size, its apparent naturalness, and 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. They may also 

include supplemental values. Lands with wilderness characteristics are those lands that have been 

inventoried and determined by the BLM to contain wilderness characteristics as defined in section 2(c) of 

the Wilderness Act.

Wilderness Study Area – Areas with wilderness characteristics identified and designated through the 

inventory and study processes authorized by Section 603 of the FLPMA, and, prior to 2003, through the 

planning process authorized by Section 202 of the FLPMA.

Wildfire – Unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such as a fire caused by lightning or unauthorized and 

accidental human – caused fires) and escaped prescribed fires.

Wildfire risk – The likelihood and susceptibility for a wildfire to adversely affect human values (e.g.,

life, property, and ecological functions and resources).

Wildland Developed Areas – A delineation of where people live in the wildland, classifying a minimum 

of one structure per 40 acres as a developed area.

Wildland fire – A general term describing a non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland.

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) – The line, area, or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels.

Windthrow – A tree or trees uprooted or felled by the wind.

Yarding – The process of moving cut logs to a landing, particularly by cable, ground-based or helicopter 

yarding systems

References

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.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008. Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and 

Wildlife Resources. June 2008. 12 pp.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/inwater/Oregon_Guidelines_for_Timing_of_%20InWater_Work2008.pdf.

Reineke, L. H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research 46(7): 627–638. 12 

pp. http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=IND43968212&content=PDF.
1085 | P a g e

Index

A

air quality, 43, 93, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 154, 155, 156, 159, 161, 162, 196, 207, 743, 1049, 1061

allowable sale quantity, xxx, 4, 100, 305, 335, 1057, 1061, 1062, 1079

Aquatic Conservation Strategy, 1, 22, 105, 293, 303, 368, 378, 422, 979, 1057

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, xxvii, xxix, 40, 43, 50, 56, 68, 78, 93, 109, 1051, 1075

B

barred owl, xxxiii, 85, 86, 97, 98, 344, 347, 926, 927, 946, 947, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 955, 957, 958, 959, 960, 964, 969, 970, 

971

biomass, 87, 145, 165, 166, 167, 174, 205, 223, 264, 272, 300, 518, 519, 596, 613, 614, 615, 650, 651, 655, 741, 747, 757, 765, 

767, 768, 772

Bureau Sensitive, xxxi, 19, 22, 40, 44, 78, 94, 97, 132, 275, 277, 278, 297, 515, 516, 517, 518, 521, 522, 526, 527, 530, 531, 532, 

533, 534, 536, 541, 542, 543, 546, 828, 829, 831, 832, 834, 843, 844, 848, 849, 1009, 1063

C

carbon storage, xxxi, 102, 103, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 178, 195, 196, 199, 203, 205, 206, 207, 

588, 589, 596, 597, 618, 619, 651

Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, 3, 25, 114, 476

climate change, 103, 125, 159, 162, 164, 167, 174, 179, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 

200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 273, 352, 524, 568, 595, 618, 619, 840, 858, 890, 895, 929, 997, 1014, 

1053

cultural resources, xxxii, 43, 87, 93, 96, 132, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 505, 514, 598, 625, 653, 715, 805, 1049

D

detrimental soil disturbance, xxxii, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 

763

E

employment, xxxii, 127, 587, 638, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 676, 677, 

678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 712, 715, 716, 717, 718, 720, 721, 723, 731, 732, 733, 739, 742, 

808

environmental justice, 583, 588, 721, 722, 723, 726, 730, 731, 732, 733

F

fire resiliency, 9, 10, 226, 227, 229, 231

fire resistance, xxix, 200, 221, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 267, 268, 269

fisher, 652, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 877, 878, 919

G

greenhouse gas emissions, xxix, 103, 164, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 190, 195, 196, 199, 206, 210, 619

I

invasive plant, xxx, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 436, 437, 438, 439, 

447, 483, 549, 806
1086 | P a g e

L

land tenure, 11, 37, 44, 94, 455, 456

lands with wilderness characteristics, xxv, xxx, 11, 41, 50, 57, 68, 78, 85, 87, 461, 462, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 

554

leasable mineral, xxxi, 485, 500, 501, 521, 617, 651, 772, 1031

livestock grazing, xxx, xxxiii, 11, 78, 94, 112, 173, 175, 211, 213, 218, 223, 279, 297, 300, 301, 410, 417, 418, 423, 432, 433, 434, 

437, 439, 441, 446, 447, 448, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 515, 519, 525, 542, 543, 581, 588, 

589, 596, 615,616, 650, 651, 655, 657, 674, 715, 723, 736, 741, 801, 864, 885, 886, 891, 997, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1013, 1017, 

1020, 1064

locatable mineral, xxxi, 11, 50, 56, 68, 78, 95, 467, 485, 493, 494, 495, 497, 498, 499, 500, 503, 521, 545, 617, 650

M

marbled murrelet, xxxiii, 7, 9, 25, 27, 31, 49, 50, 55, 56, 67, 68, 77, 81, 89, 97, 106, 180, 189, 197, 198, 201, 202, 207, 209, 335, 

336, 337, 340, 343, 345, 347, 519, 620, 623, 652, 733, 824, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 

908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 919, 989, 1045, 1072

N

northern spotted owl, xxiii, xxiv, xxxiii, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 34, 36, 39, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 58, 67, 68, 73, 77, 86, 88, 

89, 97, 103, 106, 112, 124, 126, 127, 128, 180, 189, 197, 198, 203, 204, 311, 312, 318, 328, 337, 340, 343, 344, 347, 519, 620, 

623, 626, 652, 702, 740, 829, 913, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 

945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 957, 958, 959, 960, 962, 964, 967, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 

978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 1045, 1048, 1055, 1067

Northwest Forest Plan, xxiii, 1, 5, 7, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 105, 112, 122, 124, 196, 204, 279, 283, 302, 303, 366, 515, 528, 529, 

535, 538, 552, 601, 702, 738, 829, 833, 844, 845, 846, 848, 850, 861, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 916, 925, 929, 931, 946, 947, 

972, 973, 976, 985,1046, 1058

O

O&C Act, xxxii, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 40, 41, 86, 99, 102, 106, 107, 122, 141, 346, 527, 658, 674, 678, 685, 

686, 687, 688, 691, 692, 694, 695, 714, 718, 720, 731, 732, 1046, 1058

off-highway vehicle, 5, 415, 558, 1058

P

Pacific Connector Pipeline, 119, 120, 121, 128, 459, 460

Pacific Crest Trail, xxxi, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 1058

prescribed fire, 30, 144, 145, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 221, 226, 250, 264, 361, 

366, 518, 800, 1070, 1074, 1080

public motorized access, xxxii, 11, 117, 211, 212, 213, 217, 412, 417, 418, 423, 426, 431, 432, 495, 503, 520, 545, 546, 743, 760, 

761, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 998, 1006, 1013, 1019, 1036, 1037

R

red tree vole, 30, 49, 50, 55, 56, 67, 68, 77, 78, 89, 98, 738, 951

right-of-way, 94, 120, 361, 455, 457, 458, 459, 460, 467, 558, 566, 567, 649, 769, 770, 773, 774, 776, 778, 783, 786, 790, 1025, 

1031, 1059, 1064

S

salable mineral, xxxi, 50, 56, 68, 78, 95, 467, 485, 488, 491, 492, 493, 503, 520, 545, 596, 617, 618, 650

sediment, xxx, 13, 24, 42, 86, 88, 90, 106, 276, 278, 281, 282, 294, 295, 296, 297, 300, 302, 303, 367, 368, 382, 388, 392, 394, 

398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 411, 412, 415, 442, 524, 652, 803, 809, 1000, 1062, 1069, 1070, 1076, 1078, 

1080

special forest products, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 418, 588, 595, 596, 611, 613, 614, 649, 655, 657, 740

stream shade, 298, 299, 368, 410, 414, 416, 1031

sudden oak death, xxx, 50, 56, 68, 78, 85, 94, 145, 195, 417, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 802, 806, 927
1087 | P a g e

Survey and Manage, xxxi, 20, 21, 22, 30, 339, 343, 344, 345, 348, 366, 515, 516, 517, 518, 522, 523, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 

533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 540, 543, 546, 549, 550, 552, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 840, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 

848, 849, 850, 925, 1009 

sustainable energy, xxxii, 44, 96, 589, 596, 767, 769, 770, 771, 772, 1075 

T

Timber Production Capability Classification, 40, 393, 1079 

U

Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland, 3, 25, 26, 114 

V

visual resource management, 18, 37, 44, 811, 1025, 1059 

W

West Eugene Wetlands, 3, 25, 27, 114, 526, 527, 530, 551, 1008, 1015 

Wild and Scenic River, xxxiii, 11, 24, 25, 26, 45, 50, 57, 69, 78, 87, 134, 141, 201, 346, 455, 488, 493, 591, 1019, 1021, 1024, 

1037, 1059 

wildfire, xxix, 10, 93, 124, 125, 144, 145, 150, 154, 155, 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 

193, 195, 196, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213, 221, 225, 226, 240, 250, 253, 256, 262, 264, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 

312, 327, 339, 355, 356, 374, 462, 535, 539, 542, 543, 547, 550, 596, 806, 831, 841, 847, 868, 885, 898, 928, 929, 931, 940, 

945, 946, 973, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 1018, 1080, 1082 

Woodstock, 123, 124, 125, 126, 144, 165, 230, 306, 312, 348, 353, 355, 361, 369, 370, 385, 393, 394, 421, 440, 592, 629, 674, 

745, 751, 754, 1055 
xxii | Page

Page intentionally left Blank 

1088 | Page
xxii | Page

Page intentionally left Blank 

1089 | Page
xxii | Page

Page intentionally left Blank 

1090 | Page