United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Oregon State Office

P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208

http://www.blm.gov/or

Dear Reader: 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 2.5 million acres of land in western 

Oregon. These lands play an important role in the region’s social, ecological, and economic wellbeing. As steward of these lands, the BLM has a responsibility to ensure that our management is 

meeting legal mandates and the needs of local communities. 

This document includes both the Record of Decision (ROD) and the Southwestern Oregon 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). The ROD approves the Southwestern Oregon RMP, which 

provides direction for management of resources on approximately 1.2 million acres of BLMadministered lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District, the Medford 

District, and the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District. The BLM has prepared this 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP in coordination with the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon 

ROD/RMP, which provides direction for management of resources on BLM-administered lands 

in the Coos Bay District, Eugene District, Salem District, and the Swiftwater Field Office of the 

Roseburg District. 

The ROD states the decision; explains the rationale for the decision; provides a declaration of the 

allowable sale quantity of timber; describes how the BLM will transition into the new plan; and 

outlines mitigation measures, plan monitoring, and plan evaluation. The RMP contains the land 

use allocations, management objectives and management direction, guidance for use of the RMP, 

a monitoring plan, and more detailed information on some resource programs. 

The completion of these RODs/RMPs marks the end of a four-year effort by the BLM to use new 

science, policies, and technology to protect natural resources and support local communities in 

western Oregon. Since 2012, the BLM has held 41 public meetings, workshops, and forums. 

The BLM received more than 7,000 comments, 4,500 of which were submitted during the formal 

comment period on the Draft RMP/Environmental Impact Statement. I would like to thank all of 

you for your participation throughout this planning process. The active involvement of 

stakeholders—including Federal and State agencies, cooperating agencies, organizations, Indian 

Tribes, and members of the public—has made our planning effort stronger. 

I encourage you to remain involved with BLM’s management through engaging with local 

offices on future projects. On-the-ground projects, such as timber sales, development of 

recreation opportunities, and restoration projects, will undergo additional analysis and decisionmaking before implementation. Please contact your local BLM office to learn about how to get 

involved in projects in your community. 

Sincerely, 

Ron Dunton 

Acting State Director 

Oregon/Washington 

United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Southwestern Oregon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

Klamath Falls Field Office of Lakeview District, Medford District, and South River Field Office 

of Roseburg District 

August 2016 

Tables of Contents 

i | P a g e

Table of Contents

RECORD OF DECISION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................................ 1

PLANNING PROCESS................................................................................................................................................ 2

PLANNING AREA .................................................................................................................................................... 2

DECISION.............................................................................................................................................................. 2

What the ROD and RMP Provide ........................................................................................................................... 3

Mapping of Land Use Allocations ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Allowable Sale Quantity of Timber ..................................................................................................................................... 5

What the ROD and RMP Do Not Provide .............................................................................................................. 8

Existing Decisions ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

Application of the RMP to Existing and New Projects ........................................................................................... 9

Projects Decided Prior to the ROD/RMP .......................................................................................................................... 10

Projects Begun Prior to the ROD/RMP, but Decided After the ROD/RMP ....................................................................... 10

Projects Begun After the ROD/RMP ................................................................................................................................. 13

Valid Existing Rights ............................................................................................................................................13

Changes to the RMP between the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and the ROD ..........................................................13

THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................. 15

The No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................................................16

The Action Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................16

Alternative A..................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Alternative B and Sub-Alternative B ................................................................................................................................. 17

Alternative C and Sub-Alternative C ................................................................................................................................. 17

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................................... 18

The Proposed RMP ..............................................................................................................................................18

Environmentally Preferable Alternative ..............................................................................................................19

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION ................................................................................................................................ 20

Provide a Sustained Yield of Timber ....................................................................................................................21

Conservation and Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species – Northern Spotted Owl ..........................22

Conservation and Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species – Marbled Murrelet ................................. 24

Conservation and Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Fish Species and Provide Clean Water in 

Watersheds .........................................................................................................................................................24

Restore Fire-adapted Ecosystems .......................................................................................................................26

Provide for Recreation Opportunities .................................................................................................................26

Coordinate Management of Lands Surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille Tribe .............................26

Carbon Storage ...................................................................................................................................................27

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ................................................................................................................27

Survey and Manage ............................................................................................................................................27

Alternatives Considered in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS .....................................................................................28

MITIGATION........................................................................................................................................................ 29

Mitigation Adopted in this Decision ....................................................................................................................30

Participate in barred owl management ............................................................................................................................ 30

Avoid incidental take of northern spotted owls ............................................................................................................... 30

Mitigation Not Adopted in this Decision .............................................................................................................31

Avoid any increase in particulate emissions ..................................................................................................................... 32

Avoid any increase in lands susceptible to peak flow increases ....................................................................................... 32

Avoid any increase in sediment delivery to streams ........................................................................................................ 32

Avoid any increase in detrimental soil disturbance ......................................................................................................... 32

Protect all northern spotted owl sites .............................................................................................................................. 33

Protect all stands 80 years old and older ......................................................................................................................... 33

MONITORING AND EVALUATION.............................................................................................................................. 33

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 34

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION........................................................................................................................ 35
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

ii | P a g e

ESA Consultation .................................................................................................................................................36

NEW INFORMATION.............................................................................................................................................. 38

RECOMMENDATION.............................................................................................................................................. 42

CONCURRENCE .................................................................................................................................................... 42

APPROVAL.......................................................................................................................................................... 42

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 43

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTION............................................................................................................... 47

MAPPING OF LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 47

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS........................................................................................................................................ 53

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 88

RESOURCE PROGRAMS .......................................................................................................................................... 89

APPENDIX A – GUIDANCE FOR USE OF THE RMP ................................................................................................ 125

APPENDIX B – MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................................................... 137

APPENDIX C – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................................................................................. 163

APPENDIX D – LANDS AND REALTY .................................................................................................................... 209

APPENDIX E – ENERGY AND MINERALS .............................................................................................................. 239

APPENDIX F – AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ........................................................................ 245

APPENDIX G – RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS ........................................................................................... 259

APPENDIX H – PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS ....................................................................................................... 267

APPENDIX I – LIVESTOCK GRAZING .................................................................................................................... 285

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 297

GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 299

Table of Figures 

Figure 1. Percent of Riparian Reserve within each subwatershed class for the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

planning area. .....................................................................................................................................................49

Figure 2. Range and management zones for the marbled murrelet. ..........................................................................52

Table of Tables 

Table 1. Land use allocation acres within the Southwestern Oregon RMP. ................................................................43

Table 2. Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve distances by water feature. ...............................................60

Table 3. Snag creation levels within the Harvest Land Base. ......................................................................................63

Table 4. Snag creation levels within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve. ........................................73

Table 5. Down woody material retention levels when implementing fuels reduction or prescribed fire treatments 

within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve. ..............................................................................74

Table 6. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature. ................................................................................................. 77

Table 7. Riparian Reserve – Moist zone-specific management direction for streams in Class I subwatersheds. ........78

Table 8. Riparian Reserve – Moist zone-specific management direction for streams in Class II subwatersheds. .......79

Table 9. Riparian Reserve – Moist zone-specific management direction for streams in Class III subwatersheds. ......81

Table 10. Riparian Reserve – Dry zone-specific management direction for streams in Class I subwatersheds. ..........82

Table 11. Riparian Reserve – Dry zone-specific management direction for streams in Class II subwatersheds. .........84

Table 12. Riparian Reserve – Dry zone-specific management direction for streams in Class III subwatersheds. ........86

Table 13. Cultural use allocations with desired outcomes and management actions. ...............................................90

Table 14. Allotments unavailable for livestock grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office. ...................................................98

Table 15. Exclosures or other areas previously closed to livestock grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office. .....................99

Table 16. Allotments unavailable for livestock grazing, Medford District. ................................................................102

Table B-1. Example of Functioning Condition Status Table from USDI TR-1737-9 (1993). ........................................144

Table B-2. Decade 1 modeled acres by treatment type by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation. ................................. 156
Tables of Contents 

iii | P a g e

Table B-3. Decade 2 modeled acres by treatment type by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation. ................................. 157

Table B-4. Marbled murrelet survey reporting. .........................................................................................................160

Table B-5. Marbled murrelet occupied site. ..............................................................................................................161

Table B-6. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat modified or removed without surveys. ..............................................161

Table C-1. Best management practices for roads and landings. ...............................................................................167

Table C-2. Best management practices for timber harvest activities. .......................................................................182

Table C-3. Soil cover based on erosion hazard ratings. .............................................................................................185

Table C-4. Best management practices for planting, pre-commercial thinning, and fertilization. ...........................186

Table C-5. Best management practices for fire and fuel management. ....................................................................186

Table C-6. Water bar spacing by gradient and erosion class. ...................................................................................191

Table C-7. Best management practices for surface source water for drinking water protection. .............................192

Table C-8. Best management practices for recreation management. .......................................................................194

Table C-9. Best management practices for livestock grazing. ...................................................................................197

Table C-10. Best management practices for salable mineral material disposal........................................................199

Table C-11. Best management practices for spill prevention and abatement. .........................................................200

Table C-12. Best management practices for instream restoration activities. ...........................................................203

Table C-13. Timber Production Capability Classification soil categories of concern. ................................................205

Table C-14. Best management practices specific to the dry forest (refer to Table C-13 for category type). .............205

Table D-1. Withdrawal tables legend. .......................................................................................................................213

Table D-2. Withdrawals in the Klamath Falls Field Office. ........................................................................................214

Table D-3. Withdrawals in the Medford District. ......................................................................................................218

Table D-4. Withdrawals in the Roseburg District. .....................................................................................................228

Table D-5. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office. ....................................................................232

Table D-6. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Medford District. ..................................................................................233

Table D-7. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Roseburg District. .................................................................................235

Table D-8. Communication sites in the Klamath Falls Field Office. ...........................................................................236

Table D-9. Communication sites in the Medford District...........................................................................................236

Table D-10. Communication sites in the Roseburg District. ......................................................................................237

Table F-1. Special Management Needs for Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Klamath 

Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District in the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. .................247

Table F-2. Specific Relevant and Important Values of Designated ACECs within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the 

Lakeview District within the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP boundary.........................................................248

Table G-1. Recreation Management Areas within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District. .............260

Table H-1. Current authorized motorized and non-motorized trails within the decision area. ................................. 274

Table H-2. Klamath Falls Field Office public motorized access designations. ............................................................276

Table H-3. Medford District public motorized access designations. ..........................................................................279

Table H-4. Roseburg District public motorized access designations. .........................................................................282

Table I-1. Available Klamath Falls Field Office grazing allotments............................................................................287

Table I-2. Available Medford District grazing allotments ..........................................................................................294

Table of Maps 

Map 1. Planning area for the Southwestern Oregon RMP. ......................................................................................... 44

Map 2. Land use allocations and sub-allocations. .......................................................................................................48

Map 3. Three-tier subwatershed class map. ...............................................................................................................50

Map D-1. Right-of-way avoidance areas and right-of-way exclusion areas. ............................................................210

Map E-1. Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal. ....................................................................................240

Map F-1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District in 

the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. ......................................................................................246

Map F-2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Medford District in the Southwestern Oregon 

ROD/RMP plan boundary. ................................................................................................................................249
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

iv | P a g e

Map F-3. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District in the 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary..............................................................................................255

Map G-1. Recreation Management Areas within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District. ...............261

Map G-2. Recreation Management Areas within the Medford District. ...................................................................264

Map G-3. Recreation Management Areas within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District. ..................266

Map H-1. Public motorized access area designations within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District.

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

Map H-2. Public motorized access area designations within the Medford District. ..................................................269

Map H-3. Public motorized access area designations within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District. 270

Map I-1. Allotments available for livestock grazing. ................................................................................................. 286
1 | P a g e

Record of Decision 

Summary 

This Record of Decision (ROD) approves the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) attached 

Southwestern Oregon Resource Management Plan (RMP). This ROD and RMP provide overall 

direction for management of all resources on BLM-administered lands in the Klamath Falls Field 

Office of the Lakeview District, the Medford District, and the South River Field Office of the 

Roseburg District and revises the 1995 RMPs for the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview 

District, the Medford District, and the Roseburg District. The land use allocations, management 

objectives, and management direction in the attached Southwestern Oregon RMP are nearly 

identical to the Proposed RMP set forth in the Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for Western Oregon, with the changes and corrections described in this ROD. 

The purpose of the RMP revision includes all of the following purposes: 

 Provide a sustained yield of timber.

 Contribute to the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species, 

including—

o Maintaining a network of large blocks of forest to be managed for latesuccessional forests; and 

o Maintaining older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests. 

 Provide clean water in watersheds. 

 Restore fire-adapted ecosystems. 

 Provide recreation opportunities. 

 Coordinate management of lands surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille 

Tribe. 

The BLM prepared a single Draft RMP/EIS and a single Proposed RMP/Final EIS that support 

the RODs for both the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP and the Southwestern Oregon 

RMP. In the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM analyzed in detail the Proposed RMP, the No 

Action alternative, and four action alternatives. The BLM developed the Proposed RMP as a 

variation on Alternative B, which the BLM identified in the Draft RMP/EIS as the preferred 

alternative. 

The Proposed RMP will best meet the purpose and need for the action in comparison to the 

alternatives, as demonstrated by the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed 

RMP represents the product of close cooperative work with several agency partners, and their 

support will be integral to the effective implementation of the Proposed RMP. Additionally, the 

Proposed RMP presents a management approach that is consistent with the current capacity of 

the BLM for implementation; the BLM can reasonably anticipate having sufficient staff and 

budget to implement the management actions and achieve the objectives of the Proposed RMP, 

because the overall staff and budget needs of the Proposed RMP are not substantially greater 

than the current BLM staff and budget. The cooperation of agency partners and the alignment of 

the Proposed RMP with BLM capacity are key to ensuring that the Proposed RMP will have a 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

2 | P a g e

high degree of predictability about implementation and a high degree of certainty of achieving 

management objectives. 

Planning Process 

This ROD and RMP provide overall direction for management of all resources on BLMadministered lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District, the Medford 

District, and the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District and revises the 1995 RMPs 

for the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District, the Medford District, and the 

Roseburg District (USDI BLM 1995 a, b, c). The BLM prepared this RMP revision under the 

regulations (43 CFR 1600) implementing the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). The BLM prepared an EIS for this plan in compliance with 

regulations (40 CFR 1500) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The BLM is making this decision consistent with the decision 

for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP for the Coos Bay District, Eugene District, the 

Salem District, and the Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg District, which is supported by 

the same Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

The 1995 RMPs were developed consistent with the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, which the 

Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture adopted for Federal forests within 

the range of the northern spotted owl. This RMP revision revises the 1995 RMPs in their entirety 

and thereby revises the Northwest Forest Plan for the management of BLM-administered lands 

in the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District, the Medford District, and the South 

River Field Office of the Roseburg District. 

Planning Area 

The planning area for the Southwestern Oregon RMP includes approximately 1.2 million acres 

of BLM-administered lands in western Oregon managed by the BLM’s Klamath Falls Field 

Office of the Lakeview District, the Medford District, and the South River Field Office of the 

Roseburg District (Map 1, located in the RMP). Throughout the Draft RMP/EIS and the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM has used the term ‘planning area’ to refer to all lands within 

the geographic boundary of this RMP and the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP regardless 

of jurisdiction. However, this ROD only makes decisions on lands that fall under BLM 

jurisdiction (including mineral estate). The BLM uses the term ‘decision area’ to refer to the 

lands within the planning area 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 administered by the BLM). This 

ROD does not apply to the BLM-administered lands in the Cascade Siskiyou National 

Monument (Medford District), the Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland (Klamath 

Falls Field Office), because those lands have their own independent RMPs. 

Decision 

The BLM hereby approves the Southwestern Oregon RMP for the Klamath Falls Field Office of 

the Lakeview District, the Medford District, and the South River Field Office of the Roseburg 
Record of Decision 

3 | P a g e

District. The attached Southwestern Oregon RMP is nearly identical to the Proposed RMP set 

forth in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS for Western Oregon, with the changes and corrections 

described below under “Changes to the RMP between the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and the 

ROD.” The attached Southwestern Oregon RMP includes land use allocations, management 

objectives, and management direction, in addition to appendices addressing implementation of 

actions consistent with the RMP, a monitoring plan, Best Management Practices, land tenure 

information and land withdrawals, available grazing allotments, stipulations on leasable fluid 

mineral exploration and development activity, designated Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, designated Recreation Management Areas, and public motorized access guidelines.

This ROD and RMP are final and effective upon signing of this ROD. The decisions in this RMP 

will guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation 

decisions. The BLM will carry out additional decision-making, including NEPA compliance, 

Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) consultation, and other consultation, as 

appropriate, before authorizing any future actions and implementation decisions that result in onthe-ground activities. 

What the ROD and RMP Provide 

The approved RMP provides overall direction for management of all resources on BLMadministered lands in the decision area. The approved RMP includes the following land use plan 

decisions: 

 Objectives for the management of BLM-administered lands and resources. 

 Land use allocations relative to future uses for the purposes of achieving the various 

objectives. 

 Management direction that identifies where future actions may or may not be allowed 

and what restrictions or requirements may be placed on those future actions to achieve 

the objectives set for the BLM-administered lands and resources. 

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

resources in an RMP; the resource conditions that the BLM envisions or desires would 

eventually result from implementation of future actions consistent with the decisions in 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. 

Mapping of Land Use Allocations 

For the location of the Riparian Reserve, the decision requires identification of features on the 

ground (e.g., a perennial stream) and the allocation of a corresponding width of Riparian 

Reserve, except for lands, as represented in the BLM spatial database, allocated to 

Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Landscape Conservation System (National 

Conservation Lands), District-Designated Reserves, the portions of the Late-Successional 

Reserve allocated for current and future occupied marbled murrelet sites, as described below, or 

the portions of the Late-Successional Reserve allocated for structurally-complex forest. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

4 | P a g e

The widths and management direction for the Riparian Reserve (west of Highway 97) vary 

among three classes of subwatersheds. The mapped location of the subwatershed classes in the 

BLM spatial database represents the decision, and the maps accompanying the RMP are for 

illustrative purposes only. In identifying subwatershed classes, the BLM considered the 

information including critical habitat designations and data on high intrinsic potential streams to 

indicate the importance of subwatersheds to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed fish. 

However, future changes in designated critical habitat or data on high intrinsic potential streams 

would not alter the identification of subwatershed classes for the purpose of Riparian Reserve 

design and management direction. Any change to the subwatershed classes would constitute a 

change to the approved RMP.1 As noted above, this ROD only makes decisions on lands that fall 

under BLM jurisdiction; as such, the identification of subwatershed classes within the planning 

area is only relevant to defining Riparian Reserve widths and management direction for streams 

and water features on BLM-administered lands within the subwatershed. 

Additionally, for some specific stream features in some subwatershed classes, the width of the 

Riparian Reserve is defined by a distance equivalent to one site-potential tree height. Sitepotential tree height is the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or 

older) for a given site class. The BLM maintains data on site-potential tree height, which varies 

across the decision area, generally from 140 feet to 240 feet, depending on site productivity. The 

BLM may update data on site-potential tree height over time. The BLM will delineate the 

Riparian Reserve on specific stream features based on the BLM data on site-potential tree height 

current at the time of the decision on a specific implementation action. 

The decision requires the future allocation of marbled murrelet occupied stands2to the LateSuccessional Reserve for occupied sites identified after March 26, 2015 3

as a result of BLM 

marbled murrelet surveys in (1) all land use allocations within 35 miles of the Pacific Coast, and 

(2) Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve between 35–50 miles from the Pacific Coast 

and outside of exclusion Areas C and D (shown in Figure 2, located in the RMP). These future 

allocations to the Late-Successional Reserve will not require RMP amendment, because they are 

explicitly required by the management direction of the approved RMP and were anticipated in 

the analysis for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The BLM will provide annual reporting of BLM 

survey results for marbled murrelets (Appendix B) and will consider the extent of these future 

allocations through plan evaluations (Appendix A).

For the District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability Classification, the BLM 

spatial database includes the current mapped location of this allocation.4 Over time, the BLM 

 

1

 If the BLM makes changes to the subwatershed classes that would change the scope of resource uses or change the 

terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved RMP, the BLM would implement such changes with an RMP 

amendment (see Appendix A). 

2

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

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

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

3

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

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

4

 Timber Production Capability Classification is a 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 
Record of Decision 

5 | P a g e

will add additional areas to this allocation through updates to the Timber Production Capability 

Classification system when examinations indicate that an area meets the criteria for reservation. 

The BLM will also delete areas from this allocation and return the area to the Harvest Land Base 

through updates to the Timber Production Capability Classification system when examinations 

indicate that an area does not meet the criteria for reservation. The BLM will implement these 

additions and deletions to the District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability 

Classification through plan maintenance, because such changes will represent minor changes 

based on further refining the decision in the RMP (Appendix A). 

For all other land use allocations and designations, the mapped location of these allocations and 

designations in the BLM spatial database represents the decision. The BLM provides the maps 

accompanying the RMP for illustrative purposes only, as noted on the maps accompanying the 

RMP. 

Allowable Sale Quantity of Timber 

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

Act; 43 U.S.C. 1181a et seq.) provides that the revested O&C lands be managed “for permanent 

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

principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, 

protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local 

communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities.” The O&C Act goes on to state 

that “[t]he annual productive capacity for such lands shall be determined and declared ... 

[p]rovided, [t]hat timber from said lands ... not less than the annual sustained yield capacity ... 

shall be sold annually, or so much thereof as can be sold at reasonable prices on a normal 

market.”

The BLM makes this determination of the annual productive capacity (or allowable sale quantity 

(ASQ)) 5accounting for the requirements of compliance with other laws and with consideration 

of the objectives, land use allocations, and management direction of the RMP, which affect the 

amount of timber that each of the sustained yield units can produce. In this ROD, the BLM 

declares the ASQ for the sustained-yield units in the decision area, which match the boundaries 

for the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District, the Medford District, and the 

Roseburg District. 

As modified below, the ASQ for sustained-yield timber production for—

 The Klamath Falls sustained-yield unit is 6 million board feet (MMbf); 

 The Medford sustained-yield unit is 37 MMbf; and 

 The Roseburg sustained-yield unit is 32 MMbf.6

 

on a sustained yield basis using operational management practices. Through the Timber Production Capability 

Classification, the BLM identifies some sites as unsuitable for sustained-yield timber production because of their 

biological and physical capabilities and, under this RMP, allocates those areas to District-Designated Reserve –

Timber Production Capability Classification. 

5

 In this ROD, the BLM considers the terms ‘annual productive capacity,’ ‘annual sustained yield capacity,’ 

‘sustained yield capacity,’ and ‘allowable sale quantity’ as synonyms and uses them as such. 

6

 The BLM declares the ASQ for sustained-yield timber production for the entirety of the Roseburg sustained-yield 

unit (i.e., the Swiftwater and South River Field Offices collectively). However, this ROD only provides objectives, 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

6 | P a g e

The ASQ for sustained-yield timber production for each district listed above necessarily includes 

an amount of variation in the volume of timber that the BLM will offer for sale, to acknowledge 

the practical difficulties in predicting annual implementation levels, to reflect the foreseeable 

year-to-year variation in BLM capacity to offer timber volume, and to facilitate sharing of staff 

and resources among districts. Thus, for purposes of making the declaration of ASQ under the 

O&C Act, the BLM hereby declares the declared ASQ, or volume of timber that the BLM 

actually can offer for sale in each sustained-yield unit, is the volume figure listed above for each 

sustained-yield unit with as much as 40 percent variation on an annual basis. Over a decade of 

implementation, the actual volume of timber that the BLM offers for sale from the Klamath 

Falls, Medford, and Roseburg sustained-yield units may each vary by as much as 30 percent 

from the total of the volume figures listed above summed over the entire decade. Thus, the 

declaration of the ASQ for sustained-yield timber production consistent with the O&C Act is to 

offer for sale timber volumes within the ranges described both annually and decadally. For 

example, under the declared ASQ for the Medford sustained-yield unit, the BLM will offer for 

sale between 22 MMbf and 52 MMbf annually, and between 260 MMbf and 480 MMbf 

decadally. This variation in the volume of timber that the BLM will offer for sale is within the 

spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

The ASQ volume represents the sustained-yield volume of timber that the BLM can offer for 

sale from each sustained-yield unit; as such, the BLM offers this sustained-yield volume of 

timber only from the Harvest Land Base, which has specific objectives for sustained-yield timber 

production. As discussed in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM will also offer timber 

volume from the reserve allocations, which do not have objectives for sustained-yield timber 

production. This timber volume, which is called non-ASQ volume in the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS, will not count towards the ASQ volume. Although the Proposed RMP/Final EIS estimated 

the amount of non-ASQ volume that the BLM is likely to offer from each sustained-yield unit 

each decade, the BLM does not declare an amount of non-ASQ volume or otherwise commit to 

producing a specific amount of non-ASQ volume, either annually or decadally. The BLM 

anticipates offering for sale approximately the amount of non-ASQ timber volume that the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS estimated from each sustained-yield unit for each decade. However, 

this ROD does not set any minimum or maximum amount of non-ASQ volume that the BLM 

will offer for sale, because this estimated volume represents the by-product of management 

actions that the BLM will implement in the reserve allocations, which do not have objectives for 

sustained-yield timber production. The BLM will consider through monitoring and plan 

evaluation whether the implementation of management actions within the reserve allocations that 

produce non-ASQ timber volume is consistent with the effects analysis in the Proposed 

 

land use allocations, and management direction for the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District. The ROD 

for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP provides objectives, land use allocations, and management direction 

for the Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg District. The BLM also presents this same declaration that the ASQ 

range for the entirety of the Roseburg sustained-yield unit is 32 MMbf (with the 40 percent annual variation factor) 

in the ROD for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP. Neither the ROD for the Southwestern Oregon RMP 

nor the ROD for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP specify how much of this 32 MMbf (with the 40 

percent annual variation factor) will be offered from the South River Field Office or the Swiftwater Field Office 

individually. The portion of the total ASQ range for the Roseburg sustained-yield unit that will be offered from each 

of the two field offices in the Roseburg District is at the discretion of the BLM. 
Record of Decision 

7 | P a g e

RMP/Final EIS, and whether implementation of actions under the RMP is effectively meeting 

RMP objectives. 

As noted in the Draft RMP/EIS and Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the necessary organization 

transition from implementing actions consistent with the 1995 RMPs to implementing actions 

consistent with the new RMP may take time. For the individual sustained-yield units, the 

difference between the ASQ range declared in this ROD and that declared in the 1995 RMPs is 

variable: the ASQ range has remained approximately the same for the Klamath Falls sustainedyield units and has decreased for the Medford and Roseburg sustained-yield units. The BLM will 

need time to restructure resources, budget, and staff for full implementation of actions consistent 

with the approved RMP. In addition, the BLM will need time to realign some timber sales being 

prepared or already prepared but not offered, in accordance with changing land use allocations 

and management direction of the RMP, and in accordance with specific restrictions described 

below under “Projects Begun Prior to the ROD/RMP, but Decided After the ROD/RMP.” 

Because the BLM is approving this ROD late in fiscal year 2016 and because the BLM has 

largely completed preparation of timber sales for fiscal year 2016 prior to approving this ROD, 

the BLM will continue to be guided by the 1995 RMPs in offering volume in fiscal year 2016. 

In fiscal years 2017 and 2018, the BLM will strive to offer volume from the Harvest Land Base 

to achieve the ASQ range, including the 40 percent annual variation factor, declared in this ROD 

from each sustained-yield unit. However, the opportunities for the BLM to offer timber from the 

Harvest Land Base during fiscal years 2017 and 2018 are constrained by the following: 

 The planning and analysis of timber sales requires several years of preparation before the 

BLM can design a site-specific project and reach a decision. 

 The BLM did not yet know the location of the land use allocations and management 

direction, or the declared ASQ range for each sustained-yield unit in this approved RMP 

when the BLM began work on most of the timber sales that could be offered in fiscal 

years 2017 and 2018. 

 The general geographic location of timber sales in development for fiscal years 2017 and 

2018 cannot now be changed without otherwise cancelling those sales. 

Thus, the BLM does not have time to prepare a full complement of new timber sales for fiscal 

years 2017 and 2018 from the Harvest Land Base allocated by this ROD. In addition, the need to 

restructure resources, budget, and staff for full implementation of actions under the approved 

RMP restricts the ability of the BLM to offer timber sales in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 in some 

sustained-yield units. As a result, the BLM will likely be unable to offer sufficient volume from 

the Harvest Land Base in some sustained-yield units to achieve the declared ASQ range 

including the 40 percent annual variation factor in fiscal years 2017 and 2018. 

In fiscal year 2019 and subsequent years, the BLM will offer for sale a volume of timber from 

the Harvest Land Base within the declared ASQ range including the 40 percent annual variation 

factor declared in this ROD for each sustained-yield unit. Fiscal year 2019 will be the first year 

of implementation for the purpose of determining the level of decadal variation around the 

declared ASQ. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

8 | P a g e

What the ROD and RMP Do Not Provide 

The approved RMP does not contain decisions for actions outside the jurisdiction of the BLM, 

such as decisions for the management on lands not administered by the BLM. The approved 

RMP does not change the BLM’s responsibility to comply with applicable laws and regulations. 

The approved RMP does not establish or alter BLM national policy. The approved RMP does not 

directly determine BLM funding or staffing levels. 

The approved RMP includes land use plan decisions and does not include any implementation 

decisions. As described in the FLPMA, land use plans are tools by which “present and future use 

is projected” (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(2)). The BLM’s planning regulations make clear that land use 

plans are a preliminary step in the overall process of managing public lands, and are “designed to 

guide and control future management actions and the development of subsequent, more detailed 

and limited scope plans for resources and uses” (43 CFR 1601.0–2). A land use plan therefore is 

not ordinarily the medium for affirmative decisions that implement BLM’s projections; the 

FLPMA provides that “[t]he Secretary may issue management decisions to implement land use 

plans” (43 U.S.C. 1712(e)). In other words, the decisions implementing the direction in a land 

use plan are distinct from the plan itself. Furthermore, the regulation defining a land use plan 

declares that a plan “is not a final implementation decision on actions which require further 

specific plans, process steps, or decisions under specific provisions of law and regulations” (43 

CFR 1601.0–5). As such, land use plan decisions (objectives, land use allocations, and 

management direction) do not directly authorize implementation of on-the-ground projects, 

which the BLM can carry out only after completion of further NEPA compliance and decisionmaking processes and consultation as appropriate. 7

Existing Decisions 

The approved RMP does not alter the following existing decisions, which remain valid within 

the decision area: 

 Record of Decision for Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and 

Associated Land Use Plan Amendments (USDI BLM 2005) 

 Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal 

Leasing in the Western United States (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2008) 

 Approved Resource Plan Amendments/Record of Decision for Designation of Energy 

Corridors on Bureau of Land Management-administered lands in the 11 Western 

States (USDI BLM 2009) 

 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon Record of 

Decision (USDI BLM 2010) 

 Record of Decision for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwestern Oregon 

(Medford and Roseburg Districts; USDI BLM 2004a) 

 

7

 The designations in the approved RMP of areas as limited or closed for public motorized access are transportation 

land use plan decisions and not implementation decisions. Land use plan decisions guide future land management 

actions and provide guidance for subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Designations of areas as limited

or closed for public motorized access will guide use within these areas until the BLM completes implementationlevel travel management planning, consistent with the BLM Travel and Transportation Handbook H-8342 (USDI 

BLM 2012a). 
Record of Decision 

9 | P a g e

 Seed Orchard Record of Decision for Integrated Pest Management (Medford District; 

USDI BLM 2006) 

 Pokegama Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan (Klamath Falls Field Office; 

USDI BLM 2002) 

 Rogue National Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (Medford 

District; 37 FR 13408) 

 Rogue National Wild and Scenic River: Hellgate Recreation Area Recreation Area 

Management Plan (Medford District; USDI BLM 2004b) 

The BLM has reviewed these decisions and concluded that these decisions do not conflict with 

the approved RMP. The BLM will continue to take actions consistent with these existing 

decisions unless and until the BLM amends, revises, or rescinds these existing decisions in 

decision-making separate from this approved RMP. 

The approved RMP does not alter the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument Record of Decision 

and Resource Management Plan (Medford District; USDI BLM 2008) or the Upper Klamath 

Basin and Wood River Wetland Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (Klamath 

Falls Field Office; USDI BLM 1995d). The BLM-administered lands under those RMPs are not 

within the decision area for this approved RMP. 

Application of the RMP to Existing and New Projects 

Revision of an RMP necessarily involves a transition from the application of the old RMP to the 

application of the new RMP. The planning and analysis of future projects such as timber sales 

requires several years of preparation before the BLM can design a site-specific project and reach 

a decision. Allowing for a transition from the old RMP to the new RMP avoids disruption of the 

management of the BLM-administered lands and allows the BLM to utilize work already begun 

on the planning and analysis of projects. This section addresses the application of the RMP to 

three categories of future projects: 

1. Projects for which the BLM has signed a project-specific decision prior to the effective 

date of this ROD. 

2. Projects for which the BLM has begun preparation of National Environmental Policy Act 

documents prior to the effective date of this ROD, but has not yet signed a projectspecific decision. 

3. Projects for which the BLM has not begun preparation of National Environmental Policy 

Act documents prior to the effective date of this ROD. 

For this discussion, projects are considered to be on-the-ground implementation actions that 

include but are not limited to timber sales, pre-commercial thinning, fuels reduction (prescribed 

fire and mechanical treatments), culvert replacements, road renovations, stream restoration, 

construction of fire breaks, issuance of a grazing permit, and the granting of rights-of-way. Also 

for this discussion, a project-specific decision for a timber sale is considered to be signed upon 

the publication of a notice of sale in a newspaper, consistent with 43 CFR 5003.2. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

10 | P a g e

Projects Decided Prior to the ROD/RMP 

This ROD does not affect implementation of projects for which the BLM has signed a projectspecific decision prior to the effective date of this ROD. The BLM factored effects of 

implementation of these projects into the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS either as an 

analytical assumption about current land treatment types and levels of activity, or as part of the 

current condition of the affected environment. 

Projects Begun Prior to the ROD/RMP, but Decided After the 

ROD/RMP 

The BLM may implement projects consistent with the management direction of either the 1995 

RMP or the approved RMP attached to this ROD, at the discretion of the decision maker, if—

 The BLM had not signed a project-specific decision prior to the effective date of this 

ROD; 

 The BLM began preparation of NEPA documentation prior to the effective date of this 

ROD; and 

 The BLM signs a project-specific decision on the project within 2 years of the effective 

date of this ROD. 

In this context, preparation of NEPA documentation is considered to have begun upon the 

earliest of one of the following: 

 Public notification that the BLM will be preparing a NEPA document. 

 Initiation of external scoping. 

 Completion of documentation of a Determination of NEPA Adequacy. 

 Completion of documentation of a Categorical Exclusion Review. 

The BLM may make decisions within this 2-year period of transition to implement such projects 

described above consistent with the management direction of the 1995 RMP at the discretion of 

the decision maker, with the exception of any of the following: 

 Regeneration harvest8 within the Late-Successional Reserve allocated by this ROD that is 

inconsistent with the management direction for the Late-Successional Reserve contained 

within the approved RMP. 

 Issuance of right-of-way grants within the Late-Successional Reserve allocated by this 

ROD that are inconsistent with the management direction for the Late-Successional 

Reserve contained within the approved RMP. 

 Commercial thinning within the inner zone of the Riparian Reserve allocated by this 

ROD that is inconsistent with the management direction for the Riparian Reserve 

contained within the approved RMP. 

 Projects within the District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics allocated by this ROD that are inconsistent with the management 

direction for the District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics contained within the approved RMP. 

 Timber harvest that would cause the incidental take of northern spotted owl territorial 

pairs or resident singles and does not have a signed Biological Opinion and Incidental 

 

8

 The construction of roads or landings does not constitute regeneration harvest. 
Record of Decision 

11 | P a g e

Take Statement that predates the effective date of the Biological Opinion for the 

approved RMP. 

If the decision maker elects to implement such projects consistent with the management direction 

in the 1995 RMPs (that do not involve any of the four exceptions described above), such projects 

may include features not consistent with the management direction in the approved RMP 

attached to this ROD. However, any difference in the specific effects resulting from 

implementation of timber sales and other projects not consistent with the management direction 

in the approved RMP would not alter the analysis of effects in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

because of the limited geographic extent of such projects. Additionally, implementation of such 

projects would not alter the analysis of effects in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS because of the 

limited difference between projects prepared in conformance with the 1995 RMPs and projects 

prepared in conformance with the approved RMP. 

As detailed in the Forest Management section of Chapter 3 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the 

average total timber harvest acreage under the No Action alternative (i.e., implementation of the 

1995 RMPs) would have been 15,704 acres per year within the decision area; under the approved 

RMPs, the BLM estimates the average total timber harvest acreage will be 15,563 acres per year. 

Given that the vegetation modeling provided outputs based on 10-year increments, and given the 

likely year-to-year variability in timber harvest acreage, this difference of less than 1 percent in 

the average timber harvest acreage over this 2-year transition period would not result in any 

measurable or meaningful difference in the effects described in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

The primary inconsistencies with the approved RMP that are likely to occur in these projects 

are—

 The lower amount of green tree retention in regeneration harvests in areas that were 

Northern General Forest Management Area under the 1995 RMPs but are allocated to 

Low Intensity Timber Area in this ROD; and 

 Regeneration harvest in areas that were either Northern General Forest Management Area 

or Southern General Forest Management Area under the 1995 RMPs but are allocated to 

Uneven-aged Timber Area in this ROD. 

There are 134,321 acres that were either Northern General Forest Management Area or Southern 

General Forest Management Area under the 1995 RMPs but are allocated to Uneven-aged 

Timber Area in this ROD. Based on BLM project-level planning, the BLM anticipates 

implementing a total of less than 1,000 acres of regeneration harvest during Fiscal Years 2017 

and 2018 in areas that were either Northern General Forest Management Area or Southern 

General Forest Management Area under the 1995 RMPs but are allocated to Uneven-aged 

Timber Area in this ROD. This acreage represents less than 1 percent of the area allocated to 

Uneven-aged Timber Area in this ROD. Although the management direction for integrated 

vegetation management in the Uneven-aged Timber Area under this ROD directs the use of a 

variety of timber harvest methods, the regeneration harvest directed under the 1995 RMPs would 

be inconsistent with the management direction for the Uneven-aged Timber Area. 

Implementation of such regeneration harvests would result in greater environmental effects at a 

stand scale than implementation of integrated vegetation management in the Uneven-aged 

Timber Area. However, because of the small acreage affected by such regeneration harvest, this 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

12 | P a g e

inconsistency would not result in any measurable or meaningful difference in the effects 

described in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

There are only 14,918 acres that were Northern General Forest Management Area under the 

1995 RMPs but are allocated to Low Intensity Timber Area in these RODs, which constitutes 

less than 1 percent of the decision area and 3 percent of the total Harvest Land Base allocated in 

both this ROD and the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD. Based on the average timber 

harvest acreage from the vegetation modeling outputs, regeneration harvest in these areas during 

the 2-year transition period would total approximately 350 acres (out of a total of 6,223 acres of 

regeneration harvest during this 2-year period) spread over the area of this ROD and the ROD for 

the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP. Furthermore, any difference in green tree retention 

in regeneration harvests would likely be a small proportion of the total amount of green tree 

retention. The management direction for the Northern General Forest Management Area in the 

1995 RMPs required retention of 6–8 trees per acre, and the approved RMP requires retention of 

15–30 percent of the pre-harvest stand basal area in the Low Intensity Timber Area. Although 6–

8 trees per acre would constitute less than 15–30 percent of the pre-harvest stand basal area 

under most stand conditions, the requirements of these differing measures would overlap in some 

stand conditions. The amount of green tree retention levels in regeneration harvests would result 

in inconsistencies between projects implemented consistent with the 1995 RMPs and projects 

implemented consistent with the approved RMP that would result in greater environmental 

effects than projects consistent with the approved RMP. This inconsistency would not result in 

any measurable or meaningful difference in the effects described in the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS, because of the small difference in green tree retention levels and the relatively small acreage 

that would be affected. 

Road and landing construction within the Late-Successional Reserve allocated by this ROD for 

projects prepared consistent with the management direction of the 1995 RMPs could potentially 

result in adverse effects greater than if such projects were prepared consistent with the 

management direction of this approved RMP. In most cases, road and landing construction 

would be consistent with both the management direction of the 1995 RMPs and this approved 

RMP. Road and landing construction would be most likely to be inconsistent with the 

management direction of this approved RMP where projects are prepared in areas that had been 

within the Matrix land use allocation under the 1995 RMPs and are allocated to LateSuccessional Reserve by this ROD. It is not possible to characterize precisely the acres that 

would be affected, because the determination of whether road and landing construction would be 

consistent with the management direction of this approved RMP depends on road-specific and 

site-specific information that is not yet available. Nevertheless, road and landing construction 

within the Late-Successional Reserve that is not consistent with the management direction in the 

approved RMP would not alter the analysis of effects in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS because of 

the limited geographic extent of such projects. The BLM anticipates that the total acreage of road 

and landing construction that could potentially be inconsistent with the management direction in 

the Late-Successional Reserve during the 2-year transition period would total approximately 100 

acres across the decision area of the Southwestern Oregon ROD. 

Thus, while the inconsistencies related to regeneration harvests and road construction in projects 

implemented consistent with the 1995 RMPs could result in greater environmental effects than 
Record of Decision 

13 | P a g e

projects consistent with the approved RMP, even these inconsistencies would not result in any 

measurable or meaningful difference in the effects described in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Projects Begun After the ROD/RMP 

Projects for which the BLM begins preparation of National Environmental Policy Act 

documentation after the effective date of this ROD or for which the BLM signs a decision more 

than 2 years after the effective date of this ROD must be consistent with the management 

direction in the approved RMP. 

Valid Existing Rights 

Other Federal, State, or local government agencies, Tribes, private individuals, or companies 

may hold valid existing rights within the decision area. Considering the intermingled nature of 

the BLM-administered lands in the planning area, the BLM has granted many rights-of-way, 

leases, permits, and other established legal rights within the decision area over the years. Valid 

existing rights may pertain to timber sale contracts, mining claims, mineral or energy leases, 

leases, easements, permits, rights-of-way, and water rights. Perhaps the most extensive and 

unique rights are the reciprocal rights-of-way agreements with dozens of adjacent landowners 

established to provide for the logical, effective, and efficient development of access on the 

intermingled lands. 

The decisions in the approved RMP do not alter or extinguish valid existing rights on BLMadministered lands. Valid existing rights take precedence over the decisions in the approved 

RMP. Authorization for implementing an action that would affect these valid existing rights may 

be subject to approval by the holders of valid existing rights and may not be discretionary to 

BLM. While the BLM may have authority to implement conditions for approval of actions 

implemented consistent with the approved RMP, any conditions would have to be consistent 

with the valid existing rights already granted or otherwise obtained. If authorizations pursuant to 

valid existing rights come up for review and can be modified by the BLM, the BLM will bring 

these authorizations into conformance with the approved RMP. 

The decisions in the approved RMP describe procedural steps that are relevant to some valid 

existing rights, but do not alter or extinguish the valid existing rights. For example, the 

management direction in the approved RMP describes circumstances under which a Plan of 

Operations will be required for mining activities; such descriptions of procedural steps do not 

alter or extinguish any valid existing mining claims. 

Changes to the RMP between the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and 

the ROD 

For the management direction in the approved RMP, the BLM has reworded some management 

direction from Appendix B of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS to provide greater clarity and 

consistency and to correct typographical errors. These changes to the management direction do 

not substantively alter the meaning of the management direction and thus do not substantively 

alter the analytical conclusions in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

14 | P a g e

The BLM has updated data from the Proposed RMP/Final EIS on the mapping of land use 

allocations of the approved RMP, which has resulted in changes in the acreages of the land use 

allocations.9These changes in acreage result primarily from the following sources: 

 For the approved RMP, the BLM has mapped land use allocations without projecting 

predicted marbled murrelet sites described in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The BLM 

included estimates of these predicted sites in the acreage of land use allocations in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS based on analytical assumptions. While this ROD requires the 

future allocation of marbled murrelet occupied stands to the Late-Successional Reserve 

for occupied sites under the circumstances described in the Decision section above, the 

BLM will allocate such sites to the Late-Successional Reserve only when the BLM has 

discovered such sites. 

 The BLM has grouped Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that do not overlap the 

Harvest Land Base with District-Designated Reserves in the approved RMP. 

 The BLM has corrected the grouping of land use allocations for the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS that included the Pacific Crest Trail, Wilderness Study Areas, and Suitable Wild and 

Scenic Rivers as District-Designated Reserves. These lands are properly grouped with 

Congressionally Reserved and National Conservation Lands in the approved RMP. 

 For the mapping of the land use allocations for the approved RMP, the BLM has 

reordered the hierarchy of the following land use allocations from the mapping of land 

use allocations for analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

o The BLM has moved the inner zone of the Riparian Reserve to below the portions 

of the Late-Successional Reserve that are occupied marbled murrelet sites or 

structurally-complex forest. The BLM made this change to keep all portions of 

the Riparian Reserve together in the hierarchy to provide consistent management, 

and to ensure that occupied marbled murrelet sites or structurally-complex forest 

are managed consistent with Late-Successional Reserve management direction. 

o The BLM has moved areas delineating water surfaces (e.g., lakes, reservoirs, 

ponds) to be mapped with District-Designated Reserves that delineate nonforested areas. This District-Designated Reserve land use allocation is above the 

Late-Successional Reserve and the Riparian Reserve. The BLM has made this 

change so that areas of water surface are not grouped with forested or vegetated 

areas in future analysis or monitoring. 

o The BLM has mapped land use allocations with Congressionally Reserved Lands 

and National Conservation Lands at the top of the hierarchy to ensure that lands 

with multiple designations that included a national or congressional designation 

are managed under the most protective land use allocation associated to those 

acres. As such, not all lands within identified lands with wilderness characteristic 

units are allocated to the land use allocation of District-Designated Reserves –

Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics. Specifically, the identified 

lands with wilderness characteristics unit known as Wild Rogue in the Medford 

District includes approximately 11,088 acres that will be managed under the land 

 

9

 The BLM continually conducts new surveys in the course of implementing actions consistent with the RMP, which 

may improve the accuracy of geospatial information in the BLM spatial database. Survey data may result in slight 

changes in the geospatial representation of ownership boundaries, which may result in shifting of boundaries for 

some land use allocations or special areas to realign with the ownership information. The BLM will update the 

spatial database over time to reflect this improved survey data as part of plan maintenance (Appendix A).
Record of Decision 

15 | P a g e

use allocation of Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation 

Lands because of overlapping designated and suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers 

within the unit boundary. 

 The BLM has corrected errors in mapping of public motorized access designations, 

which resulted in errors of reported acres of areas designated as limited and closed within 

the planning area. The corrected acres for each district are identified in Appendix H of 

the attached approved RMP. 

 The BLM has disposed of parcels totaling 25 acres in the Medford District. The BLM has 

removed these lands from the base ownership data and removed the corresponding land 

use allocations in the BLM spatial database. 

 The BLM has corrected the classification of lands along the Oregon/California border in 

the Klamath Falls Field Office, reducing the acreage in the decision area by 49 acres. The 

BLM has removed these lands from the base ownership data and removed the 

corresponding land use allocations in the BLM spatial database. 

 The BLM has acquired parcels totaling 863 acres in the Medford District, which have 

been included in the Table Rocks Area of Critical Environmental Concern, as discussed 

in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The BLM has excluded a 0.9-acre parcel across the road 

from the Upper Table Rock trailhead parking lot from the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. 

The BLM has made these changes to correct errors and provide clarifications of the land use 

allocations, management objectives, and management direction of the approved RMP. 

The BLM has added specific fisheries reporting items to the monitoring plan in Appendix B of 

the approved RMP to reflect the terms and conditions of the incidental take statements included 

in the biological opinions from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

The BLM has identified errors in Table 3-53 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS in the calculation 

of percent timber inventory change between 2013 and 2113 for the Proposed RMP (USDI BLM 

2016, p. 336). The correct values are 94 percent for the reserves, 40 percent for the Harvest Land 

Base, and 84 percent overall. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS correctly presented the underlying 

inventory data in Figure 3-63, which displayed the same inventory change in billion board feet of 

timber (USDI BLM 2016, p. 335). The error in Proposed RMP/Final EIS is limited to the 

calculation of the percent change in inventory for the Proposed RMP; this limited error does not 

reflect errors in the underlying analysis and did not lead to errors in any analytical conclusions. 

The changes and corrections noted above do not substantially change the analytical conclusions 

described in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Therefore, the BLM concludes that preparation of a 

supplemental EIS in not required. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives 

The BLM designed the range of alternatives to span the full spectrum of alternatives that would 

respond to the purpose and need for the action. The BLM developed the alternatives to represent 

a range of overall management approaches, rather than exemplify gradations in design features. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

16 | P a g e

In the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM analyzed in detail the Proposed RMP, the No Action 

alternative, and four action alternatives. In addition, the BLM analyzed how two sub-alternatives, 

which modify an individual component of northern spotted owl conservation in an alternative, 

would alter effects on timber production and northern spotted owls. The Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS also discussed several alternatives that the BLM considered but did not analyze in detail. 

The BLM developed the alternatives in a single Draft RMP/EIS and a single Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS that support the RODs for both the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP and 

the Southwestern Oregon RMP. As such, the alternatives summarized here and the rationale for 

selection presented below address elements that have little or no direct applicability to this RMP 

(e.g., sudden oak death treatments, coordination with the Coquille Tribe). The BLM intends 

these consistent decisions for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP and Southwestern 

Oregon RMP to provide for coordinated management of BLM-administered lands across western 

Oregon. 

The No Action Alternative 

The No Action alternative is implementation of the 1995 RMPs as written (in contrast to the 

BLM’s current implementation practices under the 1995 RMPs). Implementation of the timber 

management program has departed substantially from the outcomes predicted in the 1995 RMPs, 

and continuing to harvest timber at the declared ASQ level for multiple decades into the future 

would not be possible using the current practices. Additionally, the land use allocations and 

management direction of the No Action alternative do not address the Revised Recovery Plan for 

the Northern Spotted Owl (owl recovery plan; USDI FWS 2011), the new designation of critical 

habitat for the northern spotted owl, or the new scientific information on the northern spotted 

owl, including the effects of land management on northern spotted owl habitat, demographic 

studies, and analyses of the effects of barred owls on northern spotted owls. 

The Action Alternatives 

The action alternatives include the following land use allocations: Congressionally Reserved 

Lands, District-Designated Reserves, Late-Successional Reserve, Riparian Reserve, Harvest 

Land Base, and Eastside Management Area. The location and acreage of these allocations, with 

the exception of Congressionally Reserved Lands, vary by alternative. Within each action 

alternative, the Harvest Land Base, Late-Successional Reserve, and Riparian Reserve have 

specific sub-allocations with differing management direction. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A has a Late-Successional Reserve larger than the No Action alternative. The 

Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area and the High Intensity 

Timber Area. The High Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with no retention 

(i.e., clear cuts). 

Alternative A includes designation of Special Recreation Management Areas where developed 

recreation sites or facilities currently exist. In the rest of the decision area, the BLM would not 
Record of Decision 

17 | P a g e

manage specifically for recreation, but recreation could occur to the extent that the BLM has 

legal public access and recreation is not in conflict with the primary uses of these lands. 

Alternative A includes management for wilderness characteristics of all identified lands with 

wilderness characteristics that are not within the Harvest Land Base. 

Alternative A does not include treatment of sudden oak death infection sites. 

Alternative B and Sub-Alternative B 

In the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative. 

Alternative B has a Late-Successional Reserve similar in size to Alternative A, though of a 

different spatial design. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area, 

Low Intensity Timber Area, and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. The portion of the Harvest 

Land Base in Uneven-Aged Timber Area is the largest of all action alternatives. The Low 

Intensity Timber Area and Moderate Intensity Timber Area include regeneration harvest with 

varying levels of retention. 

Alternative B includes designation of Special Recreation Management Areas at currently 

developed recreation facilities, and on lands where there are both unique recreation opportunities 

and where designation would not conflict with sustained-yield timber harvest. Alternative B 

includes designation of Extensive Recreation Management Areas 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 B includes management for wilderness characteristics of all identified lands with 

wilderness characteristics that are outside of the Harvest Land Base, and where they are within 

compatible existing and potential Recreation Management Areas. 

Alternative B includes treatment at all sudden oak death infection sites outside of the Riparian 

Reserve and no treatment at infection sites in the Riparian Reserve. 

Sub-Alternative B is identical to Alternative B, except that it includes protection of habitat 

within the home ranges of all northern spotted owl known and historic sites. 

Alternative C and Sub-Alternative C 

Alternative C has the largest Harvest Land Base of any of the alternatives. The Harvest Land 

Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area and the High Intensity Timber Area. The 

High Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with no retention (i.e., clear cuts). 

Alternative C has the smallest acreage in the Riparian Reserve of all of the alternatives. 

Alternative C includes designation of Special Recreation Management Areas at currently 

developed recreation facilities, and on lands where designation does not conflict with sustainedyield timber harvest. Alternative C includes designation of Extensive Recreation Management 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

18 | P a g e

Areas 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. In addition, the 

BLM would designate Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas to address specific recreation demand and scarcity. 

Alternative C includes management for wilderness characteristics of identified lands with 

wilderness characteristics that are not within the Harvest Land Base, and where they are within 

compatible existing and potential Recreation Management Areas. 

Alternative C includes treatment at all sudden oak death infection sites. 

Sub-Alternative C is identical to Alternative C, except that the Late-Successional Reserve 

includes all stands 80 years old and older. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D has the smallest Late-Successional Reserve of any of the action alternatives. The 

Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area, Owl Habitat Timber Area, 

and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. The Owl Habitat Timber Area includes timber harvest 

applied in a manner that would maintain northern spotted owl habitat. The Moderate Intensity 

Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with retention. Alternative D has the largest acreage 

in the Riparian Reserve of all of the action alternatives. 

Alternative D includes designation of Special Recreation Management Areas at currently 

developed recreation facilities, and on lands where designation does not conflict with sustainedyield timber harvest. Alternative D would include designation of Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas 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 Special 

and Extensive Recreation Management Areas where known historic recreation use has occurred, 

and where the BLM is seeking to address activity-specific demands. The BLM would designate 

these to the maximum extent possible without precluding sustained-yield timber harvest. 

Alternative D would not include the management for wilderness characteristics of any identified 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative D includes treatment at all sudden oak death infection sites. 

The Proposed RMP 

The BLM developed the Proposed RMP as a variation on Alternative B, which the BLM 

identified in the Draft RMP/EIS as the preferred alternative. The Proposed RMP has a LateSuccessional Reserve that is a refinement of the Late-Successional Reserve design in Alternative 

B. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area, Low Intensity Timber 

Area, and Moderate Intensity Timber Area, as in Alternative B. The geographic extent of the 

portion of the Harvest Land Base in Uneven-Aged Timber Area in the Proposed RMP is 

intermediate between Alternative B and Alternative C. As in Alternative B, the Low Intensity 
Record of Decision 

19 | P a g e

Timber Area and Moderate Intensity Timber Area include regeneration harvest with varying 

levels of retention. 

Under the Proposed RMP, the BLM will prohibit the incidental take of northern spotted owls 

from timber harvest until implementation of a barred owl management program has begun. In 

addition, under the Proposed RMP the BLM would participate in, cooperate with, and provide 

support for an interagency program for barred owl management when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service determines the best manner in which barred owl management can contribute to the 

recovery of the northern spotted owl (see the Mitigation Adopted in this Decision section below). 

To reduce the risk of adverse effects to ESA-listed fish and water quality compared to 

Alternative B, the Proposed RMP includes a Riparian Reserve design that is intermediate among 

the alternatives and incorporates elements of each of the alternatives. The Proposed RMP 

includes a riparian management strategy that carries forward the concept of key watersheds from 

the No Action alternative, in that it varies riparian management based on the importance of the 

subwatershed to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed fish. For fish-bearing streams and 

perennial streams in all subwatersheds, the Riparian Reserve design is similar to Alternative D. 

For non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, the Riparian Reserve design in Class I and II 

subwatersheds is a slight modification of Alternative A, and the Riparian Reserve design in Class 

III subwatersheds is similar to Alternative C. 

To increase protection of unique recreation settings and increase recreation use compared to 

Alternative B, the Proposed RMP includes an approach to the management of recreation 

resources modified from Alternative C. 

To increase protection of identified lands with wilderness characteristics compared to Alternative 

B, the Proposed RMP includes the approach to the management of identified lands with 

wilderness characteristics from Alternative A. 

To minimize the spread of sudden oak death compared to Alternative B, the Proposed RMP 

includes the sudden oak death treatment approach of the No Action alternative, Alternative C, 

and Alternative D. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations require that a ROD state which alternative is

considered to be “environmentally preferable” (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). The Council of 

Environmental Quality has stated, “The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative 

that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA’s Section 101. 

Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical 

environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, 

cultural and natural resources” (Question 6a, Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most 

Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). 

The effects of the alternatives at the scale of the planning area over the time frames analyzed in 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are complex and difficult to summarize into a single statement of 

environmental preference. None of the alternatives would have the same relative effect on all 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

20 | P a g e

resources. That is, none of the alternatives would cause the least damage to every aspect of the 

biological and physical environment. For most resources, Alternative D would result in the least 

damage to the biological and physical environment. Although Alternative A would result in the 

fewest acres of timber harvest, much of that harvest would have a high intensity of effects on the 

acres harvested. Alternative D would result in more acres of timber harvest than Alternative A, 

but with less intense harvesting practices, and would result in the fewest miles of new road 

construction. Alternative D would result in the least amount of sediment delivery to streams, the 

least acres of detrimental soil disturbance, the least greenhouse gas emissions, and the most 

carbon storage over time. However, Alternative D would allocate the smallest Late-Successional 

Reserve of any of the action alternatives. In addition, Alternative D would not include 

management of wilderness characteristics of any identified lands with wilderness characteristics, 

in contrast to all of the action alternatives. Nevertheless, Alternative D overall represents the 

environmentally preferable alternative, as described in the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations, because it would result in the least damage to the biological and physical 

environment for more resources than any of the other alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 

Rationale for the Decision 

In reaching this decision, the BLM considered how well the Proposed RMP and alternatives 

would meet the purpose and need for action and evaluated the effects of the Proposed RMP and 

alternatives, based on the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Because the BLM is making 

this decision consistent with the decision for the Southwestern Oregon RMP, this rationale 

addresses purposes and effects across the entire area addressed in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, 

including those purposes and effects that have limited or no direct relevance for the 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP. 

The BLM conducted plan evaluations, which concluded that a plan revision is needed to address 

the changed circumstances and new information that has led to a substantial, long-term departure 

from the timber management outcomes predicted under the 1995 RMPs. Moreover, the BLM 

needs to revise existing plans to replace the 1995 RMPs’ land use allocations and management 

direction because of new scientific information and policies related to the northern spotted owl. 

The purpose of the RMP revision includes all of the following purposes: 

 Provide a sustained yield of timber. 

 Contribute to the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species, 

including—

o Maintaining a network of large blocks of forest to be managed for latesuccessional forests; and 

o Maintaining older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests. 

 Provide clean water in watersheds. 

 Restore fire-adapted ecosystems. 

 Provide recreation opportunities. 

 Coordinate management of lands surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille 

Tribe. 
Record of Decision 

21 | P a g e

Additionally, the BLM provided guidance for the development of action alternatives that 

described components that the action alternatives must include and provided guidance for 

conducting the analysis. Elements of this guidance that are particularly relevant for evaluating 

the Proposed RMP and alternatives in reaching this decision include—

 Providing a high degree of predictability and consistency about implementing land 

management actions and a high degree of certainty of achieving management objectives 

(desired outcomes), especially those outcomes related to discrete statutory mandates; and 

 Simplifying implementation of management actions and reducing the costs of 

implementation. 

The Proposed RMP will best meet the purpose and need for the action in comparison to the 

alternatives, as demonstrated by the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed 

RMP is also more responsive than the alternatives to the BLM guidance for the development of 

action alternatives to—

 Provide a high degree of predictability and consistency about implementing land 

management actions; 

 Provide a high degree of certainty of achieving management objectives; 

 Simplify implementation of management actions; and 

 Reduce the costs of implementation. 

The Proposed RMP represents the product of close cooperative work with several agency 

partners, and their support will be integral to the effective implementation of the Proposed RMP. 

The Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service have worked particularly closely with the BLM in developing the 

Proposed RMP and have voiced support for the Proposed RMP through their respective review 

and consultation processes. 

Additionally, the Proposed RMP presents a management approach that is consistent with the 

current capacity of the BLM for implementation; the BLM can reasonably anticipate having 

sufficient staff and budget to implement the management actions and achieve the objectives of 

the Proposed RMP, because the overall staff and budget needs of the Proposed RMP are not 

substantially greater than the current BLM staff and budget. The cooperation of agency partners 

and the alignment of the Proposed RMP with BLM capacity are key to ensuring that the 

Proposed RMP will have a high degree of predictability about implementation and a high degree 

of certainty of achieving management objectives. 

Provide a Sustained Yield of Timber 

The Proposed RMP will provide more sustained-yield timber than the amount declared in the 

1995 RMPs and more than the BLM has been able to offer for sale in recent years. The 

sustained-yield timber harvest levels under the Proposed RMP will provide a high degree of 

predictability and consistency about implementation and a high degree of certainty of achieving 

the declared sustained-yield timber harvest levels, because the Proposed RMP is generally 

consistent with other designations and plans, such as critical habitat designations and recovery 

plans. This consistency will allow the BLM to implement timber harvest more effectively with 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

22 | P a g e

agency partners, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

The BLM has declared an ASQ of timber consistent with the O&C Act that includes an amount 

of variation in the volume of timber that the BLM will offer for sale, both on an annual and 

decadal basis. The BLM has defined this amount of variation to reflect the foreseeable year-toyear variation in BLM capacity to offer timber volume for sale, based on the empirical evidence 

of the past two decades. In addition, the BLM has coupled a higher amount of annual variation 

with a lower amount of decadal variation to facilitate sharing of staff and resources among 

districts. That is, the BLM may offer less than 100 percent (but at least 60 percent) of the 

declared ASQ in some sustained-yield units in some individual years (e.g., to shift work to other 

sustained-yield units in years of large workloads), and offer more than 100 percent (but no more 

than 140 percent) of the declared ASQ in other individual years, and still provide the 

approximate amount of ASQ for each sustained-yield unit for the decade as a whole. 

The BLM’s objective under the O&C Act and this purpose of the RMP revision directly address 

sustained-yield timber production. However, many important outcomes of the RMP will result 

from the total amount of timber harvested, including both the sustained-yield timber production 

from the Harvest Land Base (ASQ volume) and the timber produced as a by-product of habitat 

restoration in other land use allocations, such as Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian 

Reserve (non-ASQ volume). These important outcomes include the effects on jobs and payments 

to counties under the O&C Act. As a result of providing more total timber harvest, the Proposed 

RMP will result in more jobs than the current implementation. In addition, the Proposed RMP 

will result in higher payments to counties than the current implementation if payments under the 

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 114-10) are not 

reauthorized and future payments are based on timber receipts under the O&C Act formula. 

The Proposed RMP will provide more sustained-yield timber production than Alternative D, but 

less than the No Action alternative,10 and Alternatives A, B, and C. The BLM has less certainty 

of successfully implementing harvest levels higher than the Proposed RMP, given BLM staffing 

and budget levels and past experience implementing the 1995 RMPs. Harvest levels higher than 

the Proposed RMP would require reduced contribution to the conservation and recovery of the 

northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and ESA-listed fish species, and would reduce the 

increase in carbon storage over time. 

Conservation and Recovery of Threatened and Endangered 

Species – Northern Spotted Owl 

The Proposed RMP will contribute to the conservation and recovery of the northern spotted owl 

better than the alternatives. The Proposed RMP will reserve more acres of Late-Successional 

Reserve than the No Action alternative and will create large blocks of nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat that are capable of supporting clusters of reproducing northern spotted owls, 

distributed across a variety of ecological conditions and spaced to facilitate northern spotted owl 

 

10 As described in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the sustained-yield timber production level calculated for the No 

Action alternative would be higher than the amount declared in the 1995 RMPs because of improvements in data 

and changes in forest conditions since 1995. 
Record of Decision 

23 | P a g e

movement between the blocks. The overall reserve network under the Proposed RMP will be 

larger than under the No Action alternative, and Alternatives B, C, and D. 

The Proposed RMP will protect older, more structurally-complex forest, and the approach in the 

Proposed RMP to identifying older, more structurally-complex forest for protection is consistent 

with the recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their comments on the Draft 

RMP/EIS. The No Action alternative does not include a specific approach for protection of older, 

more structurally-complex forest. The approaches in Alternatives A, C, and D to identifying 

older, more structurally-complex forest for protection are not consistent with the 

recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their comments on the Draft RMP/EIS. 

The Proposed RMP will implement timber harvest consistent with the concepts of Ecological 

Forestry, which incorporate principles of natural forest development, including the role of natural 

disturbances, in the initiation, development, and maintenance of stands and landscape mosaics. 

The forest management approach of Alternatives A and C would not be fully consistent with the 

concepts of Ecological Forestry. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service advises the use of 

Ecological Forestry in the owl recovery plan. Based on the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS, the forest management in the Proposed RMP will apply the concepts of Ecological Forestry 

and will be consistent with the owl recovery plan and the designation of critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl. Among the Ecological Forestry approaches of the Proposed RMP are— 

 Uneven-aged stand management for fire resilience in the dry forest; 

 Regeneration harvest with varying levels of retention in the Moderate Intensity Timber 

Area and Low Intensity Timber Area; 

 Protection of larger and older trees within harvested areas; 

 Thinning within the Late-Successional Reserve to speed the development of northern 

spotted owl habitat; and 

 Retention of key forest structural components following natural disturbances in the 

reserves. 

The design of the Proposed RMP acknowledges the ecological differences between the moist and 

dry forest portions of the decision area and tailors the forest management approaches to these 

different ecological conditions. Finally, the Proposed RMP, through the extensive reserve 

network and application of Ecological Forestry concepts, will provide flexibility in addressing 

the uncertainties associated with climate change. 

The Proposed RMP will address the effects of barred owls by avoiding the incidental take of 

northern spotted owls from timber harvest until implementation of a barred owl management 

program has begun and by participating in a program for barred owl management once the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service determines the best manner in which barred owl management can 

contribute to the recovery of the northern spotted owl (see the Mitigation Adopted in this 

Decision section below). None of the other alternatives would avoid the incidental take of 

northern spotted owls from timber harvest until implementation of a barred owl management 

program has begun. As demonstrated by the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, addressing 

the effects of barred owls is an essential component of contributing to the conservation and 

recovery of the northern spotted owl. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

24 | P a g e

In their biological opinion on the Proposed RMP, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded, 

“In aggregate, the [Proposed RMP] provides for the net conservation and recovery of the spotted 

owl on BLM lands over the life of the plan by contributing to barred owl management and by 

minimizing adverse impacts associated with timber harvest and other activities. The positive 

contributions of barred owl management offset the adverse impacts of the [Proposed RMP] to 

spotted owls and enable long-term spotted owl recovery on BLM lands.” (USDI FWS 2016, p. 

701). 

Conservation and Recovery of Threatened and Endangered 

Species – Marbled Murrelet 

The Proposed RMP will effectively contribute to the conservation and recovery of the marbled 

murrelet. The Proposed RMP will reserve more acres of Late-Successional Reserve than the No 

Action alternative and will result in a greater increase in the amount of high-quality nesting 

habitat than any alternative other than Alternative D. The Proposed RMP will protect older, more 

structurally-complex forest, which approximates high-quality nesting habitat for marbled 

murrelets, and the approach in the Proposed RMP to identifying older, more structurallycomplex forest for protection is consistent with the recommendation of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in their comments on the Draft RMP/EIS. The Proposed RMP will require preproject surveys for marbled murrelets and protection of occupied sites in Zone 1 (from the coast 

to approximately 35 miles inland) and in the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve in 

Zone 2 (from the eastern boundary of Zone 1 to approximately 50 miles inland from the coast), 

but not in the Harvest Land Base in Zone 2. Based on the results of marbled murrelet surveys 

over the past two decades, the vast majority of marbled murrelet sites in the decision area are 

within Zone 1. By not requiring protection of occupied sites in the Harvest Land Base in Zone 2, 

the Proposed RMP will have a minor adverse effect on marbled murrelets, as demonstrated by 

the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, and will allow for management for sustained-yield 

timber production and simplify implementation and reduce costs associated with surveys in Zone 

2. Thus, the marbled murrelet management approach of the Proposed RMP better balances the 

purpose of contributing to the conservation and recovery of the marbled murrelet with the 

purpose of providing for a sustained yield of timber than the alternatives. 

In their biological opinion on the Proposed RMP, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded, 

“Although there are likely to be some adverse effects to murrelets and murrelet critical habitat in 

portions of the species’ range, the overall outcome of [Proposed RMP] implementation will be 

the protection of the vast majority of extant murrelet nesting habitat, and a large long-term net 

increase in total area and amount of murrelet habitat during the life of the plan. This approach 

builds on and continues the basic approach of the original conservation strategy for the murrelet 

first articulated in the [Northwest Forest Plan] and the recovery plan.” (USDI FWS2016, p. 426).

Conservation and Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Fish 

Species and Provide Clean Water in Watersheds 

The Proposed RMP will effectively contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed 

fish and will provide clean water in watersheds. The BLM developed the riparian management 

strategy of the Proposed RMP together with the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and 
Record of Decision 

25 | P a g e

Wildlife Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Proposed RMP addresses all 

four components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the No Action alternative but has 

modified and updated several components, consistent with the purpose and need and guidance 

for the development of all action alternatives for this RMP revision and in light of monitoring 

results and new scientific information. 

Although the Riparian Reserve widths on some streams are narrower than under the No Action 

alternative, the Proposed RMP will provide more aquatic protection and greater predictability 

and consistency about implementation than the No Action alternative. The Proposed RMP will 

provide greater protection near streams within the Riparian Reserve than the No Action 

alternative. Additionally, the Proposed RMP will provide clearer direction than the No Action 

alternative about where and under what circumstances management actions such as thinning and 

fuels treatment are appropriate within the Riparian Reserve, and will prohibit other management 

actions within the Riparian Reserve, such as salvage harvest (except when necessary to protect 

public safety, or to keep roads and other infrastructure clear of debris). 

Only the Proposed RMP will tailor the Riparian Reserve widths and management to the 

importance of the subwatershed to ESA-listed fish. The No Action alternative included a process 

for modifying Riparian Reserve widths, but that process proved ineffective. The subwatershed 

classes delineated in the Proposed RMP identify those areas important to fish conservation and 

recovery better than the key watersheds under the No Action alternative. None of the action 

alternatives provides variation in Riparian Reserve widths and management based on the 

importance of the subwatershed to ESA-listed fish. As a result, the Proposed RMP better 

balances protecting ESA-listed fish and water quality with other purposes; providing greater 

protection than the No Action alternative, and Alternatives B and C, while providing protection 

comparable to Alternatives A and D in subwatersheds important to ESA-listed fish. 

The riparian management strategy of the Proposed RMP will minimize the risk of adverse effects 

to ESA-listed fish and water quality while providing a high degree of predictability and 

consistency about implementing land management actions and simplifying implementation. 

Based on the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, and the past experience and monitoring 

results of implementing the 1995 RMPs, the riparian management strategy of the Proposed RMP, 

which represents an updated version of all four components of the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy, will effectively contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed fish and will 

provide clean water in watersheds. 

In their review of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the Environmental Protection Agency expressed 

their support for the riparian strategy of the Proposed RMP, and stated, “We find this approach to 

be fully responsive to the identified purpose and need in the FEIS” (EPA, 2016, p. 1). 

In their biological opinion on the Proposed RMP, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

concluded that the Proposed RMP will protect stream shade and keep stream shade reduction to 

limited occurrences; will result in overall increases in large wood and resilience to fires over the 

long term which will outweigh the short-term effects of thinning and fuels reduction; and may 

cause a moderate increase in sedimentation but current and future actions under the Proposed 

RMP will reduce that potential for sedimentation (USDC NMFS 2016, pp. 241–251). Overall, 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

26 | P a g e

the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the Proposed RMP is consistent with the 

recovery goals for all of the listed anadromous salmonid fish species (USDC NMFS 2016, pp. 

280–309).

Restore Fire-adapted Ecosystems 

The Proposed RMP will contribute to restoring fire-adapted ecosystems in the dry forest 

landscape of southern Oregon by increasing fire resiliency. The Proposed RMP will increase 

stand-level fire resistance and decrease stand-level fire hazard from current conditions. The 

Proposed RMP will result in a greater increase in the acreage of High and Mixed fire resistance 

and a greater decrease in the acreage of High fire hazard than the No Action alternative, 

Alternative A, or Alternative C. However, as demonstrated by the analysis in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS, the BLM alone has a limited ability to shift overall landscape fire resiliency, and 

restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems in the dry forest landscape of southern Oregon will 

depend upon cooperative work with other landowners. The Proposed RMP is consistent with the 

management strategies of several other landowners in southern Oregon and will facilitate the 

cooperative work necessary to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. The Proposed RMP will apply an 

uneven-aged forest management approach in the dry forest and will provide flexibility in stand 

treatments in the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve in dry forests to address fire 

resiliency, consistent with the concepts of Ecological Forestry, as advised by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in the owl recovery plan. Through these forest management approaches, the 

Proposed RMP recognizes the unique ecological conditions and management challenges of the 

dry forest portions of the decision area. 

Provide for Recreation Opportunities 

The Proposed RMP will increase recreation opportunities by protecting the majority of the 

existing recreation opportunities and will establish additional recreation management areas to 

respond to increasing recreation demand. Although the Proposed RMP will increase recreation 

opportunities more than the No Action alternative and Alternatives A, B, and C, it will not 

increase recreation opportunities as much as Alternative D. The Proposed RMP will not seek to 

achieve this maximum level of recreation opportunities because of uncertainty about the BLM 

staffing and budget capacity to implement the necessary recreation improvements and 

uncertainty about whether such large increases in recreation opportunities would actually result 

in concomitant increases in recreation use. 

Coordinate Management of Lands Surrounding the Coquille 

Forest with the Coquille Tribe 

Throughout this RMP revision process, the BLM has coordinated the planning for management 

of the BLM-administered lands surrounding the Coquille Forest and the development of the 

Proposed RMP with the Coquille Indian Tribe. In addition to their government-to-government 

relationship and their role as a formal cooperator, the Coquille Indian Tribe has had a 

representative on the Westside Steering Committee, which has provided leadership and direction 

to the RMP revision process. The Coquille Indian Tribe suggested to the BLM a riparian 

strategy, which the BLM included in Alternative C, and the BLM included aspects of this 

riparian strategy in the Proposed RMP. The BLM has met with the Coquille Indian Tribe 
Record of Decision 

27 | P a g e

repeatedly throughout the RMP revision process, in one-on-one discussions, in Westside 

Steering Committee meetings, and in Cooperating Agency Advisory Group meetings. 

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 (Pub. L. 104-208). This means that the approved 

RMP that applies to the Coos Bay District also applies to the Coquille Forest in that it establishes 

the suite of possible management approaches available for the Coquille Forest. For the purposes 

of interpreting Title V of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act, the management direction 

described within the approved RMP is synonymous with the “standards and guidelines” 

referenced in this Act. The approved RMP does 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. The approved RMP identifies subwatershed classes relevant to 

defining Riparian Reserve widths and management direction; this identification of subwatershed 

classes applies only to streams and water features on BLM-administered lands and does not 

determine the specific subwatershed class applicable to streams and water features on the 

Coquille Forest. 

Carbon Storage 

The Proposed RMP would provide an increase in the amount of carbon storage over time. While 

the Proposed RMP, like all alternatives, would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions 

compared to the current emissions, it would result in an increase in the amount of carbon stored 

greater than the increase in the amount of carbon lost in greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, 

the BLM-administered lands in the planning area would constitute a substantial and increasingly 

large net sink of carbon over time. 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

The Proposed RMP would provide the maximum protection for identified lands with wilderness 

characteristics within the BLM’s legal discretion. Managing the wilderness resource is part of the 

BLM’s multiple use mission under the FLPMA. Lands with wilderness characteristics retain a 

primeval character, without permanent improvements and generally appear to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature. These lands provide a variety of resource benefits, including 

wildlife habitat, clean water, and primitive recreation opportunities. The Proposed RMP will 

protect lands with wilderness characteristics more than the No Action alternative, Alternatives B, 

C, or D, and to the greatest extent possible without conflict with sustained-yield timber 

production on O&C lands. 

Survey and Manage 

The Proposed RMP, like the action alternatives, does not include the Survey and Manage 

measures of the No Action alternative. The Survey and Manage measures were included in the 

Northwest Forest Plan to respond to a goal of ensuring viable, well-distributed populations of all 

species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests. This goal of the Northwest 

Forest Plan was founded on a U.S. Forest Service organic statute and planning regulation, which 

did not and do not apply to the BLM, and is not a part of the purpose for this RMP revision. As 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

28 | P a g e

detailed in the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the Proposed RMP will allocate a larger 

Late-Successional Reserve network than the No Action alternative, will protect older and more 

structurally-complex forests, and will continue to provide management for many of the formerly 

Survey and Manage species as Bureau Sensitive species. The Proposed RMP can achieve the 

purpose of this RMP revision and respond the BLM’s statutory authorities and mandates without 

the Survey and Manage measures. 

Alternatives Considered in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

The No Action alternative, which is implementation of the 1995 RMPs as written, would not 

meet the purpose of the action. As described in the need for action, the BLM has not been able to 

implement the 1995 RMPs to produce the declared sustained yield of timber. As documented in 

the plan evaluations and detailed in the analysis of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM’s 

inability to implement fully the 1995 RMPs is long-standing, and there is no reasonable basis for 

asserting that the BLM would be better able to implement the 1995 RMPs in the future. As such, 

the No Action alternative does not represent a plausible management approach, and future full 

implementation of the 1995 RMPs as written is speculative. Although the analysis in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS concluded that implementation of the No Action alternative would 

provide more sustained-yield timber harvest than the Proposed RMP, that analytical conclusion 

depended on the assumption that the BLM would be able to implement fully the timber harvests 

of the 1995 RMPs, which has not been the experience of the BLM over the past two decades. 

The No Action alternative would not effectively contribute to the conservation and recovery of 

the northern spotted owl, because it would not protect older, more structurally-complex forest, 

would produce less habitat than the Proposed RMP over time, and would not address the effects 

of the barred owl. In their biological opinion on the Proposed RMP, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service stated that they expect “...an overall net improvement in spotted owl populations on 

BLM lands under the [Proposed RMP] when compared to the future declining status quo under 

the [Northwest Forest Plan] ...” (USDI FWS 2016, p. 5). The No Action alternative would not 

contribute to restoring fire-adapted ecosystems in the dry forest landscape of southern Oregon, 

because it would not apply an uneven-aged forest management approach and would provide less 

improvement in stand-level fire resistance and fire hazard than the Proposed RMP. The No 

Action alternative would provide fewer recreation opportunities than the Proposed RMP and 

would not protect any lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative A would provide slightly more sustained-yield timber harvest than the Proposed 

RMP, but would provide less total timber harvest (i.e., ASQ and non-ASQ volume combined) 

than the Proposed RMP. Furthermore, Alternative A would not be consistent with the concepts 

of Ecological Forestry and would not be consistent with the owl recovery plan. Alternative A 

would result in the loss of more occupied marbled murrelet sites than the Proposed RMP. 

Alternative A would provide fewer recreation opportunities than the Proposed RMP. 

Alternative B would provide slightly more sustained-yield timber harvest than the Proposed 

RMP, but would pose more risk of adverse effects to ESA-listed fish and water quality than the 

Proposed RMP. Alternative B would provide fewer recreation opportunities than the Proposed 

RMP and would protect fewer lands with wilderness characteristics than the Proposed RMP. 
Record of Decision 

29 | P a g e

Alternative C would provide substantially more sustained-yield timber harvest than the Proposed 

RMP, but would not be consistent with the concepts of Ecological Forestry and would not be 

consistent with the owl recovery plan. Alternative C would result in the loss of more occupied 

marbled murrelet sites than the Proposed RMP. The riparian management strategy of Alternative 

C would pose more risk of adverse effects to ESA-listed fish and water quality than the Proposed 

RMP. 

Alternative D would provide less sustained-yield timber harvest and substantially less total 

timber harvest (i.e., ASQ and non-ASQ volume combined) than the Proposed RMP. Alternative 

D would provide more recreation opportunities than the Proposed RMP, but would not protect 

any lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Mitigation 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations state that mitigation includes avoiding, 

minimizing, rectifying, reducing, eliminating, or compensating for adverse environmental 

impacts (40 CFR 1508.20) and that a ROD must state whether all practicable means to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why 

not (40 CFR 1505.2(c)). The BLM NEPA Handbook explains that measures or practices should 

only be termed mitigation measures if they have not been incorporated into the proposed action 

or alternatives. If they are incorporated into the proposed action or alternatives, they are called 

design features, not mitigation measures (BLM Handbook 1790-1 – National Environmental 

Policy Act, p. 61). Most of the measures that would avoid, rectify, or reduce environmental 

impacts are integral to the design of the alternatives, such as the size, location, and extent of the 

Late-Successional Reserve, and therefore these design features cannot be addressed as discrete 

mitigation measures. For these design features of the alternatives, the rationale for the decision 

above addresses whether these means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been 

adopted, and if not, why not. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are practices that have been determined to be the most 

effective and practicable in preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by diffuse 

sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (40 CFR 130.2 (m)). The BMPs are 

measures or practices that would avoid, rectify, or reduce environmental impacts, and are 

included in the approved RMP. A list of BMPs is attached to the approved RMP and provides a 

detailed discussion of the role and application of BMPs (Appendix C). Project-level planning 

and analysis will identify the appropriate and applicable BMPs needed to achieve management 

direction. 

The BLM may implement additional site-specific project-level mitigation measures including 

additional BMPs that are consistent with RMP management direction as determined necessary 

through site-specific analysis at the time of the project. Such additional site-specific project-level 

mitigation measures are not specifically listed in the approved RMP. The BLM will not defer or 

forego timber harvest of stands in the Harvest Land Base for reasons not described in the 

management direction or in Appendix A. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

30 | P a g e

Mitigation Adopted in this Decision 

The approved RMP has incorporated the following discrete mitigation measures that were not 

included in the design of the alternatives. 

Participate in barred owl management 

When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines the best manner in which barred owl 

management can contribute to the recovery of the northern spotted owl, the BLM would 

participate in, cooperate with, and provide support for an interagency program for barred owl 

management to implement Recovery Action 30 of the recovery plan. Barred owl management 

actions on BLM-administered lands within the range of the northern spotted owl could include 

BLM participation in scheduling, funding, and implementing such actions. These actions would 

be implemented pursuant to appropriate NEPA analysis and decision-making. The BLM and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would develop a monitoring program that would evaluate 

whether such a barred owl management program is having the biological benefits to the northern 

spotted owl assumed in the Biological Opinion on the RMP. The BLM and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service would meet as necessary, at least annually, to review the results of the 

monitoring program. 

Avoid incidental take of northern spotted owls 

The BLM will not authorize timber sales that would cause the incidental take11 of northern 

spotted owl territorial pairs or resident singles from timber harvest until implementation of a 

barred owl management program consistent with the assumptions contained in the Biological 

Opinion on the RMP has begun. Implementation of a barred owl management program includes 

the existence of a monitoring program that would evaluate whether a barred owl program is 

having the biological benefits to the northern spotted owl assumed in the Biological Opinion on 

the RMP. 

Whether a specific timber harvest would result in incidental take will be determined on a caseby-case basis. Until implementation of a barred owl management program has begun, the BLM 

will not authorize any timber harvest that it determines would cause incidental take of northern 

spotted owls or is determined to cause incidental take through an ESA Section 7 consultation 

process. The BLM will be authorizing timber harvest that does not result in incidental take of 

northern spotted owls (e.g., harvest in unoccupied home ranges or harvest within occupied home 

ranges that does not constitute incidental take), provided that such harvest otherwise meets 

BLM’s obligations under ESA Section 7.

As part of the process to determine whether a planned timber harvest would result in take of 

northern spotted owls, the BLM will establish whether the northern spotted owl is actually 

present in the area that will be affected by the timber harvest using the best available science at 

 

11 The ESA defines ‘take’ as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt 

to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The definition of harm is “an act which actually kills or 

injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or 

injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” 

(50 CFR 17.3; Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Greater Or., 515 U.S. 687, 696–700 (1995)). 
Record of Decision 

31 | P a g e

that time, such as through pre-project northern spotted owl surveys consistent with the Protocol 

for Surveying Proposed Management Activities That May Impact Northern Spotted Owls (USDI 

FWS February 2, 2011; revised January 9, 2012). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

updated the northern spotted owl survey protocol to account for the influence of barred owl and 

may update it in the future. 

If the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jointly determine that implementation of a 

barred owl management program has begun, the BLM may proceed with implementation of 

timber harvest consistent with the ROD/RMP that may include incidental take of northern 

spotted owl territorial pairs or resident singles. Any proposed timber harvest that may include 

such incidental take would be implemented only after and consistent with appropriate projectlevel ESA Section 7 consultation and incidental take statement.

After implementation of a barred owl management program has begun, the BLM and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service will meet as necessary, at least annually, to review the results of the 

monitoring program. If the BLM or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concludes that the 

monitoring program shows that the results of such a barred owl management program are not 

consistent with the assumptions in its Biological Opinion, the BLM would reinitiate ESA Section 

7 consultation on the RMP. 

If the BLM or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concludes that implementation of a barred owl 

management program consistent with the assumptions contained in the Biological Opinion has 

not begun after 5 years from the effective date of the ROD/RMP, the agencies would meet as 

necessary, at least annually, and evaluate whether implementation of a barred owl management 

program consistent with the assumptions of the Biological Opinion is reasonably certain to 

occur. If both the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agree that such a barred owl 

management program is still reasonably certain to occur, the BLM would continue to not 

authorize timber sales that would cause the incidental take of northern spotted owl territorial 

pairs or resident singles from timber harvest. If the BLM or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

concludes that such a barred owl management program is not reasonably certain to occur, the 

BLM would reinitiate ESA Section 7 consultation on the RMP. 

If implementation of a barred owl management program has not begun after 8 years of the 

effective date of the ROD/RMP, the BLM would reinitiate ESA Section 7 consultation on the 

RMP. 

If reinitiation of ESA Section 7 consultation on the RMP is triggered for any of the reasons 

above, the BLM would comply with ESA Section 7(d) and would not authorize timber harvest 

that is likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl or likely to adversely affect its critical 

habitat until consultation is complete. 

Mitigation Not Adopted in this Decision 

The BLM has considered the following discrete mitigation measures that were not included in 

the design of the alternatives, though some were included in sub-alternatives. The approved 

RMP has not incorporated these measures.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

32 | P a g e

Avoid any increase in particulate emissions 

The approved RMP will result in some increase from current levels in particulate emissions from 

prescribed burning, as would all alternatives. The approved RMP did not include avoiding any 

increase in particulate emissions, because it would require a substantial decrease in the amount 

of prescribed burning, which would increase fire hazard and would not meet the purpose of the 

action to restore fire-adapted ecosystems to increase fire resiliency. A substantial decrease in the 

amount of prescribed burning would also limit opportunities for managing habitat for ESA-listed 

and Bureau Sensitive plants. 

Avoid any increase in lands susceptible to peak flow increases 

The approved RMP will result in some increase in acreage susceptible to peak flow increases in 

the rain-on-snow dominated hydro-region during the first decade, as would all alternatives. The 

analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS found that the acreage susceptible to peak flow 

increases under the approved RMP and all alternatives would comprise less than 1 percent of the 

land in the Harvest Land Base. This analytical result represents a susceptibility, rather than an 

effect that is certain to occur. Furthermore, because actions on lands other than BLMadministered lands can affect susceptibility to peak flow increases, the susceptibility to peak flow 

increases may differ over time from the results in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS if future actions 

on other lands differ from the analytical assumptions used in the analysis. The approved RMP 

did not include prohibiting timber harvest in the subwatersheds identified in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS as susceptible to peak flow increases, because it would reduce the amount of 

sustained-yield timber production and because the effects of timber harvest on peak flow 

increases are not certain to occur. 

Avoid any increase in sediment delivery to streams 

The approved RMP will result in some increase in sediment delivery to streams from new road 

construction, as would all alternatives. The approved RMP did not include prohibiting 

construction of new roads within the sediment-delivery distance of streams (which the BLM 

assumed to be 200 feet for the purpose of analysis) to avoid any increase in sediment delivery 

from current levels, because it would require either a substantial reduction in activities or 

construction of a substantially greater length of road to avoid the area around streams. A 

reduction in the amount of timber harvest would reduce the favorable outcomes of the approved 

RMP for jobs, income, and revenue to counties. Construction of a substantially greater length of 

road to avoid the area around streams would increase the adverse effects of road construction on 

wildlife and plant habitat; would increase the introduction and spread of invasive plant species; 

and would increase the cost of implementation. 

Avoid any increase in detrimental soil disturbance 

The approved RMP will result in some increase in detrimental soil disturbance from timber 

harvest, road construction, and fuels reduction treatments, as would all alternatives. The BLM 

will be able to reduce the acreage of detrimental soil conditions through sound management 

practices that would limit initial compaction levels, remove existing or created compacted 

surfaces, and improve soil water and organic matter levels. However, because the extent and 

effectiveness of such mitigation or amelioration depends heavily on site-specific and project-
Record of Decision 

33 | P a g e

specific factors, the BLM cannot quantify those reductions in detrimental soil disturbance at the 

scale of the RMP. To use RMP decisions to avoid any increase in detrimental soil disturbance 

would require a substantial reduction in the amount of timber harvest, road construction, and 

fuels reduction treatments. A reduction in the amount of timber harvest and road construction 

would reduce the favorable outcomes of the approved RMP for jobs, income, and revenue to 

counties. A reduction in the amount of fuels reduction treatments would increase fire hazard and 

would not meet the purpose of the action to restore fire-adapted ecosystems to increase fire 

resiliency. 

Protect all northern spotted owl sites 

Sub-alternative B included the protection of habitat within the home ranges of all northern 

spotted owl known and historic sites that would be within the Harvest Land Base. The approved 

RMP did not include this protection because it would reduce the sustained-yield production of 

timber by over 100 MMbf per year, and would not result in substantial improvements in northern 

spotted owl habitat development or population response. A reduction in the amount of timber 

harvest would reduce the favorable outcomes of the approved RMP for jobs, income, and 

revenue to counties.

Protect all stands 80 years old and older 

Sub-alternative C included all stands 80 years old and older in the Late-Successional Reserve. 

The approved RMP did not include this protection because it would reduce the sustained-yield 

production of timber by over 100 MMbf per year, and would not result in substantial 

improvements in northern spotted owl habitat development or population response. Specifically, 

protecting all stands 80 years old and older would not improve the development of a network of 

large, contiguous blocks of late-successional forest and would not provide any discernible 

improvement in the population response of the northern spotted owl. A reduction in the amount 

of timber harvest would reduce the favorable outcomes of the approved RMP for jobs, income, 

and revenue to counties.

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring provides information to determine whether the BLM is following the RMP 

management direction (i.e., implementation monitoring) and to verify if the implementation of 

actions consistent with the RMP is achieving plan-level desired results (i.e., effectiveness 

monitoring). 

The monitoring plan attached to the RMP focuses specifically on monitoring the implementation 

and effectiveness of actions consistent with the RMP and is not intended as an all-encompassing 

strategy that addresses all ongoing monitoring and research efforts. This monitoring plan does 

not attempt to address research-based questions. There are many ongoing research-based efforts 

in which the BLM participates that address evaluating whether the RMP is based on correct 

assumptions (i.e., validation monitoring). 

The BLM will continue to rely on the existing interagency effectiveness monitoring modules to 

address key questions about whether implementing actions consistent with the RMP is 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

34 | P a g e

effectively meeting RMP objectives. The existing interagency effectiveness modules are aquatic 

and riparian ecosystems, late-successional and old growth, marbled murrelet, northern spotted 

owl, socioeconomic, and tribal. Although there are differences in the objectives in the 1995 RMP 

and the approved RMP, the key questions that the existing interagency effectiveness modules are 

designed to answer are still relevant to the objectives of the approved RMP. These key questions 

address fundamental conditions and processes that underlie the objectives of both the 1995 RMP 

and the approved RMP. As such, answering these key questions through effectiveness 

monitoring will continue to provide a basis for the BLM to determine whether implementing 

actions consistent with the RMP is effectively meeting RMP objectives. 

The use of this monitoring plan by all BLM offices in the decision area will provide a basis for 

consistent and coordinated monitoring, and allow district information to be compiled and 

considered at the scale of the entire decision area. The BLM will evaluate the monitoring 

questions at each monitoring interval to ascertain if the questions, reporting, methods, sample 

size, or intervals need to be changed. The BLM would make such changes to the monitoring plan 

through plan maintenance. 

The BLM will conduct plan evaluations at 5-year intervals. In addition to the monitoring results, 

the BLM will examine many of the underlying assumptions regarding levels of activities and 

anticipated environmental consequences at the time of the 5-year plan evaluation to determine if 

the objectives of the approved RMP are being met or are likely to be met. The evaluation will 

also assess whether changed circumstances or new information have created a situation in which 

the expected impacts or environmental consequences of the approved RMP are significantly 

different from those anticipated in the Final EIS. Through the plan evaluation, the BLM will 

make a finding of whether or not a plan amendment or plan revision is warranted. The BLM will 

communicate such findings to interagency partners through entities such as the Regional 

Interagency Executive Committee, as appropriate. 

The BLM could conduct unscheduled plan evaluations to address certain unanticipated events or 

new information that would call into question the underlying analysis and decisions of the 

approved RMP. 

Public Involvement 

The BLM initiated the land-use planning process on March 9, 2012, through a Notice of Intent 

published in the Federal Register (77 FR 14414), soliciting public participation and notifying the 

public of a formal scoping period, which ended on October 5, 2012. The BLM held scoping open 

houses in May and June of 2012. The BLM used public scoping comments to help identify 

planning issues that directed the formulation of alternatives and framed the scope of analysis in 

the Draft RMP/EIS. In total, the preparation of the Draft RMP/EIS included 38 public 

involvement efforts, including formal scoping, regional workshops on recreation management, 

community listening sessions, and public meetings about the Planning Criteria and preliminary 

alternatives. 

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 
Record of Decision 

35 | P a g e

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. The BLM received 

approximately 4,500 comments on the Draft RMP/EIS during the comment period. 

On April 15, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency published a Federal Register notice of 

availability for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (81 FR 22263), beginning a 30-day protest period. 

Resolution of protests is delegated to the BLM Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and 

Planning on behalf of the Director of the BLM, whose decision on the protest is the final 

decision of the Department of the Interior. The Assistant Director received 46 protest letters 

timely filed during the 30-day protest period. The BLM reviewed the letters and identified the 

valid protest issues. 

The BLM has resolved all protest issues and responded to each protesting party for each protest 

issue that was timely raised by a party that had standing to protest, had been previously raised in 

comments during the planning process to the extent it was possible to do so, and was germane to 

the planning process. Further, the BLM has determined the Proposed RMP complies with 

applicable law, regulation, and policy. The BLM has prepared a Protest Resolution Report, 

which analyzes each unique or summarized protest issue statement. The Director’s Protest 

Resolution Report is available on the BLM website at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/planning_overview/protest_resolution/protestreports

.html. 

The BLM maintains a project website that contains an electronic version of the ROD and 

approved RMP and all of the maps referenced in the approved RMP, as well as the Draft RMP/ 

EIS, Proposed RMP/Final EIS, and other documents pertinent to the approved RMP. The 

location of this website could change, but as of the signing of the ROD, the project address is: 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/.

Consultation and Coordination 

The BLM has consulted on a government-to-government level with the nine federally recognized 

tribes located within, or that have interests within, the planning area. 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 were formal cooperators in the RMP 

revisions, in addition to their government-to-government status. 

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 2012b). Upon implementation 

of actions consistent with 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. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

36 | P a g e

A Cooperating Agency Advisory Group, comprised of representatives of Federal and State 

agencies, counties, and Tribes, assisted the BLM in the RMP revision. Working through a robust 

engagement process with neutral facilitation, the cooperators provided expertise on much of the 

subject matter the BLM addressed in the RMP revision, as well as advice based on experience 

with similar planning efforts. 

On May 13, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency provided the BLM with their review of 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, in accordance with their responsibilities under Section 309 of the 

Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (EPA 2016). In that review, the 

Environmental Protection Agency stated that the Proposed RMP/Final EIS was responsive to 

their comments and recommendations on the Draft RMP/EIS. Furthermore, they expressed 

support for the riparian strategy and the harvest strategy of the Proposed RMP. They also 

expressed support for the monitoring plan in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, which they found to 

be adequately detailed and adequate to effectively determine implementation success. 

On June 14, 2016, the Governor of Oregon provided the BLM with her consistency review of the 

Proposed RMP. The purpose of the Governor’s consistency review is to ensure consistency of 

the Proposed RMP with officially approved or adopted resource-related plans, and the policies 

and programs contained therein, of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 

Indian Tribes, so long as the guidance and resource management plans are also consistent with 

the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands 

(43 CFR 1610.3–2(a)). In her consistency review, the Governor of Oregon raised concerns, 

requested explanations, and suggested clarifications. However, the consistency review did not 

identify any State or local plans, and the policies or programs with which she found the Proposed 

RMP inconsistent and did not recommend any specific changes to the Proposed RMP other than 

some minor clarifications of wording and additional references. On June 23, 2016, the BLM 

provided a written response to the Governor, addressing each of the issues raised in the 

consistency review. 

ESA Consultation 

The BLM has completed consultation on the Proposed RMP with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. The biological 

opinions from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service each 

include an incidental take statement with reasonable and prudent measures and associated terms 

and conditions. In implementing actions consistent with the RMP, the BLM will comply with 

these reasonable and prudent measures and the associated terms and conditions described in the 

incidental take statement. As detailed below, the BLM has determined that these terms and 

conditions are clearly consistent with the Proposed RMP or have added requirements to the 

approved RMP. The only additions the BLM has made to the approved RMP related to these 

terms and conditions are process or reporting requirements and thus do not alter the analysis of 

environmental effects in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

On July 15, 2016, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion that found 

that the Proposed RMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the species 

under their jurisdiction, and is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for any of the 

species under their jurisdiction. That document also includes the results of the National Marine 
Record of Decision 

37 | P a g e

Fisheries Service analysis of likely effects of the Proposed RMP on essential fish habitat 

pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service included with their biological opinion an incidental take 

statement for the effects of the continuing non-commercial use of existing roads and recreational 

facilities under the Proposed RMP on the species under their jurisdiction. The incidental take 

statement includes the following three reasonable and prudent measures necessary or appropriate 

to minimize the impact of the amount or extent of incidental take: 

1. The BLM shall implement measures through management direction and anticipated travel 

management plans to minimize take of ESA-listed species due to sediment and 

stormwater contaminants derived from the use of roads. 

2. The BLM shall implement measures to minimize take of ESA-listed species due to use of 

recreational facilities by implementing an educational program. 

3. The BLM shall monitor and report the measures implemented to minimize take for 

reasonable and prudent measures #1 and #2. 

In implementing actions consistent with the RMP, the BLM will comply with these reasonable 

and prudent measures and the associated terms and conditions described in the incidental take 

statement. For reasonable and prudent measure #1, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

included terms and conditions related to maintaining a spatial database on roads, which the BLM 

maintains as part of the BLM corporate database, and completing travel management plans, 

which the BLM has incorporated into Appendix H of the approved RMP. For reasonable and 

prudent measure #2, the National Marine Fisheries Service included terms and conditions related 

to educational information and signs for recreational facilities, which the BLM can implement 

consistent with the recreation management objectives and management direction in the approved 

RMP. For reasonable and prudent measure #3, the National Marine Fisheries Service included 

terms and conditions related to monitoring the road system and reporting on the completion of 

travel management plans, both of which are included among the reporting items in the 

monitoring plan for the approved RMP. 

The incidental take statement provides that, within 1 year of the effective date of the ROD, and 

every 3 years thereafter, the BLM will report to the National Marine Fisheries Service a 

calculation of the following: 

 The total number of recreational facilities within 216 feet of occupied habitat or 

designated critical habitat. 

 The total miles of BLM-managed paved roads occurring within 200 feet of streams. 

 The total miles of BLM-managed roads (all surface types) within 200 feet of streams. 

Any road miles or recreational sites addressed in project-specific consultations subsequent to the 

issuance of the ROD or for which the BLM makes a no-effect determination subsequent to the 

issuance of the ROD should be deducted from the totals. If those resultant totals are greater than 

5 percent more than the values described in the incidental take statement for any one species, 

then the extent of take is exceeded, which will trigger reinitiation of consultation. 

On July 20, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion that found that 

the Proposed RMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the species under 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

38 | P a g e

their jurisdiction, and is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for any of the species 

under their jurisdiction. In addition to the regulatory triggers for reinitiation of consultation (50 

CFR 402.16), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion identified the following 

specific assumptions related to the northern spotted owl and management of barred owls that, if 

not met, would trigger reinitiation of consultation: 

 Implementation of a barred owl management strategy and associated monitoring program 

that the Service concludes are adequate to achieve and measure the results described in 

the biological opinion, will begin on BLM-administered lands in the action area within 

eight years of the effective date of the approved RMP. 

 Rates of spotted owl territorial site abandonment resulting from timber harvest in the 

Harvest Land Base will not exceed 10 percent in the first decade of implementation, 15 

percent in the second decade, and 20 percent in each subsequent decade. 

 The benchmarks provided in the biological opinion for the rate of spotted owl population 

change on BLM-administered lands within the action area will be met or exceeded. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included with their biological opinion an incidental take 

statement for the effects of the continuing non-commercial use of existing roads under the 

Proposed RMP on bull trout, Lost River sucker, and shortnose sucker, and for the effects of the 

continuing use of existing recreational facilities on Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. The 

incidental take statement includes the following three reasonable and prudent measures 

necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of the amount or extent of incidental take: 

1. The BLM shall implement measures through management direction and anticipated travel 

management plans to minimize take of ESA-listed species due to sediment and 

stormwater contaminants derived from the use of roads. 

2. The BLM shall implement measures to minimize take of Lost River and shortnose 

suckers due to use of recreational facilities by implementing an educational program. 

3. The BLM shall monitor and report the measures implemented to minimize take of ESAlisted species specified under reasonable and prudent measures #1 and #2 above. 

In implementing actions consistent with the RMP, the BLM will comply with these reasonable 

and prudent measures and the associated terms and conditions described in the incidental take 

statement. The terms and conditions that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included in their 

incidental take statement are consistent with the terms and conditions that the National Marine 

Fisheries Service included in their incidental take statement, with similar reporting requirements 

and similar requirements for reinitiation of consultation. 

New Information 

Since the preparation of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, new information has arisen regarding 

barred owl removal, the withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the fisher as threatened under the 

ESA, and the final rule designating critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog. As discussed 

below, this new information would not result in significant effects outside the range of effects 

analyzed in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and therefore does not require supplementation of the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 
Record of Decision 

39 | P a g e

The U.S. Geological Survey released a progress report on experimental removal of barred owls 

in 2015 in study areas in Washington and Oregon (Wiens et al. 2016). The U.S. Geological 

Survey initiated experimental removal of barred owls in September 2015 in the Cle Elum study 

area in Washington and the Coast Ranges study area in Oregon, and removed 254 individual 

barred owls. This removal represented approximately 46 and 44 percent of the total number of 

individual barred owls detected during surveys of treatment areas in the Cle Elum and Coast 

Ranges study areas, respectively. This progress report of implementation of the experimental 

removal of barred owls is consistent with the discussion of BLM participation in barred owl 

management in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

Diller et al. (2016) published a study on the demographic response of northern spotted owls to 

barred owl removal in a barred owl removal experiment on Green Diamond commercially 

managed timberlands in northern California. That study found that when barred owls were 

removed from sites where they co-occurred, northern spotted owl extinction rates became 

comparable to sites where barred owls were never present. Diller et al. (2016) concluded that 

lethal removal of barred owls allowed the recovery of northern spotted owl populations in the 

treated portions of the study area. The results of this study are consistent with the modeling 

results in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, which modified barred owl encounter rates to simulate 

the effect of barred owl control and found that barred owl control, within the scope of the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP, would substantively increase northern spotted owl 

population response. Therefore, the results of the experimental barred owl control described in 

Diller et al. (2016) are consistent with and support the modeling results in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. 

On April 18, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew their proposed rule to list the 

West Coast Distinct Population Segment of fisher, referred to as ‘fisher’ henceforth, as 

threatened under the ESA (81 FR 22710). The Proposed RMP/Final EIS acknowledged that the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had proposed to list the fisher as threatened on October 7, 2014. 

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS described the current habitat and population of fisher, the habitat 

needs of fisher, the main threats to fisher, and analyzed the effects of the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP on habitat for fisher and populations of fisher. In their withdrawal of their 

proposed rule to list the fisher, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the stressors 

potentially impacting the fisher and its habitat are not of sufficient magnitude, scope, or 

imminence to indicate that the fisher is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future (81 FR 22710). The withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the fisher does not 

alter the analysis of effects presented in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, and there are no 

significant new circumstances or information relevant to the effects of the alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP on fisher that would require supplementation of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

On May 11, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published their final rule designating 

critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog (81 FR 29335). The Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

acknowledged that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed critical habitat for the Oregon 

spotted frog in 2013 and that a final rule was expected in 2016. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

described the current condition of habitat for Oregon spotted frog and analyzed the effects of the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP on that habitat. The publication of the final rule designating 

critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog does not alter the analysis of effects presented in the 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

40 | P a g e

Proposed RMP/Final EIS, and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant 

to the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP on Oregon spotted frog or its critical 

habitat that would require supplementation of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The biological 

assessment prepared by the BLM assessed the effect of the Proposed RMP on the proposed 

critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog. In their biological opinion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service concluded that the Proposed RMP is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat for the Oregon spotted frog. 

References 

Diller, L. V., K. A. Hamm, D. A. Early, D. W. Lamphear, K. M. Dugger, C. B. Yackulic, C. J. Schwarz, P. C. Carlson, and T. L. 

McDonald. 2016. Demographic response of northern spotted owls to barred owl removal. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.1046. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70168559. 

USDA FS and USDA BLM. 2008. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in 

the 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. 

USDC NMFS. 2016. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat for the Resource Management Plan for Western Oregon. WCR-2016-4089. 

Portland, OR. 395 pp

USDI BLM. 1995a. Klamath Falls Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan. Portland, OR. 

---. 1995b. Medford District Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan. Portland, OR. 

---. 1995c. Roseburg District Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan. Portland, OR. 

---. 1995d. Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Klamath Falls 

Field Office. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/files/KFRA_WRW_RMP_ROD.pdf. 

---. 2002. Pokegama Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan. Lakeview District, Klamath Falls, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/files/PokegamaHMAP.pdf. 

---. 2004a. Final - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon. SEIS. 

Portland, OR. 

---. 2004b. Rogue National Wild and Scenic River: Hellgate Recreation Area Recreation Area Management Plan. Medford 

District. http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/rogue/files/hellgate_RAMP.pdf. 

---. 2005. Record of Decision Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan 

Amendments. http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/WindPEISROD.pdf. 

---. 2006. Record of Decision: Integrated Pest Management. Provolt Seed Orchard, Grants Pass, OR, and Charles A. Sprague 

Seed Orchard, Merlin, OR. BLM Medford District, Medford, OR. 82 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/Provolt-Sprague_eis_ROD_acc.pdf. 

---. 2008. Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Medford District. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/CSNM%20ROD%20and%20RMP_8-15-08.pdf. 

---. 2009. Approved Resource Plan Amendments/Record of Decision for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land 

Management-administered lands in the 11 Western States. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/lands_and_rea

lty.Par.27853.File.dat/Energy_Corridors_final_signed_ROD_1_14_2009.pdf. 

---. 2010. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon. Record of Decision. Oregon State Office, Portland, 

OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/vegtreatmentseis/files/Veg_Treatments_ROD_Oct2010.pdf. 

---. 2012a. 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. 

---. 2012b. 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. 

---. 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. 

---. 2016. Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Resource Management Plans for 

Western Oregon—Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts, and the Klamath Falls Field Office of the 

Lakeview District. Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. Vol. I–IV. http://1.usa.gov/1YchHea. 
Record of Decision 

41 | P a g e

USDI FWS. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). USFWS Region 1, 

Portland, OR. 258 pp. http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf. 

---. 2016. Biological Opinion on the Bureau of Land Management’s Approval of the Proposed Resource Management Plan for 

Western Oregon. 01EOFW00-2015-F-0279. Portland, OR. 1,081 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Letter from Christine B. Littleton, Environmental Review and Sediment 

Management Unit Manager, Environmental Protection Agency, to Mark Brown, Project Manager, Bureau of Land 

Management (May 13, 2016) (on file with the BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR). 

Wiens, J. D., K. M. Dugger, K. E. Lewicki, and D. C. Simon. 2016, Effects of experimental removal of barred owls on 

population demography of northern spotted owls in Washington and Oregon—2015 progress report: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2016-1041, 16 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161041. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

42 | Page

Recommendation 

I have considered how the alternatives analyzed in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS meet the 

purpose and need, the associated environmental impacts, and public input. Based on these 

considerations, I recommend approval of the attached Southwestern Oregon Resource 

Management Plan. 

__________________________________________ ___________ 

E.Lynn Burkett Date 

Lakeview District Manager 

__________________________________________ ___________ 

Elizabeth R. Burghard Date 

Medford District Manager 

__________________________________________ ___________ 

Barbara Machado Date 

Acting Roseburg District Manager 

Concurrence

__________________________________________ ___________ 

Ron Dunton Date 

Acting State Director, Oregon/Washington 

Bureau of Land Management 

Approval 

I approve the attached Southwestern Oregon Resource Management Plan as recommended. This 

Record of Decision is effective immediately. 

___________________________________________ ____________ 

Steven A. Ellis Date 

Deputy Director 

Bureau of Land Management 
43 | P a g e

Resource Management Plan

This Southwestern Oregon Resource Management Plan includes land use allocations (Table 1), 

management objectives, and management direction for the planning area including the Klamath 

Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District, Medford District, and South River Field Office of the 

Roseburg District (Map 1). In addition, it includes appendices addressing RMP implementation, 

a monitoring plan, Best Management Practices, land tenure information and land withdrawals, 

stipulations on leasable fluid mineral exploration and development activity, designated Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern, designated Recreation Management Areas, public motorized 

access guidelines, and available livestock grazing allotments. 

Table 1. Land use allocation acres within the Southwestern Oregon RMP. 

Land Use Allocation Acres Sub-allocation Acres

Congressionally Reserved 

Lands and National 

Conservation Lands

29,294

Designated and Suitable Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 19,932

Designated Wilderness and Wilderness 

Study Areas 9,151

Other 210

District-Designated 

Reserves 221,627

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern* 14,144

Lands Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics 62,392

Other 145,092

Eastside Management Area 154,848 Eastside Management Area 147,156

Riparian Reserve 7,691

Harvest Land Base 251,552

Low Intensity Timber Area 37,325

Moderate Intensity Timber Area 13,167

Uneven-aged Timber Area 201,059

Late-Successional Reserve 381,158 Late-Successional Reserve 37,147

Late-Successional Reserve – Dry 344,011

Riparian Reserve 190,156 Riparian Reserve – Moist 13,607

Riparian Reserve – Dry 176,549

Totals 1,228,635

* Acreage does not include Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that overlap the Harvest Land Base. 
44 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map INSERT MAP HERE 

1. Planning area for the Southwestern Oregon RMP.

44 Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map INSERT MAP HERE 

1. Planning area for the Southwestern Oregon RMP.
Resource Management Plan 

45 | P a g e

Table of Contents 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 47

MAPPING OF LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ................................................................................................................ 47

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 53

CONGRESSIONALLY RESERVED LANDS AND NATIONAL CONSERVATION LANDS .................................................................... 53

DISTRICT-DESIGNATED RESERVES............................................................................................................................. 54

District-Designated Reserve – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................55

District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability Classification........................................................55

District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics .........................................56

EASTSIDE MANAGEMENT AREA ............................................................................................................................... 57

Eastside Management Area – Forested Lands ....................................................................................................57

Eastside Management Area – Non-forested Lands .............................................................................................59

Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve ................................................................................................. 60

HARVEST LAND BASE ............................................................................................................................................ 62

Harvest Land Base – Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA) .......................................................................................64

Harvest Land Base – Moderate Intensity Timber Area (MITA) ...........................................................................66

Harvest Land Base – Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA) .......................................................................................67

LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE ................................................................................................................................. 70

Late-Successional Reserve – Dry .........................................................................................................................74

RIPARIAN RESERVE (WEST OF HIGHWAY 97).............................................................................................................. 75

Riparian Reserve – Moist ....................................................................................................................................78

Riparian Reserve – Dry ........................................................................................................................................82

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.................................................................................................................................. 88

RESOURCE PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................ 89

AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 89

CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................................................... 89

FIRE, FUELS, AND WILDFIRE RESPONSE...................................................................................................................... 90

FISHERIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 91

FOREST MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 92

HYDROLOGY........................................................................................................................................................ 92

INVASIVE SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................. 93

LANDS, REALTY, AND ROADS .................................................................................................................................. 93

LIVESTOCK GRAZING ............................................................................................................................................. 96

MINERALS ........................................................................................................................................................ 103

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 105

RARE PLANTS AND FUNGI..................................................................................................................................... 106

RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES ....................................................................................................................... 107

Recreation and Visitor Services – Significant Caves ..........................................................................................108

Recreation and Visitor Services – Formerly Used Defense Sites ........................................................................109

SOIL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................................ 109

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ......................................................................................................................................... 110

Sustainable Energy – Biomass Energy Development ........................................................................................111

Sustainable Energy – Wind Energy Development .............................................................................................111

Sustainable Energy – Geothermal Energy Development...................................................................................112

Sustainable Energy – Sustainable Energy Transmission Corridors ....................................................................112

TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 113

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 113

WILDLIFE.......................................................................................................................................................... 115

Wildlife – Bald and Golden Eagles ....................................................................................................................116

Wildlife – Bats ...................................................................................................................................................116

Wildlife – Deer or Elk Management Areas (Klamath Falls Field Office and Medford District) ..........................116
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

46 | P a g e

Wildlife – Fisher .................................................................................................................................................117

Wildlife – Gray Wolf ..........................................................................................................................................118

Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet .............................................................................................................................118

Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl .......................................................................................................................121

Wildlife – Oregon Spotted Frog .........................................................................................................................121

Wildlife – Siskiyou Mountains Salamander .......................................................................................................121

Wildlife – Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp ...................................................................................................................121

WILD HORSES ................................................................................................................................................... 121
Resource Management Plan 

47 | P a g e

Management Objectives and Direction 

This approved RMP includes management objectives and management direction for land use 

allocations and for resource programs. The management objectives and management direction 

described for land use allocations apply only within that land use allocation and appear under the 

heading for the corresponding land use allocation. The management objectives and management 

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

noted. 

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

resources in an RMP; the resource conditions that the BLM envisions or desires would 

eventually result from implementation of actions consistent with the RMP. As such, management 

objectives are not rules, restrictions, or requirements by which the BLM determines which 

implementation actions to conduct or how to design specific implementation actions. Through 

effectiveness monitoring, the BLM will assess whether implementing actions in accordance with 

the management direction is achieving the management objectives of the RMP (Appendix B).

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

restrictions or requirements may be placed on those future actions to achieve the objectives set 

for the BLM-administered lands and resources. Through implementation monitoring, the BLM 

will assess whether the BLM is implementing actions in accordance with management direction 

of the RMP (Appendix B).

Mapping of Land Use Allocations 

In this approved RMP, the Harvest Land Base and Late-Successional Reserve have specific, 

mapped sub-allocations (Map 2), some of which have differing management objectives or 

management direction. For these sub-allocations, the management objectives and management 

direction of the broader allocation apply, as well as the management objectives or management 

direction specific to that sub-allocation. For example, the Harvest Land Base includes three suballocations: Low Intensity Timber Area, Moderate Intensity Timber Area, and Uneven-Aged 

Timber Area. In each of these three sub-allocations, the management objectives and management 

direction described below for both the Harvest Land Base and the individual sub-allocation 

apply. 
48 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map INSERT MAP HERE 

2. Land use allocations and sub-allocations.

48 Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map INSERT MAP HERE 

2. Land use allocations and sub-allocations.
Resource Management Plan 

49 | P a g e

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

direction for Riparian Reserve west of Highway 97 (i.e., in the Medford District, South River 

Field Office of the Roseburg District, and the portion of the Klamath Falls Field Office west of 

Highway 97) and Riparian Reserve east of Highway 97 (i.e., within the Eastside Management 

Area in the Klamath Falls Field Office). Although the management objectives are the same for 

all of the Riparian Reserve west of Highway 97, the management direction varies among three 

classes of subwatersheds (Figure 1). In addition, for the Riparian Reserve west of Highway 97, 

some management direction varies for the sub-allocations of the Riparian Reserve – Moist and 

Riparian Reserve – Dry. The mapped location of the subwatershed classes in the BLM spatial 

database represents the decision, and the maps accompanying the RMP are for illustrative 

purposes only (Map 3). For the location of the Riparian Reserve, the decision requires 

identification of features on the ground (e.g., a perennial stream) and the allocation of a 

corresponding width of Riparian Reserve. 

Figure 1. Percent of Riparian Reserve within each subwatershed class for the Southwestern 

Oregon ROD/RMP planning area. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

50 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map 3. Three-tier subwatershed class map.
Resource Management Plan 

51 | P a g e

For the District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability Classification, the BLM 

spatial database includes the current mapped location of this allocation. Over time, the BLM will 

add additional areas to this allocation through updates to the Timber Production Capability 

Classification system, when examinations indicate that an area meets the criteria for reservation. 

The BLM will also delete areas from this allocation and return the area to the Harvest Land Base 

through updates to the Timber Production Capability Classification system, when examinations 

indicate that an area does not meet the criteria for reservation. 

The decision also requires the future allocation of marbled murrelet occupied stands to the LateSuccessional Reserve, as described in the Record of Decision. This approved RMP requires the 

future allocation of marbled murrelet occupied stands12 to the Late-Successional Reserve for 

occupied sites identified13 after March 26, 2015, as a result of BLM marbled murrelet surveys in 

(1) all land use allocations within 35 miles of the Pacific Coast, and (2) Late-Successional 

Reserve and Riparian Reserve between 35–50 miles from the Pacific Coast and outside of 

exclusion Areas C and D (Figure 2).

For all other land use allocations and designations, the mapped location of these allocations and 

designations in the BLM spatial database represents the decision. The BLM provides the maps 

accompanying the RMP for illustrative purposes only. 

 

12 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. 

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

sites was entered into the BLM corporate database after March 26, 2015. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

52 | Page

INSERT FIGURE HERE 

Figure 2. Range and management zones for the marbled murrelet. 
Resource Management Plan 

53 | P a g e

Land Use Allocations 

Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation 

Lands 

Management Objectives 

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

values of National Conservation Lands and other congressionally designated lands. 

 Preserve the wilderness character of designated Wilderness Areas. 

 Preserve wilderness characteristics in Wilderness Study Areas in accordance with nonimpairment standards as defined under the management policy for Wilderness Study Areas 

(BLM Manual 6330 – Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas; USDI BLM 2012a), 

until Congress either designates these lands as Wilderness or releases them for other 

purposes. 

 Protect and enhance the free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable 

values of eligible, suitable, and designated Wild and Scenic River corridors.14

 Provide protection to Wild and Scenic River corridors that are suitable for inclusion as 

components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system until Congress makes a decision 

on designation. 

 Provide protection to Wild and Scenic River corridors that are eligible but have not yet been 

studied for suitability as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system pending 

suitability evaluations. 

Management Direction 

 In designated Wilderness Areas, exclude all prohibited uses of Wilderness (as defined in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 and BLM Manual 6340 – Management of Designated Wilderness 

(USDI BLM 2012b)), unless they have been demonstrated to be the minimum necessary 

(using the minimum requirements decision guide) to administer the area for the purposes of 

the Wilderness Act. 

 Manage wildfires in designated Wilderness Areas using minimum impact suppression 

techniques wherever practicable, while providing for the safety of firefighters and the public 

and meeting fire management objectives. Address prohibited uses of Wilderness in wildfire 

management consistent with BLM Manual 6340 – Management of Designated Wilderness 

(USDI BLM 2012b). 

 Provide for the enjoyment and appreciation of the resources, qualities, values, and associated 

settings and primary uses within National Trail rights-of-way (including those classified as 

Scenic, Historical, and Recreational) and for which National Trails are designated. 

 Enhance, promote, and protect the scenic, natural, and cultural resource values associated 

with current and future designated National Scenic and Historic Trails. 

 Conduct silvicultural treatments in National Trail management corridors (including those 

classified as Scenic, Historical, and Recreational) only as needed to protect or maintain 

recreation setting characteristics or to achieve recreation objectives (Appendix G).

 

14 Wild and Scenic River corridors include all of the river classifications – Wild, Scenic, and Recreational. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

54 | P a g e

 Conduct management actions, including but not limited to fuels treatments, invasive species 

management, riparian or wildlife habitat improvements, forest management, and trail 

construction, in Wild and Scenic River corridors only if consistent with designated or 

tentative classifications and if any reductions in outstandingly remarkable values would be 

temporary and outstandingly remarkable values would be protected or enhanced over the 

long term. 

 During wildfire management operations, use strategies and tactics that would protect the 

outstandingly remarkable values and classifications (or tentative classifications) within Wild 

and Scenic River corridors, except where the wildfire is deemed a threat to human safety or 

private property, or where use is essential for wildfire control, as determined by the Incident 

Commander. 

District-Designated Reserves 

Management Objectives 

 Maintain the values and resources for which the BLM has reserved these areas from 

sustained-yield timber production. 

Management Direction 

 Manage constructed facilities and infrastructure, such as seed orchards, roads,15

communication sites, buildings, quarries, and maintenance yards, 16 as needed for the 

purposes for which the BLM constructed them. 

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Such logs 

may be retained as down woody material, moved for placement in streams for fish habitat 

restoration, or removed through a commercial harvest or special forest products sale. 

 Manage seed orchards consistent with the Seed Orchard Records of Decision for Integrated 

Pest Management (Medford District; USDI BLM 2006). 

 

15 While road corridors are District-Designated Reserves, roads are adjacent to other land use allocations. 

Management of roads may require actions within adjacent land use allocations, and therefore other land use 

allocations include management direction pertaining to road management actions. 

16 Existing quarries, communications sites, buildings, maintenance yards, and other constructed facilities are 

represented in the BLM spatial database as points rather than polygons. The extent of the existing quarry, 

communications site, building, maintenance yard, or other constructed facility is allocated to the District-Designated 

Reserve; the lands outside the extent of the existing quarry, communications site, building, maintenance yard, or 

other constructed facility are allocated to the land use allocation mapped for the location in the BLM spatial 

database. 
Resource Management Plan 

55 | P a g e

District-Designated Reserve – Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern17

Management Objectives 

 See District-Designated Reserves management objectives.

 Maintain or restore relevant and important values in Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, including Research Natural Areas and Outstanding Natural Areas.

Management Direction 

 Implement activities as necessary to maintain, enhance, or restore relevant and important 

values (Appendix F).

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Such logs 

may be retained as down woody material, moved for placement in streams for fish habitat 

restoration, or removed through a commercial harvest or special forest products sale. 

 During wildfire management operations use strategies and tactics that would not compromise 

important and relevant values, except where the wildfire is deemed a threat to human safety 

or private property, or where use is essential for wildfire control, as determined by the 

Incident Commander. 

District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability 

Classification 

Management Objectives 

 See District-Designated Reserves management objectives.

Management Direction 

 Manage areas identified as unsuitable for sustained-yield timber production through the 

Timber Production Capability Classification system, for other uses if those uses are 

compatible with the reason for which the BLM has reserved these lands (as identified by the 

Timber Production Capability Classification codes (USDI BLM 1984)).

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Such logs 

may be retained as down woody material, moved for placement in streams for fish habitat 

restoration, or removed through a commercial harvest or special forest products sale. 

 Apply silvicultural or fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, that restore or maintain 

community-level structural characteristics, promote desired species composition, and emulate 

ecological conditions produced by historic fire regimes, in areas identified as unsuitable for 

 

17 Some Areas of Critical Environmental Concern overlap the Harvest Land Base. Management objectives and 

management direction for those Areas of Critical Environmental Concern include the management objectives and 

management direction here in addition to the management objectives and management direction for the Harvest 

Land Base sub-allocation that the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern overlap. For those individual Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern that only partially overlap the Harvest Land Base, the management objectives and 

management direction for the Harvest Land Base only apply in the portion of the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern that overlaps the Harvest Land Base. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

56 | P a g e

sustained-yield timber production through the Timber Production Capability Classification 

system. 

 Designate additional lands as District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability 

Classification through updates to the Timber Production Capability Classification system and 

remove those lands from the Harvest Land Base when examinations indicate that those lands 

meet the criteria for reservation. 

 Un-designate lands as District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability 

Classification and return those lands to the Harvest Land Base through updates to the Timber 

Production Capability Classification system when examinations indicate that those lands do 

not meet the criteria for reservation. 

District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics18

Management Objectives 

 Protect wilderness characteristics (i.e., roadlessness, naturalness, opportunities for solitude 

and primitive unconfined recreation, and identified supplemental values), while allowing 

competing resource demands that do not conflict with preserving long-term wilderness 

characteristics. 

Management Direction 

 Allow mechanical vegetation treatment consistent with Visual Resource Management Class 

II for the purpose of improving ecological condition, contributing to threatened or 

endangered species recovery, or enhancing long-term wilderness characteristics. 

 Where a District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics 

abuts existing roads or trails, allow road or trail maintenance—

o Within 300 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, or, if no right-of-way, within 300 

feet of the centerline of paved roads; 

o Within 100 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, or, if no right-of-way, within 100 

feet of the centerline of regularly maintained unpaved roads; 

o Within 30 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, or, if no right-of-way, within 30 feet 

of the centerline of unmaintained roads or trails.

 Do not construct new buildings or new temporary or permanent roads. 

 Allow trail construction and maintenance, fuels treatments, invasive species management, 

riparian or wildlife habitat improvements, forest management, and other vegetation 

management only if any reductions in wilderness characteristics are temporary and 

wilderness characteristics are protected over the long term. 

 During wildfire management operations use strategies and tactics that would protect 

wilderness characteristics, except where the wildfire is deemed a threat to human safety or 

private property or where use is essential for wildfire control, as determined by the Incident 

Commander.

 

18 These objectives and direction apply to lands outside of designated Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas 

that the BLM has identified as having wilderness characteristics and will manage for the protection of those 

wilderness characteristics. 
Resource Management Plan 

57 | P a g e

 For lands identified for protection of wilderness characteristics where the BLM-administered 

lands rely on adjoining Federal lands being managed to protect the same values to meet the 

size criteria (BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM 

Lands; USDI BLM 2012b) and the agency managing the adjoining lands revises its land use 

plan to no longer protect wilderness characteristics, the BLM-administered lands will no 

longer meet the minimum size criteria and thus will no longer possess wilderness 

characteristics. 

o The BLM will no longer protect wilderness characteristics on these lands and the 

accompanying land use plan allocations (e.g., right-of-way exclusion, Visual Resource 

Management Class II) applied specifically to protect the wilderness characteristics will 

automatically be dropped as part of plan maintenance. 

o The BLM will then manage these lands consistent with the land use allocations, 

management objectives, and management direction of comparable or adjacent BLMadministered lands. 

Eastside Management Area 

Eastside Management Area – Forested Lands 

Management Objectives 

 Manage forested lands on a sustainable basis for multiple uses including wildlife and riparian 

habitats, recreational needs, cultural resources, community stability, and commodity 

production, including commercial timber and other forest products. 

 Promote development of fire-resilient forests. 

 Offer for sale the probable sale quantity of 3.5 MMbf of timber per decade. 

Management Direction 

 Utilize uneven-aged management when managing forest stands. This will include use of 

harvesting methods such as thinning, single tree selection harvest, and group selection 

harvest. 

 Conduct uneven-aged management harvests for the removal and sale of timber or biomass. 

Harvests will be applied to stands of any age, and throughout all diameters, for any of the 

following reasons: 

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the probable sale quantity. 

o Maintain growth and vigor of the stand. 

o Adjust stand composition or structure. 

o Reduce stand susceptibility to natural disturbance such as fire, windstorm, disease, or 

insect infestation. 

o Improve merchantability and value. 

o Promote multi-structural conditions in forest stands. 

 Retain an overstory component of trees in uneven-aged management harvest units to provide 

shade, reduce wind speed, or promote overall fire resiliency in the stand. Maintain relative 

density between 15 and 55, but allow relative density to vary outside of this range based on 

vegetative type, site productivity, and fire risk factors such as slope, aspect, and elevation. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

58 | P a g e

 Incorporate group selection harvest of up to 5 acres in size individually, and an aggregate 

level of up to 25 percent of the area of the treated stand within uneven-aged management 

harvest units. 

 Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances as needed to recover economic value 

and to minimize commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. Retain overstory trees as 

needed within salvage harvest areas to provide for seedling shade, frost protection, seeding, 

or other silvicultural needs. 

 Convert lands historically supporting conifer species (other than juniper) that are currently 

growing primarily brush or hardwoods to conifer species suitable to the site. 

 Conduct prescribed burns, and mechanical or hand fuels treatments to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. Apply maintenance treatments at appropriate intervals to retain or 

improve fire resilient conditions. 

 Apply pre-commercial thinning to forest stands to achieve long-term management objectives. 

 Apply pruning to enhance timber value and for fuels and disease management. 

 During silvicultural treatment or harvest of stands, retain existing snags ≥ 6” DBH and down 

woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length, except for where 

cutting or removal is necessary for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain 

snags ≥ 6” DBH cut for safety or operational reasons as down woody material, unless they 

would also pose a safety hazard as down woody material. 

 Create new snags when the existing level of snags > 16” DBH is less than 2 snags per acre on 

the average over the treatment stand, to meet this level. When the existing level of down 

woody material over 12” in diameter and 12 feet in length is less than a total of 40 feet per 

acre on average over the treatment stand, create new down woody material to meet this level. 

In addition: 

o Snag and down woody material levels described above will be met by any combination of 

the creation of new snags and down woody material from live conifer trees and the 

retention of existing levels of snags (decay classes I and II) and down woody material 

(decay classes I and II) (see USDI BLM 2010a). If existing levels of snags and down 

woody material are insufficient to meet these levels in a thinning project, the desired 

levels can be satisfied by including in the project decision the creation of snags and down 

woody material to meet these levels within 5 years after completion of yarding the timber 

in the timber sale or completion of associated fuels treatment. 

o Snag and down woody material retention or creation levels will be met at the scale of the 

harvest unit and are not intended to be attained on every acre. Snag and down woody 

material retention will be variable per acre throughout the treatment area. 

o If the pre-harvest quadratic mean diameter of the stand is less than 16”, then the snags to 

be created or retained will be 2 snags per acre on average over the treatment stand with a 

diameter larger than the quadratic mean diameter of the stand. 
Resource Management Plan 

59 | P a g e

Eastside Management Area – Non-forested Lands 

Management Objectives

 Manage non-forested lands with the intent of maintaining or improving wildlife habitat and 

rangeland conditions based on ecological site parameters. Where conditions are currently late 

seral or potential natural community, maintain these conditions. Where conditions are early 

or mid seral, improve conditions towards late seral or potential natural community. 

 Manage non-forested lands for multiple uses in addition to those listed above including 

recreational needs, community stability, and commodity production. Commodities include 

firewood, logs, biomass, chips, and other products and byproducts from juniper woodlands 

and rangelands. 

 Promote development of fire-resilient woodlands and rangelands. 

 Provide for the conservation of Bureau Special Status Species. 

Management Direction 

 Treat vegetation communities encroached by invasive juniper using prescribed fire, 

mechanical, chemical, and manual juniper removal treatments. 

 Manage and retain juniper woodlands on sites they occupied historically (pre-European 

settlement), as identified by ecological site inventories or other methods. 

 Cut encroaching juniper that hinders attainment of desired forage conditions to maintain and 

restore forage for big game and to restore unoccupied or historic greater sage-grouse habitat. 

Remove, utilize, or pile and burn cut juniper. 

 Plant or seed native species to improve unoccupied or historic greater sage-grouse habitat 

 Retain old-growth ‘legacy’ juniper when the BLM determines it meets the following 

definition: Individual trees that likely originated in the pre-settlement period, before 1870. 

These trees are commonly found in rocky areas where vegetation is sparse and fire frequency 

is naturally low. The BLM will evaluate trees based on the following characteristics of oldgrowth juniper: 

o Flat, rounded, broad at top, or irregular crown (as opposed to the more pointed tops of 

younger trees) or dead “spike” top

o Numerous dead branches 

o Coarse, bright yellow-green lichen (Letharia or wolf lichen) covered branches 

o Large diameter lower branches 

o Large diameter trunk relative to height 

o Spirally twisted bark and deep furrows on the trunk 

o Hollow trunk 

Trees need not have all of these characteristics for the BLM to determine that the trees are 

old-growth juniper. 

 Apply prescribed burns, mechanical or hand fuels treatments to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. Apply maintenance treatments at appropriate intervals to retain or 

improve fire-resilient conditions. 

 Manage unoccupied or historic greater sage-grouse habitat consistent with the Greater SageGrouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (ODFW 2011) and with the 

Oregon Sage-Grouse Action Plan (Sage-grouse Conservation Partnership 2015). 

 Maintain or enhance wildlife habitat on rangelands. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

60 | P a g e

 Continue the existing road closures to motorized vehicles, except for administrative 

purposes, between November 1 and April 15 in the designated closure areas within the 

Interstate and Klamath Deer Winter Ranges. These seasonal road closures include South 

Gerber, Willow Valley, Harpold Ridge, Bryant Mountain, North Bryant, Windy Ridge, 

Stukel Mountain, and Lorella. 

 Plant or seed native forage species for deer and elk along roadsides, skid trails, and on 

disturbed areas, or create forage plots when forage quality is determined to be a limiting 

factor in achieving the management goals of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Include forage retention requirements for wildlife when implementing silvicultural 

treatments or habitat management activities. 

Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve 

Management Objectives 

 Provide for conservation of Bureau Special Status fish and other Bureau Special Status 

riparian-associated species. 

 Provide for the riparian and aquatic conditions that supply stream channels with shade, 

sediment filtering, leaf litter and large wood sources, and stream bank stability. 

 Maintain and restore water quality and hydrologic functions. 

 Maintain and restore access to stream channels for all life stages of aquatic species. 

 Maintain and restore the proper functioning condition and ecological site potential of riparian 

and wetland areas. 

Management Direction 

Table 2. Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve distances by water feature. 

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance*

Fish-bearing streams and/or perennial streams

150 feet on each side of a stream channel from 

the ordinary high water line or from the outer 

edge of the channel migration zone for lowgradient alluvial shifting channels.

Non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, all lakes, 

natural ponds and reservoirs > 1 acre, and 

wetlands > 1 acre

100 feet on each side of the water feature from 

the ordinary high water line.

Natural ponds < 1 acre, wetlands < 1 acre, and 

constructed water impoundments (e.g., canal 

ditches and pump chances) of any size.

25 feet on each side of the water feature from 

the ordinary high water line.

* Reported distances are measured as slope distance. 

All Water Features 

 Implement instream and riparian restoration activities, such as gravel augmentation, aspen 

restoration, or placement of boulders and large wood in streams, including tree lining from 

adjacent riparian areas for all streams. Use manual or ground-based methods. Place an 
Resource Management Plan 

61 | P a g e

emphasis on streams that have high intrinsic potential for fish, high priority fish populations 

(such as those defined in recovery plans), or high levels of chronic sediment inputs. 

 Remove or modify human-caused fish passage barriers to restore access to stream channels 

for all life stages of aquatic species. 

 Fall and move trees as needed for safety or operational reasons, including, but not limited to, 

hazard tree removal, creation of yarding corridors, and road construction, improvement, or 

maintenance. 

 Retain existing snags and down woody material during silvicultural treatment of stands, 

except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags cut for safety or 

operational reasons as down woody material. 

 Apply vegetation treatments and prescribed burns as needed to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. 

 Do not conduct timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep 

roads and other infrastructure clear of debris. 

 Manage livestock grazing at a level that meets Rangeland Health Standards (USDI BLM 

1997) and allows for maintenance or development of an upward trend toward the proper 

functioning condition of riparian and wetland plant communities. Implement practices such 

as installing and maintaining livestock exclosures, managing season of use and intensity, 

developing off-stream watering facilities, and other techniques to attain this condition. 

 Remove conifer encroachment where conifers are interfering with the natural vegetation 

community type, or where excessive erosion may occur. 

 Apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) for roads, stream and riparian restoration work, 

and vegetation management as needed to maintain or restore water quality and hydrologic 

function (Appendix C).

Fish-bearing Streams and Perennial Streams 

 Conduct thinning and other vegetation treatments to accelerate the development of potential 

natural forest stand conditions including late-successional stand characteristics and native 

riparian shrub communities. 

 When conducting thinning or other vegetation treatments, do not use ground-based 

machinery within 75 feet (slope distance) on either side of the edge of the stream channel, as 

measured from the ordinary high water line. 

 When conducting thinning or other vegetation treatments, do not use ground-based 

machinery on slopes > 35 percent, soils sensitive to displacement, rutting, or compaction, or 

in slide-prone areas. 

 Retain and promote long-term site-potential shade conditions. 

Non-fish-bearing Intermittent Streams 

 Conduct thinning and other vegetation treatments to speed the development of large trees to 

provide an eventual source of large woody material to stream channels. 

 When conducting thinning or other vegetation treatments, do not use ground-based 

machinery on slopes > 35 percent, soils sensitive to displacement, rutting, or compaction, or 

in slide-prone areas. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

62 | P a g e

Lakes, Natural Ponds, and Wetlands 

 Conduct thinning and other vegetation treatments within the Riparian Reserve to speed the 

development of potential natural vegetation communities. 

 When conducting thinning or other vegetation treatments, do not use ground-based 

machinery within 50 feet (slope distance) on each side of the ordinary high water line of the 

water feature, or soils seasonally saturated by the water feature (whichever is greatest). 

Constructed Water Impoundments and Constructed Ponds

 Follow inspection guidelines for BLM infrastructure (e.g., dams and spillway structures), and 

implement maintenance and repair as needed. 

 Dredge constructed water impoundments as necessary to maintain capacity. 

 Maintain vegetation, access, and plumbing associated with sources of water for fire 

management purposes for all types of firefighting equipment (e.g., engines, aircraft, and 

tenders). 

Harvest Land Base 

Management Objectives 

 Manage forest stands to achieve continual timber production that can be sustained through a 

balance of growth and harvest. 

 Offer for sale the declared Allowable Sale Quantity of timber. 

 Recover economic value from timber following disturbances, such as fires, windstorms, 

disease, or insect infestations. 

 In harvested or disturbed areas, ensure the establishment and survival of desirable trees 

appropriate to the site and enhance their growth. 

 Enhance the economic value of timber in forest stands. 

Management Direction 

 Conduct silvicultural treatments to contribute timber volume to the Allowable Sale Quantity. 

 Conduct silvicultural treatments to enhance timber values and to reduce fire risks and insect 

and disease outbreaks. 

 During commercial harvest,19 except timber salvage, and except for safety, operational, or 

fuels reduction reasons, retain existing—

 

19 In the context of management direction for the Harvest Land Base, commercial harvest means stand harvesting 

in which some or all of the cut trees are removed from the stand for timber volume and a monetary value assessed. 

Commercial harvest in this context does not include the following: 

o Individual tree falling 

o Stand thinning in which all of the cut trees are left in the stand for restoration purposes or the cut trees are 

removed for firewood, other special forest products, or non-commercial harvest 

o Fuels reduction treatments in which cut trees are burned, chipped, or otherwise disposed of without 

removal from the stand for timber 

Commercial harvest may be implemented through a variety of mechanisms, including timber sale contracts, 

stewardship agreements, or other types of contracts. 
Resource Management Plan 

63 | P a g e

o Snags > 20” DBH; 

o Snags 6–20” DBH in decay classes III, IV, and V (see USDI BLM 2010a); 

o Down woody material > 20” in diameter at the large end and > 20’ in length; and 

o Down woody material 6–20” in diameter at the large end and > 20’ in length in decay 

classes III, IV, and V (see USDI BLM 2010a). 

Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH cut for safety or operational reasons as down woody material, unless 

they would also pose a safety hazard as down woody material. 

 When implementing commercial harvest, except timber salvage, in stands with less than 26 

snags per acre > 10” DBH and less than 8 snags per acre > 20” DBH on average across the 

harvest unit, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table 3 within 1 year of 

completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If insufficient trees are available in the 

pre-harvest stand in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. 

Meet snag creation levels as an average at the scale of the harvest unit; snag creation levels 

are not required to be attained on every acre. When creating the required number of snags, 

locate them according to the following criteria: 

o Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees. 

o Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 

and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit. 

o Concentrate the creation of snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. 

o Meet snag creation levels with trees from any species. 

Table 3. Snag creation levels within the Harvest Land Base. 

District/

Field Office Province

Number of Snags/Acre Created

Within 1 Year of Yarding the Timber

in the Timber Sale

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Klamath Falls All 1 - 1

Medford All - - -

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 3 - 3

Western Cascades 3 3 6

Klamath - - -

 Employ site preparation methods such as mechanical treatments (e.g., machine piling), 

manual treatments (e.g., brushing), and prescribed burns to prepare newly harvested and 

inadequately stocked areas for the regeneration of desirable tree species. 

 Manually apply supplemental nutrients where necessary to enhance vigor and growth of 

desired vegetation. Do not use aerial application methods. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

64 | P a g e

 If not suitable for commercial removal, allow cut hazard trees to be available for habitat 

restoration purposes in any land use allocation, including off-site from the location where 

such hazard trees are cut. 

Harvest Land Base – Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA) 

Management Objectives 

 See Harvest Land Base management objectives. 

 Provide complex early-successional ecosystems. 

 Develop diverse late-successional ecosystems for a portion of the rotation. 

 Provide a variety of forest structural stages distributed both spatially and temporally. 

Management Direction 

 See Harvest Land Base management direction. 

 Conduct regeneration harvest20 for any of the following reasons: 

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity. 

o Adjust the age class distribution in the LITA in each sustained-yield unit. 

o Manage insect and disease infestations. 

o Convert stands capable of supporting conifer species that are currently growing primarily 

hardwoods or shrubs to a mix of conifer and hardwood species suitable to the site. 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status Species. 

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine species persistence and regeneration. 

o Produce complex early-successional ecosystems. 

o Reset stand development in overly dense stands that would not respond well to 

commercial thinning. 

 In each regeneration harvest unit, retain 15–30 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live 

trees. Retain trees in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees. Include among retained trees all trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM 

identifies were established prior to 1850, except where falling is necessary for safety or 

operational reasons and no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or 

practically feasible. If such trees need to be cut for safety or operational reasons, retain cut 

trees in the stand. The BLM identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on 

any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, 

or increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

 After regeneration harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration or both to reforest a mixture 

of species appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 130 trees per acre within 

5 years of harvest. 

 Conduct commercial thinning for any of the following reasons: 

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity. 

o Adjust stand composition or dominance. 

 

20 For the purpose of management direction for the Harvest Land Base – Low Intensity Timber Area, regeneration 

harvest does not include timber salvage, which has separate management direction. 
Resource Management Plan 

65 | P a g e

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation. 

o Improve stand merchantability and value. 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity. 

o Create growing space for the creation or augmentation of Bureau Special Status plant 

populations. 

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration. 

 Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning to promote stand vigor and health, as 

specified below: 

o Conduct thinning to result in a stand average relative density between 25 percent and 45 

percent after harvest. 

o Leave untreated areas (skips) and create group selection openings21 to provide structural 

complexity in the post-treatment stand. Leave at least 5 percent of the planned harvest 

unit in untreated areas. Do not exceed 10 percent of the planned harvest unit in group 

selection openings. 

o Include among retained trees all trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM 

identifies were established prior to 1850, except where falling is necessary for safety or 

operational reasons and no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or 

practically feasible. If such trees need to be cut for safety or operational reasons, retain 

cut trees in the stand. The BLM identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be 

based on any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown 

characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

 Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbance events to recover economic value and to 

minimize commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees where the BLM determines that 

removal is economically viable. 

o In timber salvage harvest units, retain at least 15 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in 

live trees or snags in individual harvest units. Retain trees and snags in a variety of spatial 

patterns, including aggregated groups and individual trees. 

o After salvage harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration or both to reforest a mixture of 

species appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 130 trees per acre 

(including surviving trees) within 5 years of harvest. 

 For areas without timber salvage harvest after disturbance events, use natural or artificial 

regeneration or both to reforest a mixture of species appropriate to the site to a stand-level 

average of at least 130 trees per acre (including surviving trees) within 10 years of the 

disturbance event, to the extent practicable given safety and operational constraints. 

 Where trees are cut for right-of-way permits, retain cut trees in adjacent stands as down 

woody material, move cut trees for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or sell 

trees to the right-of-way permittee, at the discretion of the BLM and consistent with valid 

existing rights. For any trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM identifies were 

established prior to 1850, retain cut trees in the adjacent stand as down woody material. The 

BLM identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of 

methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment 

coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

 

21 Group selection openings are defined as areas with ≤ 2 live trees ≥ 7” DBH per acre. Roads, landings, yarding 

corridors, and skid trails do not count as group selection openings. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

66 | P a g e

Harvest Land Base – Moderate Intensity Timber Area (MITA) 

Management Objectives 

 See Harvest Land Base management objectives. 

 Provide complex early-successional ecosystems. 

 Develop diverse late-successional ecosystems for a portion of the rotation. 

 Provide a variety of forest structural stages distributed both temporally and spatially. 

Management Direction 

 See Harvest Land Base management direction.

 Conduct regeneration harvest22 for any of the following reasons: 

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity. 

o Adjust the age class distribution in the MITA in each sustained-yield unit. 

o Manage insect and disease infestations. 

o Convert stands capable of supporting conifer species that are currently growing primarily 

hardwoods or shrubs to a mix of conifer and hardwood species suitable to the site. 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status Species. 

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine species persistence and regeneration. 

o Produce complex early-successional ecosystems. 

o Reset stand development in overly dense stands that would not respond well to 

commercial thinning. 

 In each regeneration harvest unit, retain 5–15 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live 

trees. Retain trees in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees. Include among retained trees all trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM 

identifies were established prior to 1850, except where falling is necessary for safety or 

operational reasons and no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or 

practically feasible. If such trees need to be cut for safety or operational reasons, retain cut 

trees in the stand. The BLM identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on 

any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, 

or increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

 After regeneration harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration or both to reforest a mixture 

of species appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 150 trees per acre within 

5 years of harvest. 

 Conduct commercial thinning for any of the following reasons: 

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity. 

o Adjust stand composition or dominance. 

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation. 

o Improve stand merchantability and value. 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity. 

 

22 For the purpose of management direction for the Harvest Land Base – Moderate Intensity Timber Area, 

regeneration harvest does not include timber salvage, which has separate management direction. 
Resource Management Plan 

67 | P a g e

o Create growing space for the creation or augmentation of Bureau Special Status plant 

populations. 

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration. 

 Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning to promote stand vigor and health, as 

specified below: 

o Conduct thinning to result in stand average relative density between 25 percent and 45 

percent after harvest. 

o Leave untreated areas (skips) and create group selection openings to provide structural 

complexity in the post-treatment stand. Leave at least 5 percent of the planned harvest 

unit in untreated areas. Do not exceed 10 percent of the planned harvest unit in group 

selection openings. 

o Include among retained trees all trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM 

identifies were established prior to 1850, except where falling is necessary for safety or 

operational reasons and no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or 

practically feasible. If such trees need to be cut for safety or operational reasons, retain 

cut trees in the stand. The BLM identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be 

based on any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown 

characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

 Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbance events to recover economic value and to 

minimize commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees where the BLM determines that 

removal is economically viable. 

o In timber salvage harvest units, retain at least 5 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in 

live trees or snags in individual harvest units. Retain trees and snags in a variety of spatial 

patterns, including aggregated groups and individual trees. 

o After salvage harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration or both to reforest a mixture of 

species appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 150 trees per acre 

(including surviving trees) within 5 years of harvest. 

 For areas without timber salvage harvest after disturbance events, use natural or artificial 

regeneration or both 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 practicable given safety and operational constraints. 

 Where trees are cut for right-of-way permits, retain cut trees in adjacent stands as down 

woody material, move cut trees for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or sell 

trees to the right-of-way permittee, at the discretion of the BLM and consistent with valid 

existing rights. For any trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM identifies were 

established prior to 1850, retain cut trees in the adjacent stand as down woody material. The 

BLM identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of 

methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment 

coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

Harvest Land Base – Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA) 

Management Objectives 

 See Harvest Land Base management objectives. 

 Increase diversity of stocking levels and size classes within and among the stands.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

68 | P a g e

Management Direction 

 See Harvest Land Base management direction.

 Utilize integrated vegetation management23 in designing and implementing treatments. 

Conduct integrated vegetation management for any of the following reasons: 

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity. 

o Promote the development and retention of large, open grown trees and multi-cohort 

stands. 

o Develop diverse understory plant communities. 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status Species. 

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity and heterogeneity. 

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration. 

o Create and maintain areas for hardwood and shrub dominance. 

o Adjust stand composition or dominance. 

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation. 

 In forest stands ≥ 10 acres treated with selection harvest or commercial thinning, harvest to 

result in stand average relative density between 20 percent and 45 percent after harvest. 

o Do not create group selection openings more than 4 acres in size. 

o Do not create group selection openings on more than 30 percent of the stand area. 

o Leave untreated areas (skips) on at least 10 percent of the stand area. 

 When regenerating group selection openings created from selection harvest or commercial 

thinning, use natural or artificial regeneration or both to reforest a mixture of species 

appropriate to the site to an average density across the opening of at least 150 trees per acre 

within 5 years of harvest. 

 When treating stands with integrated vegetation management, retain dominant Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) and pine (Pinus spp.) trees that are both ≥ 36” DBH and that the 

BLM identifies were established prior to 1850 and madrone (Arbutus menziesii), bigleaf 

maple (Acer macrophyllum), and oak (Quercus spp.) trees > 24” DBH, except where falling 

is necessary for safety or operational reasons and no alternative harvesting method is 

economically viable or practically feasible. If such trees need to be cut for safety or 

operational reasons, retain cut trees in the stand. 

o The BLM identification of Douglas-fir and pine trees established prior to 1850 may be 

based on any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown 

characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

o Protect and develop these retained trees by reducing competition to improve vigor and 

resistance to fire, drought, disease, and other disturbances and removing adjacent fuels to 

reduce risk of fire-related mortality. 

 

23 Integrated vegetation management includes the use of a combination of silvicultural or other vegetation 

treatments, fire and fuels management activities, harvest methods, and restoration activities. Activities include, but 

are not limited to, vegetation control, planting, snag creation, prescribed fire, biomass removal, thinning, single tree 

selection harvest, and group selection harvest. For the purpose of management direction for the Harvest Land Base –

Uneven-aged Timber Area, integrated vegetation management does not include timber salvage, which has separate 

management direction. 
Resource Management Plan 

69 | P a g e

 Apply prescribed fire for any of the following reasons: 

o Promote the development and retention of large, open-grown trees and multi-cohort 

stands. 

o Develop diverse understory plant communities. 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status Species. 

o Promote or enhance the development of stand structural complexity and heterogeneity. 

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration. 

o Create and maintain areas for hardwood and shrub dominance. 

o Adjust stand composition or dominance. 

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation. 

 Treat fuels to improve, enhance, or maintain landscape and ecosystem resilience. Identify 

sites for fuels treatments based on risk of large-scale, high-intensity/high-severity fire, 

operationally strategic locations, or proximity to highly valued resources and assets. 

 Modify fuel loading to produce fire behavior and fire effects representative of the natural fire 

regime. Implement interim fuels treatments (e.g., hand pile and burn) in areas that are highly 

departed from natural conditions in order to facilitate prescribed fire in the future. 

 Implement prescribed fire in low/mixed severity or high-frequency fire regimes to emulate 

historic fire function and processes. Apply prescribed fire across the landscape to create a 

mosaic of spatial and temporal stand conditions and patterning (appropriate to the fire 

regime). 

 Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbance events to recover economic value and to 

minimize commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees where the BLM determines that 

removal is economically viable. 

o In timber salvage harvest units, retain at least 5 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in 

live trees or snags in individual harvest units. Retain trees and snags in a variety of spatial 

patterns, including aggregated groups and individual trees. 

o After salvage harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration or both to reforest a mixture of 

species appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 150 trees per acre 

(including surviving trees) within 5 years of harvest. 

 For areas without timber salvage harvest after disturbance events, use natural or artificial 

regeneration or both 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 practicable given safety and operational constraints. 

 Where trees are cut for yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, maintenance, and 

improvement, retain cut trees in adjacent stands as down woody material, move cut trees for 

placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or sell trees, at the discretion of the BLM. 

For Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and pine (Pinus spp.) trees that are ≥ 36” DBH and 

were established prior to 1850 and madrone (Arbutus menziesii), bigleaf maple (Acer 

macrophyllum), and oak (Quercus spp.) trees > 24” DBH, retain cut trees in the adjacent 

stand as down woody material. The BLM identification of Douglas-fir and pine trees 

established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of 

bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

 Where trees are cut for right-of-way permits, retain cut trees in adjacent stands as down 

woody material, move cut trees for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or sell 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

70 | P a g e

trees to the right-of-way permittee, at the discretion of the BLM and consistent with valid 

existing rights. For Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and pine (Pinus spp.) trees that are ≥ 

36” DBH and were established prior to 1850 and madrone (Arbutus menziesii), bigleaf maple 

(Acer macrophyllum), and oak (Quercus spp.) trees > 24” DBH, retain cut trees in the 

adjacent stand as down woody material. The BLM identification of Douglas-fir and pine 

trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of methods, such as 

evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment coring, at the 

discretion of the BLM. 

Late-Successional Reserve 

Management Objectives 

 Maintain24 nesting-roosting habitat for the northern spotted owl and nesting habitat for the 

marbled murrelet. 

 Promote the development of nesting-roosting habitat for the northern spotted owl in stands 

that do not currently support northern spotted owl nesting and roosting. 

 Promote the development of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet in stands that do not 

currently meet nesting habitat criteria. 

 Promote the development and maintenance of foraging habitat for the northern spotted owl, 

including creating and maintaining habitat to increase diversity and abundance of prey for the 

northern spotted owl. 

Management Direction 

 Manage for large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat that support clusters 

of reproducing spotted owls, are distributed across the variety of ecological conditions, and 

are spaced to facilitate the movement and survival of spotted owls dispersing between and 

through the blocks. 

 

24 Maintain northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat refers to a silvicultural activity that changes a conifer 

forest stand but maintains structural characteristics such that the stand continues to support the same northern 

spotted owl life history requirements: nesting-roosting habitat continues to support northern spotted owl nestingroosting. Scientific findings support the idea that conifer forest stands can be altered in a manner that does not 

necessarily change their use by northern spotted owls (see the summary in the Revised Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl, USDI FWS 2011, p. III-15). Although structural characteristics vary across the northern 

spotted owl’s range, northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat generally is characterized by conifer stands with a 

multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by large (> 30” DBH) conifer overstory trees, and an understory of 

shade-tolerant conifers or hardwoods, ≥ 60 percent canopy cover, substantial decadence in the form of large, live 

conifer trees with deformities (such as cavities, broken tops, and dwarf mistletoe infections; numerous large snags), 

ground cover characterized by large accumulations of logs and other woody debris, and a canopy that is open 

enough to allow northern spotted owls to fly within and beneath it. Activities needed to protect the overall health of 

the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction and insect and disease control, and wildfire management 

actions/activities may occur even if they downgrade or remove northern spotted owl habitat. 

Maintain marbled murrelet habitat refers to a silvicultural activity that changes a conifer forest stand but 

maintains structural characteristics such that the stand continues to support marbled murrelet nesting opportunities.

Activities needed to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction and insect and 

disease control, and wildfire management actions/activities may occur even if they remove marbled murrelet habitat.
Resource Management Plan 

71 | P a g e

 In stands that are currently northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat, maintain nestingroosting habitat function, regardless of northern spotted owl occupancy. 

 Protect25 stands of older, structurally-complex conifer forest. Such stands are a subset of, and 

represent the highest value, northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat. 

 Undertake activities such as individual tree removal, including the felling of hazard trees and 

stream logs, and the construction of linear and non-linear rights-of-way or other facilities, 

including communication sites, as long as northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat 

continues to support northern spotted owl nesting and roosting at the stand level, and 

northern spotted owl dispersal habitat continues to support northern spotted owl movement 

and survival at the landscape level. 

 Protect marbled murrelet occupied stands. In this context, protect marbled murrelet 

occupied stands means to prohibit activities in the occupied stand except for the following: 

felling of live or dead hazard trees, felling and removal of trees for habitat restoration, and 

the construction or maintenance of linear and nonlinear rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding 

corridors or other facilities, as long as the occupied stand continues to support marbled 

murrelet nesting. Implement wildfire management actions and activities needed to protect the 

overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction and insect and disease 

control, as long as the occupied stand continues to support marbled murrelet nesting. 

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing—

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length 

except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH cut for 

safety or operational reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety 

hazard as down woody material. 

 Cut or tip individual live trees and move for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration. 

 Do not conduct timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep 

roads and other infrastructure clear of debris. 

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Such logs 

may be retained as down woody material, moved for placement in streams for fish habitat 

restoration, or removed through a commercial harvest or special forest products sale. 

 Where trees are cut for yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, maintenance, and 

improvement, retain cut trees in adjacent stands as down woody material, move cut trees for 

placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or sell trees, at the discretion of the BLM. 

For any trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM identifies were established prior to 

1850, retain cut trees in the adjacent stand as down woody material. The BLM identification 

of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of methods, such as 

 

25 Protect older, structurally-complex conifer forest means to prohibit harvesting activities in a conifer forest 

stand except as provided in this definition. Harvesting activities are limited to the following: felling of live or dead 

hazard trees and logs for streams, the construction, modification, maintenance and removal of linear and nonlinear 

rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding corridors or other facilities, as long as the forest stand continues to support the 

same northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet life history requirements: nesting-roosting habitat continues to 

support northern spotted owl nesting-roosting; dispersal habitat continues to support northern spotted owl movement 

and survival; and marbled murrelet nesting habitat continues to support marbled murrelet nesting. Activities needed 

to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction and insect and disease control, 

and wildfire management actions/activities may occur even if they downgrade or remove northern spotted owl 

habitat or remove marbled murrelet habitat. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

72 | P a g e

evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment coring, at the 

discretion of the BLM. 

 Where trees are cut for right-of-way permits, retain cut trees in adjacent stands as down 

woody material, move cut trees for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or sell 

trees to the right-of-way permittee, at the discretion of the BLM and consistent with valid 

existing rights. For any trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM identifies were 

established prior to 1850, retain cut trees in the adjacent stand as down woody material. The 

BLM identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of 

methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment 

coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

 In stands that are not northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat, apply silvicultural 

treatments to speed the development of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat or 

improve the quality of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat in the stand or in the 

adjacent stand in the long term. Limit such silvicultural treatments (other than forest 

pathogen treatments) to those that do not preclude or delay by 20 years or more the 

development of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat in the stand and in adjacent 

stands, as compared to development without treatment. Allow silvicultural treatments that do 

not meet the above criteria if needed to treat infestations or reduce the spread of forest 

pathogens. 

 Utilize integrated vegetation management26 in designing and implementing treatments. 

Conduct integrated vegetation management for any of the following reasons: 

o Promote the development and retention of large, open grown trees and multi-cohort 

stands. 

o Develop diverse understory plant communities. 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status species. 

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity and heterogeneity. 

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration. 

o Create and maintain areas for hardwood and shrub dominance. 

o Adjust stand composition or dominance. 

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation. 

 In stands ≥ 10 acres treated with selection harvest or commercial thinning, 

o Conduct harvest to result in stand average relative density percent between 20 percent 

and 45 percent after harvest. 

o Do not create group selection openings27 more than 4 acres in size. 

o Do not create group selection openings on more than 25 percent of the stand area. 

o Leave untreated skips on at least 10 percent of the stand area. 

 In stands < 10 acres treated with selection harvest or commercial thinning, do not create 

group selection openings more than 2.5 acres in size. 

 

26 Integrated vegetation management includes the use of a combination of silvicultural or other vegetation 

treatments, fire and fuels management activities, harvest methods, and restoration activities. Activities include but 

are not limited to vegetation control, planting, snag creation, prescribed fire, thinning, single tree selection harvest, 

and group selection harvest. 

27 Group selection openings are defined as areas with ≤ 2 live trees ≥ 7” DBH per acre. Roads, landings, yarding 

corridors, and skid trails do not count as group selection openings. 
Resource Management Plan 

73 | P a g e

 Use natural or artificial regeneration or both to reforest group selection openings created 

from selection harvest or commercial thinning with a mixture of species appropriate to the 

site to an average density across the group selection openings of at least 75 trees per acre 

within 5 years of harvest. 

 When conducting commercial harvest, , in stands with less than 64 snags per acre > 10” DBH 

and less than 19 snags per acre > 20” DBH on average across the harvest unit, create new 

snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding 

the timber in the timber sale. If insufficient trees are available in the size class specified, use 

trees from the largest size class available. Meet snag creation levels as an average at the scale 

of the harvest unit; snag creation levels need not be attained on every acre. When creating the 

required number of snags, locate them according to the following criteria: 

o Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees. 

o Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 

and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit. 

o Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. 

Table 4. Snag creation levels within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve. 

District/

Field Office Province

Snags/Acre

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Klamath Falls All 2 5 7

Medford All 1 1 2

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 6 7 13

Western Cascades 6 25 31

Klamath 1 1 2

 When conducting fuels reduction or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material 

at levels specified in Table 5 post-treatment. Meet down wood levels as an average at the 

scale of the treatment area following the treatment; down wood levels need not be attained on 

every acre. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

74 | P a g e

Table 5. Down woody material retention levels when implementing fuels reduction or prescribed 

fire treatments within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve. 

District/

Field Office Province Down Wood 

Percent Cover*

Klamath Falls All 3%

Medford All 2%

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath 2%

* Percent cover of down wood > 4” diameter.

Late-Successional Reserve – Dry 

Management Objectives 

 See Late-Successional Reserve management objectives.

 Enable forests to: (1) recover from past management measures, (2) respond positively to 

climate-driven stresses, wildfire and other disturbance with resilience, (3) ensure positive or 

neutral ecological impacts from wildfire, and (4) contribute to northern spotted owl recovery. 

 Reduce the risk of loss of key late-successional structure through the development of vertical 

and horizontal heterogeneity. 

 Increase diversity of stocking levels and size classes within the stand and the landscape. 

Management Direction 

 See Late-Successional Reserve management direction.

 Apply selection harvest or commercial thinning treatments to at least 4,500 acres per decade 

in the South River Field Office of Roseburg District. 

 Apply selection harvest or commercial thinning treatments to at least 17,000 acres per decade 

in the Medford District. 

 When treating stands with integrated vegetation management, retain dominant Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) and pine (Pinus spp.) trees that are ≥ 36” DBH and were established 

prior to 1850 and madrone (Arbutus menziesii), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and oak 

(Quercus spp.) trees > 24” DBH, except where falling is necessary for safety or operational 

reasons. If such trees need to be cut for safety or operational reasons, retain cut trees in the 

stand. 

o The BLM identification of Douglas-fir and pine trees established prior to 1850 may be 

based on any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown 

characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

o Protect and develop these retained trees by reducing competition to improve vigor and 

resistance to fire, drought, disease, and other disturbances and removing adjacent fuels to 

reduce risk of fire related mortality. 

 Treat fuels to improve, enhance, or maintain landscape and ecosystem resilience. Identify 

sites for fuels treatments based on risk of large-scale high-intensity/high-severity fire, 

operationally strategic locations, or proximity to highly valued resources and assets. 
Resource Management Plan 

75 | P a g e

 Modify fuel beds to produce characteristic fire behavior and fire effects representative of the 

fire regime. Implement interim fuels treatments (e.g., hand pile and burn) in areas that are 

highly departed from natural conditions in order to facilitate prescribed fire in the future. 

 Apply prescribed fire in low/mixed severity or high-frequency fire regimes to emulate 

historic fire function and processes. Apply prescribed fire across the landscape to create a 

mosaic of spatial and temporal stand conditions and patterning (appropriate to the fire 

regime). Based on site-specific considerations, take measures to prevent and control fire 

regime altering species. 

 Apply prescribed fire and mechanical or hand fuels treatments to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. Apply maintenance treatments at appropriate intervals to retain or 

improve fire-resilient conditions. 

Riparian Reserve (West of Highway 97) 

Management Objectives 

 Contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed fish species and their habitats and 

provide for conservation of Bureau Special Status fish and other Bureau Special Status 

riparian-associated species. 

 Maintain and restore natural channel dynamics, processes, and the proper functioning 

condition of riparian areas, stream channels, and wetlands by providing forest shade, 

sediment filtering, wood recruitment, stream bank and channel stability, water storage and 

release, vegetation diversity, nutrient cycling, and cool and moist microclimates. 

 Maintain water quality and streamflows within the range of natural variability, to protect 

aquatic biodiversity, provide quality water for contact recreation and drinking water sources. 

 Meet Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) water quality criteria. 

 Maintain high quality water and contribute to the restoration of degraded water quality for 

303(d)-listed streams.

 Maintain high quality waters within ODEQ-designated Source Water Protection watersheds. 

Management Direction 

 Prohibit timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep roads and 

other infrastructure clear of debris. 

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown from roads 

and facilities. Retain such logs as down woody material within adjacent stands or move for 

placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, unless removal of logs, including through 

commercial harvest, is necessary to maintain access to roads and facilities. 

 Allow yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, stream crossings, and road 

maintenance and improvement where there is no operationally feasible and economically 

viable alternative to accomplish other resource management objectives. 

 Where trees are cut for yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, maintenance, and 

improvement in the Inner Zone or Middle Zone, retain cut trees in adjacent stands as down 

woody material or move cut trees for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, at the 

discretion of the BLM. Where trees are cut for yarding corridors, skid trails, road 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

76 | P a g e

construction, maintenance, and improvement in the Outer Zone or in Riparian Reserves 

associated with features other than streams, retain cut trees in adjacent stands as down woody 

material, move cut trees for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or sell trees, at 

the discretion of the BLM. For any trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM 

identifies were established prior to 1850, retain cut trees in the adjacent stand as down woody 

material. The BLM identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a 

variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or 

increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM. 

 Where trees are cut for right-of-way permits in the Inner Zone or Middle Zone, retain cut 

trees in adjacent stands as down woody material, move cut trees for placement in streams for 

fish habitat restoration, or treat as necessary for fuels reduction (including selling trees to the 

right-of-way permittee if necessary for fuels reduction), at the discretion of the BLM and 

consistent with valid existing rights. Where trees are cut for right-of-way permits in the Outer 

Zone, retain cut trees in adjacent stands as down woody material, move cut trees for 

placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or sell trees to the right-of-way permittee, at 

the discretion of the BLM and consistent with valid existing rights. For any trees that are 

both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM identifies were established prior to 1850, retain cut trees 

in the adjacent stand as down woody material. The BLM identification of trees established 

prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, 

trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM. Use sitespecific BMPs (Appendix C) to maintain water quality during land management actions, 

including discretionary actions of others crossing BLM-administered lands. 

 In new recreational developments, install sanitation systems that maintain water quality (e.g., 

sealed vault or similar). 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery for timber harvest within 50 feet of streams (slope 

distance), except where machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or 

where equipment entry into the 50-foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment 

delivery into the stream. 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery for timber harvest on slopes > 35 percent. 

Mechanical equipment with tracks (e.g., excavators, loaders, forwarders, and harvesters) may 

be used on short pitch slopes of greater than 35 percent but less than 45 percent when 

necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length determined on a site-specific basis, 

generally less than 50 feet (slope distance)). 

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing—

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length 

except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH cut for 

safety or operational reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety 

hazard as down woody material. 

 Cut or tip individual live trees and move for fish habitat restoration. 

 Cut or tip individual live trees directly into the stream channel for fish habitat restoration. 

 Tree tipping: When conducting commercial thinning28 in any portion of the Outer Zone in a 

stand in all watershed classes, cut or tip from 0 to 15 square feet of basal area per acre of live 

 

28 In the context of management direction for the Riparian Reserve, commercial thinning means stand thinning in 

which any of the cut trees are removed from the stand for timber volume. Commercial thinning in this context does 
Resource Management Plan 

77 | P a g e

trees, averaged across the Riparian Reserve portion of the treated stand. Leave cut or tipped 

trees on site or yard, deck, and make cut or tipped trees available for fish habitat restoration. 

The cut or tipped trees can be of any size and come from any zone. 

 Promote beaver habitat restoration where the presence of beaver and their associated dams 

would improve fish and aquatic habitat. 

 Along ponds and wetlands < 1 acre and constructed water impoundments of any size, treat 

vegetation as needed for habitat restoration, access, or safety. 

 For constructed water impoundments and constructed ponds: 

o Follow inspection guidelines for BLM infrastructure (e.g., dams and spillway structures), 

and implement maintenance and repair as needed. 

o Dredge constructed water impoundments as necessary to maintain capacity. 

o Maintain vegetation, access, and plumbing associated with sources of water for fire 

management purposes for all types of firefighting equipment (e.g., engines, aircraft, and 

tenders). 

Table 6. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature. 

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance*

Fish-bearing streams and perennial 

streams

One site-potential tree height distance from the ordinary high 

water line or from the outer edge of the channel migration zone 

for low-gradient alluvial shifting channels, whichever is greatest, 

on each side of a stream

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Class I and II subwatersheds: One site-potential tree height 

distance from the ordinary high water line on each side of a 

stream

Class III subwatersheds: 50 feet from the ordinary high water 

line on each side of a stream

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as 

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails

The extent of the unstable area; where there is a stable area 

between such an unstable area and a stream, and the unstable 

area has the potential to deliver material such as sediment and 

logs to the stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the stream 

to include the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area

Lakes, natural ponds and reservoirs > 

1 acre, and wetlands > 1 acre 100 feet extending from the ordinary high water line

Natural ponds < 1 acre, wetlands < 1 

acre (including seeps and springs), 

and constructed water impoundments

(e.g., canal ditches and pump chances)

of any size

25 feet extending from the ordinary high water line

* Reported distances are measured as slope distance 

 

not include individual tree cutting or tipping or stand thinning in which all of the cut trees are left in the stand for 

restoration purposes, or fuels reduction treatments in which cut trees are burned, chipped, or otherwise disposed of 

without removal from the stand for timber. Commercial thinning may be implemented through a variety of 

mechanisms, including timber sale contracts, stewardship agreements, or other types of contracts. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

78 | P a g e

Riparian Reserve – Moist 

Management Objectives 

 See Riparian Reserve (West of Highway 97) management objectives. 

Management Direction 

 See Riparian Reserve (West of Highway 97) management direction.

Table 7. Riparian Reserve – Moist zone-specific management direction for streams in Class I 

subwatersheds. 

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Individual tree cutting or tipping for restoration or to meet the tree-tipping management 

direction associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable 

wood in the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for 

sale.

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation 

amounts would be met as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation—

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met 

with trees from any species.

 Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 

and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Inner Zone (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Individual tree cutting or tipping for restoration or to meet the tree-tipping management 

direction associated with outer zone commercial thinning
Resource Management Plan 

79 | P a g e

Middle Zone (50–120 feet)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable 

wood in the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Remove cut or tipped trees only as needed for safety or operational reasons, or to meet the treetipping management direction described above.

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable 

wood in the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for 

sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation 

amounts would be met as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation—

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met 

with trees from any species.

 Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 

and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit.

Table 8. Riparian Reserve – Moist zone-specific management direction for streams in Class II 

subwatersheds. 

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Individual tree cutting or tipping for restoration or to meet the tree-tipping management 

direction associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered 

canopies and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

80 | P a g e

hardwood vigor and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian 

species and develop structurally-complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 

60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for 

sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation 

amounts would be met as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met 

with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags and 

retain as down woody material within the harvest unit.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Inner Zone (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Individual tree cutting or tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management 

direction associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Outer Zone (50 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered 

canopies and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for 

hardwood vigor and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian 

species and develop structurally-complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 

60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for 

sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation 

amounts would be met as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation:
Resource Management Plan 

81 | P a g e

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met 

with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags and 

retain as down woody material within the harvest unit.

Table 9. Riparian Reserve – Moist zone-specific management direction for streams in Class III 

subwatersheds. 

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Individual tree cutting or tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management 

direction associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered 

canopies and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for 

hardwood vigor and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian 

species and develop structurally-complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 

60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for 

sale.

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation 

amounts would be met as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met 

with trees from any species.

 Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

82 | P a g e

and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Individual tree cutting or tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management 

direction associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Riparian Reserve – Dry 

Management Objectives 

 See Riparian Reserve (West of Highway 97) management objectives.

Management Direction 

 See Riparian Reserve (West of Highway 97) management direction.

 In all subwatershed classes: 

o Apply low or moderate-severity prescribed burns where needed to invigorate native 

deciduous tree species. Moderate severity prescribed burns will be limited to no more 

than 20 percent of area of Riparian Reserve subwatershed (HUC 12) each year. 

o Apply non-commercial tree thinning to adjust fuel loads as necessary to achieve desired 

fire effects prior to prescribed burning. 

 When conducting fuels or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels 

specified in Table 5. Down woody material retention standards would be met as an average 

at the scale of the treatment area, and is not intended to be attained on every acre.

Table 10. Riparian Reserve – Dry zone-specific management direction for streams in Class I 

subwatersheds. 

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Fuels treatments as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing crown fires; do not 

conduct fuels treatments within 60 feet of fish-bearing or perennial streams. Retain at least 

50 percent canopy cover per acre. Do not cut trees > 12” DBH.

 As described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual tree 

cutting/tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated 

with outer zone commercial thinning

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable 

wood in the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.
Resource Management Plan 

83 | P a g e

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre, expressed as 

an average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Make available for sale the merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments.

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Meet the snag 

creation amounts as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian 

Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Use trees from any species to 

meet snag creation levels.

 Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 

and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Inner Zone (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Fuels treatments as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing crown fires. Retain at least 

50 percent canopy cover per acre. Do not cut trees > 12” DBH.

 As described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual tree 

cutting/tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated 

with outer zone commercial thinning.

Middle Zone (50–120 feet)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable 

wood in the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Remove cut or tipped trees as needed for safety or operational reasons, to reduce the risk of 

stand-replacing, crown fires, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction described above. 

Merchantable timber from thinning, fuels reduction, and other silvicultural treatments that must 

be removed for safety or operational reasons, to reduce the risk of stand-replacing, crown fires,

or to meet the tree-tipping management direction described above may be made available for 

sale.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

84 | P a g e

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable 

wood in the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for 

sale.

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation 

amounts would be met as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation—

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate 

skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees 

from any species.

 Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 

and retain as down woody material.

Table 11. Riparian Reserve – Dry zone-specific management direction for streams in Class II 

subwatersheds.

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Fuels treatments as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing crown fires; do not 

conduct fuels treatments within 60 feet of fish-bearing or perennial streams. Retain at least 

50 percent canopy cover per acre. Do not cut trees > 12” DBH.

 As described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual tree 

cutting/tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated 

with outer zone commercial thinning.

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered 

canopies and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for 
Resource Management Plan 

85 | P a g e

hardwood vigor and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian 

species and develop structurally-complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 

60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for 

sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation 

amounts would be met as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met 

with trees from any species.

 Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 

and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Inner Zone (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Fuels treatments as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing crown fires. Retain at least 

50 percent canopy cover per acre. Do not cut trees > 12” DBH.

 As described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual tree 

cutting/tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated 

with outer zone commercial thinning.

Outer Zone (50 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered 

canopies and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for 

hardwood vigor and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian 

species and develop structurally-complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 

60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of stand-
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

86 | P a g e

replacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for 

sale.

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation 

amounts would be met as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met 

with trees from any species.

 Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 

and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit.

Table 12. Riparian Reserve – Dry zone-specific management direction for streams in Class III 

subwatersheds. 

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Fuels treatments as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing crown fires; do not 

conduct fuels treatments within 60 feet of fish-bearing or perennial streams. Retain at least 

50 percent canopy cover per acre. Do not cut trees > 12” DBH.

 As described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual tree 

cutting/tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated 

with outer zone commercial thinning.

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered 

canopies and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for 

hardwood vigor and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian 

species and develop structurally-complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 

60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 
Resource Management Plan 

87 | P a g e

an average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for 

sale.

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in 

Table 4 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation 

amounts would be met as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the 

Riparian Reserve, and need not be attained on every acre. For implementation—

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently 

anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met 

with trees from any species.

 Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will 

remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags 

beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after 

harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags 

and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Fuels treatments as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing crown fires. Retain at least 

50 percent canopy cover per acre. Do not cut trees > 12” DBH.

 As described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual tree 

cutting/tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated 

with outer zone commercial thinning.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

88 | P a g e

Administrative Actions 

Management Objective 

 Provide for the orderly and efficient management of resources. 

Management Direction 

 Implement administrative actions in any land use allocation to the extent consistent with land 

use allocation management direction and consistent with other applicable law (e.g., NEPA 

and ESA). Administrative actions include but are not limited to the following actions: 

o Competitive and commercial recreation activities 

o Special forest product collection permit issuance 

o Lands and realty actions (e.g., the issuance of grants, leases, and permits) 

o Trespass resolution 

o Facility maintenance 

o Facility improvements 

o Road maintenance 

o Hauling permit issuance 

o Recreation site maintenance 

o Recreation site improvement 

o Hazardous materials removal 

o Abandoned Mine Land physical closure or removal and environmental remedial actions 

o Law enforcement 

o Legal land or mineral estate ownership surveys 

o Cadastral and engineering surveys 

o Field visits for the design of projects (including clearance inventories) and contract 

administration 

o Tree sampling (including using the 3P fall, buck, and scale sampling method) 

o Project implementation monitoring and plan effectiveness monitoring 

o Incidental live or dead tree removal for safety or operational reasons 

o Wildlife, fisheries, or plant community population survey or monitoring 
Resource Management Plan 

89 | P a g e

Resource Programs 

Air Quality 

Management Objectives 

 Protect air quality related values in Federal mandatory Class I areas.

 Prevent exceedances of National, State, or local ambient air quality standards. 

Management Direction 

 Comply with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan when implementing prescribed burning 

activities. 

 Use BMPs (Appendix C) to reduce dust from unpaved road surfaces during extended 

management operations, such as timber sales and wildfire management actions/activities. 

Example practices include applying dust suppressants. 

 Follow State Implementation Plan requirements for activities that could negatively affect the 

status of air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas. 

Cultural Resources 

Management Objectives

 Preserve and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for 

appropriate uses by present and future generations. 

 Reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused 

deterioration or potential conflict with other resources by ensuring that all authorizations for 

land and resource use comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Management Direction 

 Evaluate all documented cultural resources for National Register of Historic Places 

eligibility. For all sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places, protect sites through avoidance or other protection measures.

 Conduct public education and outreach activities, and develop materials in order to educate 

and interpret for the public the cultural and historic resources within the decision area.

 Assign all cultural resources into one of the use allocations in Table 13.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

90 | P a g e

Table 13. Cultural use allocations with desired outcomes and management actions. 

Use Allocation Desired Outcome Management Action

Scientific use Preserved until research 

potential is realized

Permit appropriate research 

including data recovery

Conservation for future use Preserved until conditions for 

use are met

Propose protection 

measures/designations

Traditional use Long-term preservation Consult with Tribes; 

determine limitations

Public use Long-term preservation, onsite interpretation

Determine limitations, 

permitted uses

Experimental use Protected until used Determine nature of 

experiments

Discharged from management No use after recordation, not 

preserved Remove protective measures

Fire, Fuels, and Wildfire Response 

Management Objectives 

 Respond to wildfires in a manner that provides for public and firefighter safety while meeting 

land management objectives by utilizing the full range of fire management options. 

 Fire management strategies would be risk-based decisions that consider firefighter and public 

safety, values at risk, management objectives, and costs that are commensurate with the 

identified risk. 

 Actively manage the land to restore and maintain resilience of ecosystems to wildfire and 

decrease the risk of uncharacteristic, large, high-intensity/high-severity wildfires. 

 Manage fuels to reduce wildfire hazard, risk, and negative impacts to communities and 

infrastructure, landscapes, ecosystems, and highly valued resources. 

 Manage fire, fuels, and wildfire response consistent with the National Cohesive Wildland 

Fire Management Strategy. 

 Participate with communities bordering Federal lands in partnership with local, State, and 

Federal stakeholders to reduce the risks and threats from wildland fire. 

Management Direction 

 Take immediate action to suppress all unplanned human-caused ignitions at the lowest cost 

commensurate with the protection of firefighter and public safety and welfare, and resulting 

in the fewest negative consequences to natural and cultural resources. 

 Allow application of the full range of fire management options in responding to natural 

ignitions or escaped prescribed fires. These fires may be used to achieve management 

objectives when expected fire behavior and potential effects of a fire, or a part of a fire, are 

aligned with the management objectives and direction of the underlying land use allocation 

and affected resources. 
Resource Management Plan 

91 | P a g e

 Conduct wildfire rehabilitation and restoration actions to protect and sustain ecosystems, 

ecosystem services, public health and safety, and infrastructure adversely affected by fire 

management operations or direct fire effects. 

 Treat both management activity fuels and natural hazardous fuels for any of the following 

reasons: 

o Modify the fuel profile (e.g., raise canopy base heights or reduce surface and ladder fuels 

and crown bulk density) 

o Reduce potential fire behavior (e.g., crown fire activity, wildfire spread, and intensity) 

o Reduce potential fire severity 

o Improve effective fire management opportunities within the Wildland Urban Interface29

or in close proximity to other highly valued resources 

 Treat fuels in a way that increase intervals between future maintenance treatments. 

 Create fuel beds or fuel breaks that reduce the potential for high-intensity/high-severity fire 

spread within the wildland urban interface or in close proximity to highly valued resources. 

 Prior to applying prescribed fire, take necessary mitigation actions to reduce impacts to 

Bureau Special Status Species wildlife and plants and their habitats. 

 Conduct necessary vegetation maintenance treatments to ensure that fire management 

operations are able to access existing natural and human-made strategic infrastructure (e.g., 

communication sites, pump chances and other wildfire management actions/activities water 

sources, key road systems, containment lines, fuel breaks, and helispots). 

Fisheries

Management Objectives 

 Improve the distribution and quantity of high-quality fish habitat across the landscape for all 

life stages of ESA-listed, Bureau Special Status Species, and other fish species. 

 Maintain and restore access to stream channels for all life stages of aquatic species. 

Management Direction 

 Restore degraded spawning, rearing, and holding habitat for fish using a combination of 

accepted techniques including but not limited to log and boulder placement in stream 

channels, tree tipping, and gravel enhancement. 

 Remove or modify human-caused fish passage barriers to restore access to stream channels 

for all life stages for native aquatic species. 

 

29 The Wildland Urban Interface includes wildland developed areas. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

92 | P a g e

Forest Management

Management Objectives 

 Enhance the health, stability, growth, and vigor of forest stands. 

 In harvested or disturbed areas, ensure the establishment and survival of desirable vegetation 

appropriate to the site. 

 Facilitate safe and efficient forestry operations for the BLM, reciprocal right-of-way 

agreement holders, and permittees. 

Management Direction 

 Promote the establishment and survival of desirable vegetation through stand maintenance 

treatments. 

 Apply thinning or prescribed fire to forest stands as needed to achieve appropriate stocking 

and density levels. 

 Use genetically improved native trees for reforestation when available. 

 Fall and move live or dead trees as needed for safety or operational reasons, including, but 

not limited to, the creation of landings, yarding corridors, or skid trails within or adjacent to 

nearby harvest units, hazard tree removal, and road construction, improvement, or 

maintenance. 

 Allow road construction, maintenance, improvement, and decommissioning as well as 

construction of skid trails and yarding corridors based on operational needs and consistent 

with valid existing rights. 

 Allow management activities in density management study sites (Cissel et al. 2006) that are 

compatible with study objectives. 

Hydrology

Management Objective 

 Maintain water quality within the range of natural variability that meets ODEQ water quality 

standards for drinking water, contact recreation, and aquatic biodiversity. 

Management Direction 

 Select and implement site-level BMPs (Appendix C) to maintain water quality for BLM 

actions (including, but not limited to, road construction, road maintenance, silvicultural 

treatments, recreation management, prescribed burning, and wildfire management 

actions/activities) and discretionary actions of others crossing BLM-administered lands.

 Design culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings for a 100-year flood event, including 

allowance for bed load and anticipated floatable debris. Culverts will be of adequate width to 

preclude ponding of water higher than the top of the culvert. For streams with ESA-listed 

fish, design stream crossings to meet design standards consistent with existing ESA 

consultation documents that address stream crossings in the decision area. 
Resource Management Plan 

93 | P a g e

 Implement road improvements, storm proofing, maintenance, or decommissioning to reduce 

or eliminate chronic sediment inputs to stream channels and waterbodies. This could include 

maintaining vegetated ditch lines, improving road surfaces, and installing cross drains at 

appropriate spacing. 

 Suspend commercial road use where the road surface is deteriorating due to vehicular rutting 

or standing water, or where turbid runoff is likely to reach stream channels.

 Decommission roads that are no longer needed for resource management and are at risk of 

failure or are contributing sediment to streams, consistent with valid existing rights.

Invasive Species

Management Objectives 

 Prevent the introduction of invasive species and the spread of existing invasive species 

infestations. 

Management Direction 

 Implement measures to prevent, detect, and rapidly control new invasive species infestations. 

 Use manual, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and biological treatments to manage invasive 

species infestations. 

 Treat invasive plants and host species for invasive forest pathogens in accordance with the 

Records of Decision (RODs) for the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program 

Environmental Impact Statement and the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau 

of Land Management Lands in Oregon Environmental Impact Statement (USDI BLM 

2010b).

Lands, Realty, and Roads 

Management Objectives 

 Make land tenure adjustments to facilitate the management of resources and enhance public 

resource values. 

 Provide legal access to BLM-administered lands and facilities to support resource 

management programs. 

 Provide needed rights-of-way, permits, leases, and easements over BLM-administered lands 

in a manner that is consistent with Federal and State laws. 

 Protect lands that have important resource values or substantial levels of investment by 

withdrawing them, where necessary, from the implementation of nondiscretionary public 

land and mineral laws. 

 Provide a road transportation system that serves resource management needs 

(administrative/commercial) and casual use needs (recreational/domestic) for both BLMadministered lands and adjacent privately owned lands. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

94 | P a g e

Management Direction 

 Retain lands in Land Tenure Zone 1 (Zone 1) under BLM administration. Lands in Zone 1 

include existing and future—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic River corridors; 

o Wilderness Areas; 

o Wilderness Study Areas; 

o National Trail management corridors; 

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics 

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including Research Natural Areas and 

Outstanding Natural Areas); 

o Congressionally designated Outstanding Natural Areas; and 

o Lands acquired with Land and Water Conservation Funds. 

 Make lands in Land Tenure Zone 2 (Zone 2) available for exchange to enhance public 

resource values, improve management capabilities, or reduce the potential for land use 

conflict. Zone 2 lands consist of all lands not listed in the descriptions of the other two Land 

Tenure Zones. 

 Make lands in Land Tenure Zone 3 (Zone 3) available for disposal (identified in Appendix 

D) using appropriate disposal mechanisms. These lands include—

o Lands that are either not practical to manage, or are uneconomical to manage (because of 

their intermingled location and non-suitability for management by another Federal 

agency); 

o Survey hiatuses; and 

o Unintentional encroachments.

 Assign to Zone 3 survey hiatuses and unintentional encroachments discovered in the future. 

 Assign to Zone 3 patented lands with reversionary interests reserved by the United States that 

are relinquished back to Federal ownership. 

 Assign to Zone 3 land boundary adjustments due to river movement discovered in the future, 

which meets the disposal criteria defined in Appendix D. 

 The BLM may dispose of lands designated in Zones 2 and 3 that provide habitat for ESAlisted species, including critical habitat, only following consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service and upon a determination that such 

action is consistent with relevant law and maximizes public resource values. 

 As required by the Oregon Public Lands Transfer and Protection Act (Pub. L. 105-321), do 

not reduce through disposal, exchange, or sale the acres of O&C lands of all classifications, 

and the acres of O&C and public domain lands that are available for harvesting. 

 Acquire or dispose of lands to facilitate resource management objectives as opportunities 

occur. See the Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria section in Appendix D. 

 Make available for disposal the public domain lands in Zones 2 and 3 that have been 

classified under Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act. 

 Manage newly acquired lands for the purpose for which they were acquired or in a manner 

that is consistent with management objectives for adjacent BLM-administered lands or other 

BLM-administered lands having similar resource values. See Acquisition Criteria section in 

Appendix D. 

 Where the BLM has administrative responsibility on lands managed by other agencies, the 

BLM will administer those lands in accordance with interagency agreements. 
Resource Management Plan 

95 | P a g e

 Issue permits, as identified under the FLPMA (Section 302), for a variety of uses, such as, 

but not limited to, stockpile and storage sites and as tools to authorize unintentional trespass 

situations pending final resolution. 

 Do not issue land use authorizations for landfills or other waste disposal facilities. 

 Use land-use authorizations to resolve agricultural or occupancy trespasses, where 

appropriate. 

 Recognize existing rights-of-way, permits, leases, and easements as valid uses. 

 Limit withdrawals to the area needed and restrict only those activities needed to accomplish 

the purposes of the withdrawal. 

 Process formal land withdrawals being relinquished by the BLM or other Federal agency 

according to the procedures stated under 43 CFR 2372. If the lands are found suitable for 

return to the public domain, the revocation order will recommend the management 

prescriptions developed in the environmental review. Manage the lands according to 

management prescriptions for those lands having the same or similar resource values in the 

same general area of the land withdrawal. 

 Right-of-way exclusion areas include (see Map D-1)—

o Lands designated as Wilderness; 

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics; 

o Wilderness Study Areas; 

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as Wild; and 

o Visual Resource Management Class I areas. 

In right-of-way exclusion areas, do not grant rights-of-way, except when mandated by law. 

 Right-of-way avoidance areas include (see Map D-1)—

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including Research Natural Areas and 

Outstanding Natural Areas); 

o Recreation Management Areas (Special and Extensive); 

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as Scenic and Recreational; 

and 

o Visual Resource Management Class II areas not included in right-of-way exclusion areas. 

In right-of-way avoidance areas, grant rights-of-way only if the BLM determines that the 

right-of-way proposals are compatible with the protection of the values for which the land 

use was designated, or when no feasible alternative route or designated right-of-way corridor 

is available as applicable with BLM laws and policy. 

 Grant rights-of-way in utility corridors as the preferred location for energy transmission or 

distribution facilities. Corridors would generally be 1,000 feet on each side of the centerline. 

Grant the rights-of-way as the minimum necessary to accommodate a specific request. Do 

not permit development or management activities that would conflict with the construction, 

operation, or maintenance of facilities corresponding to the purpose of the utility corridor. 

 Construct communication facilities on existing developed communication sites where they do 

not conflict with other management objectives. Require a site plan for applications for 

communication facilities on undeveloped communication sites (Appendix D, Table D-8

through Table D-10). 

 Expand existing communication sites and develop new sites. Prioritize the use of existing 

sites and facilities for accommodating the need for additional capacity. 

 Construct new permanent or temporary roads, which may include major culverts and bridges, 

where needed to meet resource management objectives, to established BLM engineering 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

96 | P a g e

design standards. Apply road location, design, and construction BMPs as needed (Appendix 

C).

 Maintain existing roads, including major culverts and bridges, to provide access for both 

resource management and casual use activities while protecting water quality and facility 

investments, and providing user safety, to established BLM maintenance standards. Apply 

road maintenance and wet weather road use BMPs as needed (Appendix C).

 Remove hazard and downed trees along roads for safety or operational reasons. 

 Fully decommission or obliterate (permanent closure) roads with no future resource 

management need. Decommission (long-term closure) roads not currently needed for 

resource management but that will be used and maintained again in the future. Apply road 

closure BMPs as needed (Appendix C). Close roads only with the approval of affected 

permittees consistent with valid existing rights. 

Livestock Grazing 

Management Objectives 

 Provide for livestock grazing consistent with other resource objectives while maintaining or 

improving the health of public rangelands. 

 Prevent livestock from causing trampling disturbance to fish spawning beds where ESAlisted or Bureau Sensitive species occur.

Management Direction (All Districts) 

 Authorize livestock grazing through management agreements, non-renewable grazing 

permits or leases, or special use permits on lands not available for livestock grazing through 

the issuance of a grazing lease or permit to control invasive plants, reduce fire danger, or 

accomplish other management objectives. 

 Restrict livestock from streams with ESA-listed or Bureau Sensitive fish species during 

spawning, incubation, and until 30 days following the emergence of juveniles from spawning 

areas. 

Management Direction (Klamath Falls Field Office) 

 Manage livestock grazing in accordance with the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington 

(USDI BLM 1997). Appendix I lists allotments available for livestock grazing. 

 Maintain current livestock grazing levels and management practices for the allotments shown 

in Appendix I. Make adjustments when rangeland health assessments and evaluations of 

monitoring data identify that livestock grazing is a contributing factor toward not meeting 

one or more of the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management 

for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington (USDI BLM 1997). 

 Develop range improvements when needed to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington, RMP 

objectives, or other allotment-specific objectives. 

 Implement range improvement projects in adherence with the following: 
Resource Management Plan 

97 | P a g e

o Conduct inventories and surveys for cultural resources, ESA-listed species, and Bureau 

Special Status Species prior to authorization of any project construction. Implement 

appropriate mitigations to reduce or eliminate potential effects to these resources. 

o Design projects to minimize surface disturbance at all project sites. 

o Rehabilitate disturbed soil to blend into the surrounding soil surface. Re-vegetate using 

seeds and plant materials that are genetically appropriate and native to the plant 

community or region, to the extent practicable, to replace ground cover, reduce soil loss 

from wind and water erosion, and discourage the potential establishment of any invasive 

plant species. 

o Use existing roads and trails to access areas for range improvement construction to the 

extent practicable. If needed, create unimproved trails and tracks to reach construction 

sites and provide access for future maintenance of the improvements. Locate unimproved 

trails or tracks outside riparian management areas where workable. 

o Limit brushing and tree limb removal to only that necessary for surveying, placement, 

and construction of improvements. 

 Design livestock fencing to prevent the passage of livestock without stopping the movement 

of wildlife. Wire and post spacing would follow these specifications where practicable: 

o Construct 4-wire fences, with the bottom wire 16–18” off the ground with the sequence 

of the remaining 3-wires above this being 6”, 6”, and 12”. Do not exceed 42” total height 

(ground to top wire). 

o Install 1-strand smooth wire, not barbed, for the bottom wire to facilitate antelope 

crossings. 

o Install steel ‘t-posts’ no less than 16 feet and no more than 24 feet apart, depending on 

local conditions. 

o Construct a brace post, tree scab, or rock jack (rock crib) at least every 0.25 mile to 

enhance fence integrity. 

 Do not construct woven wire ‘sheep’ livestock fences on public lands.

 Install gates or cattle guards where livestock fences cross over existing roads. 

 Construct livestock fences outside of perennially or seasonally saturated soils, such as occur 

in wet meadows and alongside stream banks, to provide fence longevity and stability, where 

practicable.

 Fence spring sources to prevent livestock grazing and trampling, when necessary. 

 Install escape ramps in all livestock water troughs to allow wildlife to escape. 

 Install piping to divert overflow from livestock troughs away from the developed source area. 

 Construct pit or dam livestock reservoirs to impound water for livestock and wildlife use in 

adherence with the following: 

o Do not exceed water storage capacity of 3.0 acre-feet. 

o Construct pits in dry lakebeds or other natural depressions. Pile excavated material from 

pits adjacent to the pit in a manner that eliminates potential for erosion of the excavated 

material into the pit. Stockpile topsoil to use to rehabilitate the borrow areas. 

o Construct dams in drainages or to one side of a drainage, with a diversion ditch 

constructed into the impoundment area. Locate dams, when practicable, to take advantage 

of natural spillway sites. When a natural spillway is not available, construct a spillway 

around the dam for the reservoir. Design spillway to withstand the 50-year flood flow 

without overtopping the dam and to direct the pass flow downstream to prevent erosion 

of the embankment. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

98 | P a g e

o Construct dams a minimum ratio of 3:1 on the upstream face and minimum ratio of 2:1 

on the downstream face. Minimum width of the top of all dams would be 12 feet. 

o Clear all brush, stumps, roots, and organic matter from borrow areas and beneath dams. 

o Use material from dam impoundment areas or borrow areas as fill material. Use only fill 

materials consisting of non-organic and cohesive soils adjusted in moisture to optimum 

water content for dam construction. 

o Place fill material in thin layers parallel with the long axis of the dam. Do not exceed 

individual layer thickness of 8”. Compact layers with a sheepsfoot roller or similar 

equipment. 

 Obtain necessary water right permits from the Oregon Water Resources Department prior to 

construction. Coordinate water right applications with applicable agencies, irrigation 

districts, and interested parties. 

 Rest from livestock grazing those areas disturbed by natural and human-induced events (e.g., 

wildland fire, prescribed burns, timber management treatments, juniper cuts, and 

rehabilitation projects). Resume livestock grazing after determining that soil and vegetation 

have recovered from the initial disturbance to support livestock grazing and maintain 

recovery from the initial disturbance. Exceptions would be for cases where such grazing 

would not impede site recovery, or where livestock are used as a tool to aid in achieving 

certain recovery objectives. 

 Lands within the grazing allotments identified in Table 14 will not be available for livestock 

grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease or permit. The BLM will not authorize 

grazing under Section 3 permits or Section 15 leases under the Taylor Grazing Act. The 

BLM may authorize grazing through management agreements, nonrenewable grazing permits 

or leases, or special use permits consistent with the grazing regulations. 

Table 14. Allotments unavailable for livestock grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land

(Acres)

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs)

Edge Creek* 00102 42 -

Klamath River ACEC†00102 5,908 -

Plum Hills 00813 160 20

Totals 6,110 20

* This portion of the Upper Klamath Wild and Scenic River corridor within the Edge Creek Allotment will be made unavailable 

to livestock grazing. This portion of the allotment is not allocated any AUMs. The remainder of the allotment will be available 

for livestock grazing. 

† These portions of the Upper Klamath Wild and Scenic River corridor/ACEC, historically included in the Edge Creek, Chicken 

Hills, and Chase Mountain allotments, are unavailable to livestock grazing. There are no allocated AUMs associated with these 

acres.
Resource Management Plan 

99 | P a g e

 Close exclosures and other areas identified on Table 15 to livestock grazing. 

Table 15. Exclosures or other areas previously closed to livestock grazing, Klamath Falls Field 

Office. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Area Closed

Edge Creek 00102 Hayden Creek Exclosures (2)

Fox Lake Exclosure

Buck Lake 00104 Tunnel Creek Exclosure

Surveyor Campground Exclosure

Dixie 00107 Dixie (Long Prairie Creek) Exclosure

Jeld-Wen 00822 Aspen Exclosure

Rodgers 00852 Van Meter Flat Reservoir Exclosure

Yainax 00861 Bull Spring Exclosure

Timothy Spring Exclosure

Bear Valley 00876 Holbrook Spring Exclosure

Bumpheads 00877 Bumpheads Reservoir Outlet Exclosure

Antelope Creek Exclosure

Horsefly 00882

Long Branch Exclosure

Caseview Spring Exclosure

Norcross Spring Exclosure

Boundary Spring Exclosure

Pankey Basin 00884 Pankey Creek Riparian Exclosure

Horse Camp Rim 00886 21 Reservoir Exclosure

Pitchlog 00887

Pitchlog Creek Exclosure

Willow Spring Exclosure

CCC Spring Exclosure

Willow Valley 00890

Duncan Spring Exclosure

Antelope Creek Exclosure

East Fork Lost River Exclosure

Management Direction (Medford) 

 Manage livestock grazing in accordance with the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington 

(USDI BLM 1997). Appendix I lists allotments available for livestock grazing. 

 Maintain current livestock grazing levels and management practices for the allotments shown 

in Appendix I. Make adjustments when rangeland health assessments and evaluations of 

monitoring data identify that livestock grazing is a contributing factor toward not meeting 

one or more of the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management 

for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington. 

 Develop range improvements when needed to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington, RMP 

objectives, or other allotment-specific objectives. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

100 | P a g e

 Implement range improvement projects in adherence with the following: 

o Conduct inventories and surveys for cultural resources, ESA-listed species, and Bureau 

Special Status Species prior to authorization of any project construction. Implement 

appropriate mitigations to reduce or eliminate potential effects to these resources. 

o Design projects to minimize surface disturbance at all project sites. 

o Rehabilitate disturbed soil to blend into the surrounding soil surface. Re-vegetate using 

seeds and plant materials that are genetically appropriate and native to the plant 

community or region, to the extent practicable, to replace ground cover, reduce soil loss 

from wind and water erosion, and discourage the potential establishment of any invasive 

plant species. 

o Use existing roads and trails to access areas for range improvement construction to the 

extent practicable. If needed, create unimproved trails and tracks to reach construction 

sites and provide access for future maintenance of the improvements. Locate unimproved 

trails or tracks outside riparian management areas where workable. 

o Limit brushing and tree limb removal to only that necessary for surveying, placement, 

and construction of improvements. 

 Design livestock fencing to prevent the passage of livestock without stopping the movement 

of wildlife. Wire and post spacing would follow these specifications where practicable: 

o Construct 4-wire fences, with the bottom wire 16-18” off the ground with the sequence of 

the remaining 3-wires above this being 6”, 6”, and 12.” Do not exceed 42” total height 

(ground to top wire). 

o Install 1-strand smooth wire, not barbed, for the bottom wire to facilitate antelope 

crossings. 

o Install steel ‘t-posts’ no less than 16 feet and no more than 24 feet apart, depending on 

local conditions. 

o Construct a brace post, tree scab, or rock jack (rock crib) at least every 0.25 mile to 

enhance fence integrity. 

 Do not construct woven wire ‘sheep’ livestock fences on public lands. 

 Install gates or cattle guards where livestock fences cross over existing roads. 

 Construct livestock fences outside of perennially or seasonally saturated soils, such as occur 

in wet meadows and alongside stream banks, to provide fence longevity and stability, where 

practicable.

 Fence spring sources to prevent livestock grazing and trampling, when necessary. 

 Install escape ramps in all livestock water troughs to allow wildlife to escape. 

 Install piping to divert overflow from livestock troughs away from the developed source area. 

 Construct pit or dam livestock reservoirs to impound water for livestock and wildlife use in 

adherence with the following: 

o Do not exceed water storage capacity of 3.0 acre-feet. 

o Construct pits in dry lakebeds or other natural depressions. Pile excavated material from 

pits adjacent to the pit in a manner that eliminates potential for erosion of the excavated 

material into the pit. Stockpile topsoil to use to rehabilitate the borrow areas. 

o Construct dams in drainages or to one side of a drainage, with a diversion ditch 

constructed into the impoundment area. Locate dams, when practicable, to take advantage 

of natural spillway sites. When a natural spillway is not available, construct a spillway 

around the dam for the reservoir. Design spillway to withstand the 50-year flood flow 
Resource Management Plan 

101 | P a g e

without overtopping the dam and to direct the pass flow downstream to prevent erosion 

of the embankment. 

o Construct dams a minimum ratio of 3:1 on the upstream face and minimum ratio of 2:1 

on the downstream face. Minimum width of the top of all dams would be 12 feet. 

o Clear all brush, stumps, roots, and organic matter from borrow areas and beneath dams. 

o Use material from dam impoundment areas or borrow areas as fill material. Use only fill 

materials consisting of non-organic and cohesive soils adjusted in moisture to optimum 

water content for dam construction. 

o Place fill material in thin layers parallel with the long axis of the dam. Do not exceed 

individual layer thickness of 8”. Compact layers with a sheepsfoot roller or similar 

equipment. 

 Obtain necessary water right permits from the Oregon Water Resources Department prior to 

construction. Coordinate water right applications with applicable agencies, irrigation 

districts, and interested parties. 

 Rest from livestock grazing those areas disturbed by natural and human-induced events (e.g., 

wildland fire, prescribed burns, timber management treatments, juniper cuts, and 

rehabilitation projects). Resume livestock grazing after determining that soil and vegetation 

have recovered from the initial disturbance to support livestock grazing and maintain 

recovery from the initial disturbance. Exceptions would be for cases where such grazing 

would not impede site recovery, or where livestock are used as a tool to aid in achieving 

certain recovery objectives. 

 Lands with grazing allotments identified in Table 16 will not be available for livestock 

grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease. The BLM will not authorize grazing under 

Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. The BLM may authorize grazing through management 

agreements, nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with 

the grazing regulations. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

102 | P a g e

Table 16. Allotments unavailable for livestock grazing, Medford District.

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land

(Acres)

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs)

Pickett Mountain 00302 802 30

Glade Creek 00315 564 17

Cherry Gulch 00316 40 6

Trail Creek 10003 3,211 113

Longbranch 10004* 11,124 71

Antioch Road 10005 40 4

Roundtop Evans 10006 26,204 110

West Perry Road 10010 40 10

East Perry Road 10011 80 7

Upper Table Rock 10012 714 66

Clear Creek 10013 3,794 45

Obenchain Mountain 10014 121 12

Nichols Gap 10018 283 18

Eagle Point Canal 10020 443 55

Shady Branch 10025 321 32

Stiehl 10026 277 18

Fielder Creek 10028 83 5

Derby Station 10030 516 36

West Derby 10034 1,125 89

Emigrant Creek 10111 40 7

Baldy 10120 201 87

Lost Creek 10123 78 6

Cartwright 10127 40 4

Bybee Peak 10144 322 36

Sugarloaf/Greensprings 10158 3,008 210

Sterling Spring 10207 27,179 190

Del Rio 10216 42 5

Jump Off Joe 10303 55 8

Deer Creek 10308 1,172 77

Q Bar X 10310 13 3

Applegate 20201 25,415 294

Tunnel Ridge 20202 2,177 14

Billy Mountain 20203 4,977 175

Timber Mountain 20204 3,202 70

Sardine and Galls 

Creek 20205 3,323 158

Spencer Gulch 20208 2,109 150

Quartz Gulch 20209 670 9

Burton Butte 20212 10 2

Chapman Creek 20213 3,758 81
Resource Management Plan 

103 | P a g e

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land

(Acres)

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs)

Ecker 20217 40 6

Stage Road 20218 40 4

Lomas Road 20222 643 50

Star 20223 121 24

Ferns Lease 20224 249 28

Reeves Creek 20309 1,665 95

Esterly Creek 20312 3,641 152

Totals 133,971 2,689

* These portions of the Longbranch Allotment will be made unavailable to livestock grazing. The remainder of the allotment will 

be available for livestock grazing (see Appendix I).

 Areas that are currently without allotments will not be available for livestock grazing through 

the issuance of a grazing lease. The BLM will not authorize grazing under Section 15 of the 

Taylor Grazing Act. The BLM may authorize grazing through management agreements, 

nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with the grazing 

regulations. 

Minerals

Management Objectives 

 Manage the development of leasable (including conventional and non-conventional 

hydrocarbon resources) minerals, locatable mineral entry, and salable mineral material 

disposal in an orderly and efficient manner. 

 Maintain availability of mineral material sites needed for development and maintenance of 

access roads for forest management, timber harvest, local communities, rights-of-way for 

energy production and transmission, and other uses. 

Management Direction 

 Pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.11(c)(6), the BLM is creating two exceptions to the requirement 

that a Plan of Operations is required for any mining activities that are greater than casual use 

(such as notice-level operations) when the activities are located within lands or waters known 

to contain federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or 

designated critical habitat. An operator is not required to submit a Plan of Operations for 

notice-level activities in the following two situations: 

o When pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the BLM determines that the notice-level 

activity will have no effect on federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered 

species or their proposed or designated critical habitat. 

o When the BLM has completed consultation to the extent required under Section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine 

Fisheries Service has concurred with the BLM’s finding that the notice-level activity 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

104 | P a g e

is not likely to adversely affect federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered 

species or their proposed or designated critical habitat. 

 A Plan of Operations will be required for mining proposals that the BLM determines would 

be likely to adversely affect federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or 

their proposed or designated critical habitat. 

 Proposals that require a Plan of Operations and are located within lands or waters known to 

contain federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or 

designated critical habitat continue to be governed by the standards in 43 CFR 3809 et seq. 

 Pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.31(b)(2), the operator must contact the BLM before beginning 

operations that involve the use of a suction dredge to determine whether the operator needs to 

submit a notice or a plan to BLM, or whether the activities constitute casual use. It is the 

operator's burden to determine the location of their activity relative to the location of lands or 

waters that contain federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their 

proposed or designated critical habitat, in light of the operator’s potential liability under 

Section 9 of the ESA. 

o Suction dredging activity proposed within lands or waters that contain federally 

proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated 

critical habitat, regardless of the level of disturbance, must not begin until the BLM 

has completed consultation to the extent required under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

 Energy and mineral development can occur concurrently with some resource uses. 

Leasable Minerals: Oil, Gas, or Coalbed Natural Gas Resources30

 Maintain all lands as open to leasable mineral development except where closed by 

legislation. 

 Apply site-specific stipulations, such as no surface occupancy or conditional surface uses, 

based on resource protection needs in—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic River segments (where not already closed by 

legislation); 

o National Trail management corridors; 

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics; 

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including Research Natural Areas and 

Outstanding Natural Areas where not already closed by legislation); and 

o Recreation Management Areas (Special Recreation Management Areas/Extensive 

Recreation Management Areas).

 Apply site-specific stipulations as needed to protect ESA-listed species and their critical 

habitats. 

Locatable Minerals 

 Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic River segments (where not already closed by 

legislation); 

o National Trail management corridors; and 

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics. 

 

30 The Sustainable Energy section addresses Geothermal Resources. 
Resource Management Plan 

105 | P a g e

 Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry Special Recreation Management 

Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas when mineral entry is not compatible 

with meeting recreation objectives or maintaining recreation setting characteristics. 

 Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern with identified special management needs associated with locatable mineral entry 

(Appendix F).

 Retain all other areas not congressionally or secretarially withdrawn as open for locatable 

mineral entry. 

Salable Minerals 

 Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal include (see Map E-1)—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic River segments (where not already closed by 

legislation); 

o National Trail management corridors; and 

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics. 

 Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal include Special Recreation Management 

Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas where salable mineral material disposal 

is not compatible with meeting recreation objectives or maintaining recreation setting 

characteristics. 

 Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal include Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern where salable mineral material disposal is not compatible with identified special 

management needs (Appendix F).

 Maintain all other areas not closed through legislation as open to salable mineral material 

disposal. 

 Appendix M of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (USDI BLM 2016) provides a trends analysis 

that will be applied to disposals. 

Paleontological Resources 

Management Objectives 

 Protect and preserve significant localities from natural or human-caused deterioration or 

potential conflict with other resources. 

 Provide appropriate scientific, educational, and recreational uses, such as research and 

interpretive opportunities, for paleontological resources. 

Management Direction 

 Protect all paleontological resources through avoidance or other protection measures, 

consistent with BLM Handbook 8270-1 – General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological 

Resource Management (USDI BLM 1998, pp. Chapter III). 

 Conduct public education, outreach activities, and develop materials to educate the public on 

paleontological resources existing within the decision area. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

106 | P a g e

Rare Plants and Fungi

Management Objectives 

 Provide for conservation and contribute toward the recovery of plant species that are ESAlisted or candidates. 

 Support the persistence and resilience of natural communities, including those associated 

with forests, oak woodlands, shrublands, grasslands, cliffs, rock outcrops, talus slopes, 

meadows, and wetlands. Support ecological processes and disturbance mechanisms to allow 

for a range of seral conditions. 

 Provide for the conservation of Bureau Special Status plant and fungi species. 

 Support the persistence and resilience of oak species within oak woodlands and within mixed 

hardwood/conifer communities. 

Management Direction 

 Manage ESA-listed species consistent with recovery plans, conservation agreements, species 

management plans, and designated critical habitat, and species-specific or project-specific 

conservation measures developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including the 

protection and restoration of habitat, altering the type, timing, and intensity of actions, and 

implementing other strategies designed to recover populations of species. 

 Manage ESA candidate and Bureau Sensitive species consistent with any conservation 

agreements or strategies including the protection and restoration of habitat, alteration of the 

type, timing, and intensity of actions, and other strategies designed to conserve populations 

of the species. 

 Manage habitat to maintain populations of ESA-listed, proposed, and candidate plant species. 

 Prior to implementing actions (other than fire management operations in response to 

unplanned ignitions or escaped prescribed fires) that could result in habitat modification or 

species disturbance in the suitable habitat of any ESA-listed, proposed, or candidate plant 

species, or Bureau Sensitive plant species, conduct surveys to determine species presence. 

Utilize information on known sites of ESA-listed plants when conducting fire management 

operations that could result in habitat modification or species disturbance. In addition to preproject surveys, conduct additional surveys on BLM-administered lands for ESA-listed, 

proposed, and candidate plant species within suitable habitat as needed to find new 

populations. 

 Maintain or restore natural processes, native species composition, and vegetation structure in 

natural communities through actions such as applying prescribed fire, thinning, removing 

encroaching vegetation, treating non-native invasive species, retaining legacy components 

(e.g., large trees, snags, and down logs), maintaining water flow to wetlands, and planting or 

seeding native species. 

 When re-vegetating degraded or disturbed areas, utilize locally adapted seeds and native 

plant materials appropriate to the location and site-specific conditions, and meeting 

management objectives for vegetation management and restoration activities. Use seeds and 

plant materials that are genetically appropriate and native to the plant community or region, 

to the extent practicable. 
Resource Management Plan 

107 | P a g e

 Manage mixed hardwood/conifer communities to maintain and enhance oak (Quercus spp.) 

persistence and structure by removing competing conifers, thinning, and prescribed fire, to 

the extent consistent with management direction for the land use allocation. 

 Manage mixed conifer communities to maintain and enhance ponderosa, Jeffrey, and sugar 

pine persistence and structure by removing competing conifers, thinning, and applying 

prescribed fire, to the extent consistent with management direction for the land use 

allocation. 

 Create new and augment existing populations of ESA-listed, proposed, and candidate plant 

species and Bureau Sensitive plant and fungi species to meet recovery plan or conservation 

strategy objectives. 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

Management Objectives 

 Provide a diversity of quality recreational opportunities. 

 Meet legal requirements for visitor health and safety and mitigate resource user conflicts. 

 Mitigate recreational impacts on natural and cultural resources. In land use allocations where 

management of other resources is dominant, provide recreational opportunities where they 

can be managed consistent with the management of these other resources. 

 Develop new recreation opportunities to address recreation activity demand created by 

growing communities, activity groups, or recreation-tourism if—

o Recreation development is consistent with interdisciplinary land use plan objectives; and 

o The BLM has secured commitments from partners (e.g., a cooperative management 

agreement, adopt-a-trail agreement, and memorandum of understanding). 

Management Direction 

 Manage Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Management 

Areas, identified in Appendix G, in accordance with their planning frameworks. 

 Protect recreation setting characteristics within Special Recreation Management Areas to 

prohibit activities that would degrade identified characteristics. 

 Pursue and prioritize public access to BLM-administered lands that have high recreational 

potential consistent with BLM designations and allocations. 

 Allow for hunting as regulated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

 Allow the discharge of firearms for recreational target shooting on BLM-administered lands, 

outside areas with firearm use restrictions described in the RMA frameworks (Appendix G), 

if the firearm is discharged toward a proper backstop sufficient to stop the projectile’s 

forward progress. 

 Issue discretionary Special Recreation Permits for a variety of uses that are consistent with 

resource and program objectives. 

 Issue vending permits that complement visitor use or contribute to resource protection. 

 Monitor activity participation and recreation setting characteristics annually during the 

primary use season of June through October. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

108 | P a g e

 Use recreation management tools such as establishing an allocation system, applying group 

size limits for private and commercial recreation use, or implementing seasonal closures, if 

monitoring indicates that social recreation setting characteristics are not being protected, 

resource damage is occurring, or user conflicts need to be addressed. 

 Develop and maintain partnerships with recreation-based organizations and service 

providers. These partnerships should engage partners in the planning, implementation and 

monitoring of recreation opportunities and facilities on BLM-administered public lands. 

Recreation and Visitor Services – Significant Caves31

Management Objective 

 Manage significant caves to allow for appropriate access while protecting pristine and fragile 

resources, wildlife values, scientific and research values, and visitor safety. 

Management Direction 

 Manage significant caves to maintain the current level of remoteness from motorized and 

mechanized vehicles and to preserve the natural appearance of the cave. Prohibit construction 

of new facilities, roads, or trails to access the caves. Allow minor modifications (e.g., use of 

tape and signage and placing rescue caches) only for scientific purposes and to accommodate 

safe use. Maintain low evidence of use and other people. 

 Manage visitor frequency, visitor numbers, and season of use through monitoring and 

subsequent implementation decisions described through cave management plans for each 

significant cave, group of caves, or complex of caves. 

 Focus all management actions on specific activity outcomes for caving and research. 

Outcomes will be for participants to enjoy and learn about cave and karst resources. Specific 

benefit outcomes will be for environmental benefits, such as increased environmental 

stewardship, and the preservation and protection of unique biological, paleontological, 

archaeological, and mineralogical aspects. Social benefits will be to provide environmental 

education and appreciation of cave and karst systems. 

 Provide appropriate access while addressing issues and concerns relating to visitor safety and 

preservation of the caves’ values. If issues or concerns arise, apply necessary managerial 

controls, such as closures, permits, trip requirements, and gating. Administer and authorize 

research, inventory, work projects, and digging trips. Provide informational and educational 

materials to authorized visitors. Do not market or promote cave and karst resources. 

 

31 The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 describes significant caves. 
Resource Management Plan 

109 | P a g e

Recreation and Visitor Services – Formerly Used Defense Sites 

Management Objective 

 Prevent and reduce risks to public health and the environment where hazards may exist 

resulting from military defense activities. 

Management Direction 

 Manage the portion of the Modoc Aerial Gunnery and Bombing Range located within the 

Klamath Falls Field Office to avoid or limit exposure to areas that may contain hazards 

associated with munitions and explosives of concern. Munitions and explosives of concern 

may include unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents 

when munitions constituents are present in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive 

hazard. The site may also be contaminated with munitions constituents that are not present in 

high enough concentrations to represent an explosive hazard, but in high enough 

concentrations to be a toxicity hazard in soil, groundwater, surface water, or air. 

 Coordinate uses on BLM-administered lands within formerly used defense sites with State 

and Federal military agencies to prevent and reduce risks to public health and the 

environment. Develop, as needed, cooperative agreements or Memorandums of 

Understanding to ensure communication, coordination, and safe use of public lands within 

formerly used defense sites. 

 Take appropriate measures, such as signing, fencing, removal, and remediation, to protect the 

public from known unexploded ordnance locations on BLM-administered lands. 

Soil Resources

Management Objectives 

 Maintain or enhance the inherent soil functions (e.g., ability of soil to take in water, store 

water, regulate outputs for vegetative growth and stream flow, and resist erosion or 

compaction) of managed ecosystems. 

 Provide landscapes that stay within natural soil stability failure rates during and after 

management activities. 

Management Direction 

 Apply BMPs (Appendix C) as needed to maintain or restore soil functions and soil quality, 

and limit detrimental soil disturbance. 

 Limit detrimental soil disturbance from forest management operations to a total of < 20 

percent of the harvest unit area. Where the combined detrimental soil disturbance from 

implementation of current forest management operations and detrimental soil disturbance 

from past management operations exceeds 20 percent of the unit area, apply mitigation or 

amelioration to reduce the total detrimental soil disturbance to < 20 percent of the harvest 

unit area. Detrimental soil disturbance can occur from erosion, loss of organic matter, severe 

heating to seeds or microbes, soil displacement, or compaction. 

 Avoid road construction and timber harvest on unstable slopes where there is a high 

probability to cause a shallow, rapidly moving landslide that would likely damage 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

110 | P a g e

infrastructure (e.g., BLM or privately owned roads, State highways, or residences) or 

threaten public safety. 

 Do not till soils where tillage will cause soils to become unstable due to increasing the soil 

moisture content. 

Sustainable Energy

Management Objectives 

 Develop sustainable energy resources to the maximum extent practicable without precluding 

other land uses. 

Management Direction 

 Exclude from sustainable energy development areas that are part of National Conservation 

Lands (e.g., Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 

National Historic and Scenic Trails), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and DistrictDesignated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics. 

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other 

resource uses. Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

o Control outdoor lighting with motion or heat sensors to the maximum extent practicable. 

o Use hooded outdoor lighting directed downward to minimize horizontal and skyward 

illumination to the maximum extent practicable. 

o Minimize the use of high-intensity lighting. 

o Establish non-disturbance buffer zones to protect sensitive habitats or areas of high risk 

for species of concern. 

o Control any pets of operations staff kept on-site to avoid harassment and disturbance of 

wildlife. 

o Use existing roads and utility corridors to the maximum extent feasible; minimize the 

number and length/size of new roads, lay-down areas, and borrow areas. 

o Minimize traffic volumes to the maximum extent practicable; maintain roads adequately 

to minimize associated impacts. 

o Install and maintain permanent fencing around electrical substations, emergency 

generators, and other areas potentially hazardous to human health. 

o Consolidate necessary infrastructure requirements wherever practicable, including 

electric power transmission lines, pipelines and market access corridors, and support 

utility infrastructure. 

o Keep energy conversion sites clean of debris, garbage, fugitive trash or waste, and 

graffiti; minimize the accumulation of scrap heaps, dumps, and storage yards. 

o Design facilities used for sustainable energy harvesting, conversion, and transmission to 

discourage the perching or nesting by birds. 

o Integrate facilities used for sustainable energy harvesting, conversion and transmission 

with the surrounding landscape including minimizing the profile of ancillary structures, 

burial of cables, prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting. 
Resource Management Plan 

111 | P a g e

o Provide secondary containment for all on-site hazardous materials and waste storage, 

including fuel. 

Sustainable Energy – Biomass Energy Development 

Management Objectives 

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives.

Management Direction 

 Offer slash in excess of soil stabilization needs as biomass energy feedstock. 

Sustainable Energy – Wind Energy Development 

Management Objectives 

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives

Management Direction 

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other 

resource uses. Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

o Lock turbine tower access doors to limit public access. 

o Locate turbines away from landscape features known to attract raptors. 

o Locate turbines away from colonies where bats hibernate, breed, and raise their young; 

locate turbines outside of bat migration corridors or flight paths between colonies and 

feeding areas 

o Encompass specific design elements for turbine arrays and turbine design including 

visual uniformity, use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, non-reflective 

paints, and prohibition of commercial messages on turbines. 

o Repair, replace, or remove inoperative turbines in a timely manner. 

o Exclude designated areas that are part of National Conservation Lands (e.g., Wilderness 

Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and 

Scenic Trails) and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern from wind energy site 

monitoring and testing and development. 

o Incorporate wildlife-compatible design standards when fencing is necessary. 

o Avoid the use of guy wires on communication towers and meteorological towers at wind 

energy project sites. 

o Keep the installation of meteorological towers on a project site to a minimum; do not 

locate these towers in sensitive habitats or in areas where ecological resources known to 

be sensitive to human are present. 

o Light only a portion of the turbines within a wind project; fix all pilot warning lights to 

fire synchronously. 

o Do not add any wildlife habitat enhancements or improvements (e.g., ponds, guzzlers, 

rock piles, brush piles, bird nest boxes, nesting platforms, wildlife food plots) that would 

attract small mammals to wind energy facilities. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

112 | P a g e

o Use only shielded, separated, or insulated electrical conductors that minimize 

electrocution risk to avian wildlife. 

Sustainable Energy – Geothermal Energy Development 

Management Objectives 

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives.

Management Direction 

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other 

resource uses. Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

o Minimize impacts to livestock operations from geothermal energy drilling and 

development. 

o Incorporate certified weed-free mulch into the reclamation of the land disturbed during 

the development of geothermal resources. 

o Raise above-ground piping on-site for sufficient wildlife passage. 

o Isolate any liquid that is at elevated temperatures or contains contaminants that are toxic 

or harmful to fur or feathers from wildlife access with fencing, netting or complete 

enclosure. 

Sustainable Energy – Sustainable Energy Transmission Corridors 

Management Objectives 

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives.

Management Direction 

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other 

resource uses. Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

o Site overhead lines away from areas where bird crossings are frequent. 

o Mark overhead lines in accordance with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

collision guidelines. 

o Install overhead lines such that the conductors parallel tree lines, employ bird flight 

diverters, or are otherwise screened so that bat and bird collision risk is reduced. 

o Where pipeline right-of-way clearings can be incorporated into a strategic system of fire 

breaks, make clearings sufficiently wide to be effective as fire breaks. 

o Raise pipelines constructed above ground sufficiently high enough to allow wildlife 

passage where needed and avoid potential alterations to predator/prey dynamics. 
Resource Management Plan 

113 | P a g e

Trails and Travel Management 

Management Objectives 

 Maintain a comprehensive travel network that best meets the full range of public use, 

resource management, and administrative access needs.

 Protect fragile and unique resource values from damage by public motorized vehicle use.

 Provide public motorized vehicle use opportunities where appropriate.

Management Direction 

 Prohibit public motor vehicle travel within areas designated as closed for public motorized 

access. Where the BLM has public access, allow public access by means other than 

motorized vehicle, such as mechanized or non-motorized use. Allow travel required for valid 

existing rights. 

 Restrict public motorized vehicle travel within areas designated as limited for public 

motorized access. Until completion of implementation-level travel management planning, 

limit public motorized vehicle travel to existing routes where the BLM has public access. 

After completion of implementation-level travel management planning, limit public 

motorized vehicle travel in conformance with the resultant Travel Management Plan. Allow 

travel required for valid existing rights. 

 Develop public motorized and non-motorized travel routes and trails in a manner designed to 

minimize conflicts between public motorized vehicle use and other existing (or proposed) 

recreational uses of the same, or neighboring, public lands. Design in a manner to ensure the 

compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account 

noise and other factors. 

 Manage public motorized vehicle use in Recreation Management Areas (Special Recreation 

Management Area/Extensive Recreation Management Area) according to interim 

management guidelines until subsequent comprehensive implementation-level travel 

management plans are completed. 

 Develop closed or abandoned roads to provide additional public motorized and nonmotorized trail opportunities, where feasible and compatible with other resource objectives. 

Visual Resource Management 

Management Objectives 

 Protect scenic values on public lands where visual resources are an issue or where high-value 

visual resources exist. 

 Prohibit activities that would disrupt the existing character of the landscape in Visual 

Resource Management Class I areas. 

 Retain the existing character of the landscape in Visual Resource Management Class II areas. 

 Partially retain the existing character of the landscape in Visual Resource Management Class 

III areas. 

 Allow for major modification of the existing character of the landscape in Visual Resource 

Management Class IV areas. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

114 | P a g e

Management Direction 

 Only allow activities that are found to meet visual management objectives using the Visual 

Resource Contrast Rating system. 

 Visual Resource Management Class I includes—

o Wilderness Areas; 

o Wilderness Study Areas; and 

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as Wild. 

Manage Visual Resource Management Class I areas in accordance with natural ecological 

changes. Prohibit activities that would lower the Visual Resources Inventory class of Visual 

Resource Management Class I areas. The level of change to the characteristic landscape will 

be very low and will not attract attention. Changes will repeat the basic elements of form, 

line, color, texture, and scale found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic 

landscape. 

 Visual Resource Management Class II includes—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as Scenic; 

o Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as Scenic outside of the Harvest Land 

Base; 

o National Trail management corridors; 

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics; 

o Special Recreation Management Areas that fall within the Primitive and Backcountry 

category of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; and 

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in Visual Resource Inventory Class II outside 

of the Harvest Land Base. 

Manage Visual Resource Management Class II areas for low levels of change to the 

characteristic landscape. Management activities will be seen but will not attract the attention 

of the casual observer. Changes will repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, texture, 

and scale found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

 Visual Resource Management Class III includes—

o Designated, suitable, and eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as 

Recreational; 

o Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as Scenic within the Harvest Land 

Base; 

o Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas that 

fall within the Middle country category of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; and 

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in Visual Resource Inventory Class III, and in 

Visual Resource Inventory Class II inside the Harvest Land Base. 

Manage Visual Resource Management Class III areas for moderate levels of change to the 

characteristic landscape. Management activities will attract attention but will not dominate 

the view of the casual observer. Changes will repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, 

texture, and scale found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

 Visual Resource Management Class IV includes all lands that are not designated as Visual 

Resource Management Classes I, II, or III. Manage Visual Resource Management Class IV 

areas for high levels of change to the characteristic landscape. Management activities may 

dominate the view and will be the major focus of viewer attention. 
Resource Management Plan 

115 | P a g e

Wildlife

Management Objectives 

 Conserve and recover species that are ESA-listed, proposed, or candidates, and the 

ecosystems on which they depend. 

 Implement conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau Sensitive 

species to minimize the likelihood of and need for the ESA listing of these species. 

 Conserve or create habitat for species addressed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the ecosystems on which they depend. 

Management Direction 

 Manage habitat for species that are ESA-listed, or are candidates for listing, consistent with 

recovery plans, conservation agreements, and designated critical habitat. 

o Existing conservation agreements include: 

 Conservation Agreement for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in the Klamath 

Basin of Oregon (May 7, 2010) 

 Implement conservation measures to mitigate specific threats to Bureau Sensitive species 

during the planning of activities and projects. Conservation measures include altering the 

type, timing, location, and intensity of management actions. 

 Utilize information on known sites of ESA-listed wildlife when conducting fire management 

operations that could result in habitat modification or species disturbance. 

 Manage naturally occurring special habitats to maintain their ecological function, such as 

seeps, springs, wetlands, natural ponds, vernal pools/ponds, natural meadows, rock outcrops, 

caves, cliffs, talus slopes, mineral licks, oak savannah/woodlands, sand dunes, and marine 

habitats. 

 Manage human-made special habitats as wildlife habitat when compatible with their 

engineered function, such as bridges, buildings, quarries, pump chances/heliponds, 

abandoned mines, and reservoirs, to the extent practicable consistent with safety and legal 

requirements. 

 Klamath Falls Field Office and Medford District: maintain or enhance Bureau Special Status 

Species wildlife habitat on rangelands. 

 Prior to implementing actions that could result in habitat modification or species disturbance 

in habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp or Oregon spotted frog, conduct surveys to 

determine species presence. 

 Manage vernal pool fairy shrimp and Oregon spotted frog consistent with recovery plans, 

conservation agreements, designated critical habitat, and species-specific and project-specific 

conservation measures developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Do not approve, 

fund, or implement actions that would adversely affect the vernal pool fairy shrimp or 

Oregon spotted frog, 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. 

 Manage designated or proposed critical habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp and Oregon 

spotted frog consistent with recovery plans, conservation agreements, designated critical 

habitat, and species-specific and project-specific conservation measures developed with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Do not approve, fund, or implement actions that would 

adversely affect the designated or proposed critical habitats of the vernal pool fairy shrimp or 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

116 | P a g e

Oregon spotted frog, 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. 

Wildlife – Bald and Golden Eagles 

 Protect known bald eagle or golden eagle nests (including active nests and alternate nests) 

and bald eagle winter roosting areas. Prohibit activities that will disrupt bald eagles or golden 

eagles that are actively nesting. 

o Continue routine use and maintenance of existing roads and other facilities. 

o Do not remove overstory trees within 330 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests, except 

for removal of hazard trees. 

o Do not conduct timber harvest operations (including road construction, tree felling, and 

yarding) during the breeding season within 660 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests. 

Decrease the distance to 330 feet around alternate nests within a particular territory, 

including nests that were attended during the current breeding season but not used to raise 

young, or after eggs laid in another nest within the territory have hatched. 

o Prohibit operation of off-highway vehicles within 330 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle 

nests during the breeding season. In areas without forest cover or topographic relief to 

provide visual and auditory screening, prohibit operation of off-highway vehicles within 

660 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests during the breeding season. 

o Prohibit activities that will disrupt roosting bald eagles or golden eagles at communal 

winter roosts. 

Wildlife – Bats 

 Protect known maternity colonies and hibernacula for Bureau Sensitive bat species within 

caves, abandoned mines, bridges, and buildings with a 250-foot buffer: 

o Maintain existing habitat conditions and protect the site from destruction or species 

disturbance, to the extent practicable consistent with safety and legal requirements. 

o Prohibit blasting 

o Implement hazard fuel reduction treatments to protect the site from wildfire or to 

maintain site conditions conducive to the colony. 

 Prohibit blasting during periods of reproduction and hibernation within 1 mile of known 

maternity colonies and hibernacula for Bureau Sensitive bat species within caves, abandoned 

mines, bridges, and buildings. 

 Where white-nose syndrome is found in the bats residing within caves and abandoned mines, 

bridges, and buildings, prohibit human access except for monitoring, education, or research 

purposes.

Wildlife – Deer or Elk Management Areas (Klamath Falls Field 

Office and Medford District) 

 For the Medford District, restrict motor vehicle use within designated deer or elk 

management areas between November 1 and April 15. For the Klamath Falls Field Office, 

restrict motor vehicle use within the Pokegama management area between November 20 and 
Resource Management Plan 

117 | P a g e

April 1. Use techniques such as gating or signing to impose the restrictions. Allow 

administrative use of roads, as needed, on a year-round basis. 

 Plant native forage species along roadsides, skid trails, and on disturbed areas, or create 

forage plots where forage for deer or elk is limited within designated deer or elk management 

areas. 

 For designated deer or elk management areas in the Klamath Falls Field Office and Medford 

District: 

o Cut encroaching juniper that hinders attainment of desired forage conditions to maintain 

and improve forage for big game. Remove, utilize, or pile and burn cut juniper. 

o Retain old-growth ‘legacy’ juniper when the BLM determines it meets the following 

definition: Individual trees that likely originated in the pre-settlement period, before 

1870. These trees are commonly found in rocky areas where vegetation is sparse and fire 

frequency is naturally low. The BLM will evaluate trees based on the following 

characteristics of old-growth juniper: 

 Crown is flat, rounded, broad at top, or irregular crown (as opposed to the more 

pointed tops of younger trees) or dead “spike” top

 Numerous dead branches 

 Branches covered with coarse, bright yellow-green lichen (Letharia or wolf lichen) 

 Large diameter lower branches 

 Large diameter trunk relative to height 

 Spirally twisted bark and deep furrows on the trunk 

 Hollow trunk 

Trees need not have all of these characteristics for the BLM to determine that the trees 

are old-growth juniper. 

Wildlife – Fisher 

 Do not approve, fund, or carry out actions that would disrupt normal fisher behaviors (e.g., 

foraging, resting, or denning) associated with known natal or maternal denning sites, except 

when done in accordance with an approved recovery plan, conservation agreement, species 

management plan, survey and monitoring protocol, or critical habitat rule, and when the 

action is necessary for the conservation of the species.

 Manage known natal or maternal denning sites in a manner that would not adversely affect 

fisher. Do the following within stands where fisher natal or maternal denning or dens are 

documented by the BLM based on BLM field verification (such as surveys, radio-collared 

fisher tracking, or cameras): 

o Maintain ≥ 80 percent canopy cover within at least 50 feet of documented fisher natal and 

maternal dens. 

o Maintain sufficient canopy cover on the remainder of the stand to support fisher denning 

post-project. 

o Protect fisher denning structures ≥ 24” diameter (snags, down woody material, and live 

trees with cavities) within the stand. In this context, protect fisher denning structures

means to retain the ≥ 24” diameter structures (i.e., snags, down woody material, and live 

trees with cavities) in the stand and if, for safety concerns, it is necessary to fall such 

snags or live trees with cavities, retain those cut trees or snags in the stand as additional 

down woody material. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

118 | P a g e

o Do not apply vegetation treatments to all portions of the stand. 

 Within 5th field-watersheds (HUC 10) where fisher are documented by the BLM to occur, 

favor retaining trees that have structures (e.g., cavities, mistletoe, and rust brooms) that are 

typically used as denning or resting sites by fisher. 

 The above management direction may be modified for specific projects through 

implementation-level NEPA analysis on a case-by-case basis in conference or consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on new information. 

Wildlife – Gray Wolf 

 Restrict activities that create noise or visual disturbance(s) above ambient conditions within 

one mile of known active gray wolf dens from April 1 to July 15.

 In accordance with 43 CFR 4110, modify grazing leases, as appropriate, to include the 

following measures when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1) determines gray wolf 

occupancy of a BLM grazing allotment, and (2) recommends the implementation of these 

measures as part of its wolf conservation strategy: 

o Remove, bury, or otherwise dispose of livestock carcasses found on areas of the 

allotment where they would attract wolves to a potential conflict situation with other 

livestock (such as a salting ground, water source, or holding corral) such that the carcass 

will not attract wolves. 

o Move sick or injured livestock from the allotment so wolves do not target them. 

o Limit allotment management activities by humans near active wolf den sites during the 

denning period (April 1 to July 15) to avoid human disturbance of the site. Determine the 

distance on a site-specific basis, depending primarily on topography around the den site. 

o Do not place salt or other livestock attractants near known wolf dens or rendezvous sites 

to minimize livestock use of these sites. If a new den or rendezvous site is discovered, 

relocate any previously established salt or attractant location as necessary to minimize 

livestock use of these sites. 

Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet 

 Except as stated under Option 3, below, and except when needed to protect human safety 

and property, prohibit activities that disrupt32 marbled murrelet nesting at occupied sites 

when conducting activities within all land use allocations within 35 miles of the Pacific 

Coast and when conducting activities within reserved land use allocations between 35-50 

miles of the Pacific Coast. 

 

32 Disruption is a type of disturbance that that creates the likelihood of injury to ESA-listed species to such an extent 

as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or 

sheltering (see 50 CFR 17.3). An action that would disrupt the normal behavior of an ESA-listed species may affect, 

and would be likely to adversely affect, the species and would cause the taking of affected individual(s). In contrast, 

disturbance is a human action that may affect an ESA-listed animal species by the addition, above ambient 

condition, of noise or human intrusion, or the mechanical movement of habitat (e.g., the shaking of the forest canopy 

from helicopter rotor wash). Disturbance is temporary/short term (minutes to days) and does not modify habitat 

structure, or water/air flow or quality. (Disturbance should not be confused with “surface disturbance,” which refers 

to an action that modifies soil, water, or vegetation). Disturbance requires the presence of an ESA-listed animal. 

Disruption is a subset of disturbance. 
Resource Management Plan 

119 | P a g e

 Before modifying nesting habitat or removing nesting structure in (1) all land use allocations 

within 35 miles of the Pacific Coast, and (2) Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian 

Reserve between 35–50 miles from the Pacific Coast and outside of exclusion Areas C and D 

(shown in Figure 2), assess the analysis area for marbled murrelet nesting structure.

33 The 

analysis area consists of the proposed project and lands within 726 feet34 of the project 

boundary. The analysis area includes all nesting structures that could be affected by habitat 

modification. 

o If the analysis area contains no nesting structure, no further consideration of marbled 

murrelet habitat is required.

o Before modifying forest stands in any 5-acre portion (using a 5-acre moving circle) of the 

analysis area that contains at least 6 trees with nesting structure, implement Option 1, 2, 

or 3.

Option 1. Survey for the marbled murrelet using a protocol with a defined 

methodology and a resultant probability of detection:

 If no occupancy is determined, no further consideration of marbled murrelet 

habitat is required.

 If occupancy is determined, do not conduct activities within the occupied 

stand35 and all forest within 300 feet of the occupied stand.

 The following are exceptions that may be implemented as long as the stand 

continues to support nesting:

o Felling of hazard trees and trees for instream restoration projects

o Construction of linear and nonlinear rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding

corridors, or other facilities

 As needed to protect the overall health of the occupied stand, the following 

activities would be implemented as long as the stand continues to support 

nesting: 

o Wildfire suppression

o Fuels reduction

o Insect and disease control

o Other activities to improve the health of the stand or adjacent stands

 

33 Marbled murrelet nesting structure is a conifer tree with all of the following characteristics (which are not 

always visible from the ground): 

 A DBH of at least 19.1” and a height greater than 107 feet

 A nest platform at least 32.5 feet above the ground (a nest platform is a relatively flat surface at least 

4” wide, with nesting substrate (e.g., moss, epiphytes, duff), and an access route through the canopy 

that a murrelet could use to approach and land on that platform) 

 A tree branch or foliage, either on the tree with potential structure or on an adjacent tree, which 

provides protective cover over the platform 

Note: Nesting structure does not have to be occupied by nesting marbled murrelets. 

34 The distance of 726 feet is derived from the diameter of a 5-acre moving circle (526 feet), plus an additional 200 

feet in consideration of potential edge effects. 

35 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. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

120 | P a g e

Option 2. Exclude nesting structure from the project area36 by doing all of the 

following: 

 Do not remove or damage nesting structure. This includes trees with nesting 

structure and adjacent trees with branches that interlock the branches of any 

tree with nesting structure. 

 Do not conduct timber harvest and associated ground disturbing activities 

during the murrelet nesting period (April 1 – September 15) unless the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service concurs that disturbances would not adversely affect 

nesting marbled murrelets. 

 Maintain a 150-foot un-thinned buffer around all trees with nesting structure. 

Within this buffer, do not remove trees for any reason associated with timber 

harvest, including the placement of roads, landings, or yarding corridors. 

Other activities are permitted if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs 

that such activities would not adversely affect nesting marbled murrelet. 

 Maintain an average canopy cover of at least 60 percent post-project 

(averaged over each 40-acre area) in the zone between 150 feet and 300 feet 

of all trees with nesting structure. 

 Include additional, site-specific prescriptive measures to maintain or enhance 

habitat conditions, as needed, in the zone between 150 feet and 300 feet from 

all trees with nesting structure. In this context, maintain marbled murrelet 

habitat means to maintain stand structural characteristics such that, following 

habitat modification, the stand could support marbled murrelet nesting. 

 Maintain an average canopy cover of at least 40 percent post-project 

(averaged over each 40-acre area) within the project area beyond 300 feet 

from all trees with nesting structure. 

Option 3. With concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, manage nesting 

structure in a manner that would not adversely affect nesting marbled murrelets. 

o Before modifying forest stands in any 5-acre portion of the analysis area that contain 1–5

trees with nesting structure, implement Options 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Option 4. Protect nesting structure within the project area by doing all of the 

following: 

 If the nesting structure is within 20 miles of the coast—

o Between April 1 and August 5, stand modification would not occur; 

o Between August 6 and September 15, stand modification activities would 

not begin until 2 hours after sunrise and would conclude 2 hours before 

sunset. 

 Design projects in accordance with Late-Successional Reserve management 

direction. 

 Do not remove or damage nesting structure. 

 

36 For the purposes of this management direction, the project area is the area directly affected by implementation of 

the action, such as the harvest unit for a timber sale. 
Resource Management Plan 

121 | P a g e

 Design habitat modifications that occur within one site-potential tree height of 

nesting structure to protect and improve future habitat conditions. Examples 

include—

o Protecting the roots of trees with nesting structure; 

o Removing suppressed trees; 

o Removing trees that might damage nesting structure during wind storms; 

and 

o Removing trees that compete with key adjacent trees that are, or will be, 

providing cover to potential nest platforms. 

 Implement management actions that aid development of limbs and adjacent 

cover. 

 Prohibit the creation of any opening (i.e., a gap ≥ 0.25 acre in size) within a 

distance equal to one site-potential tree height of nesting structure. 

Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl 

 Manage habitat conditions for northern spotted owl movement and survival between and 

through large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat. 

 Do not authorize timber sales that would cause the incidental take of northern spotted owl 

territorial pairs or resident singles from timber harvest until implementation of a barred owl 

management program consistent with the assumptions contained in the Biological Opinion 

on the RMP has begun. 

Wildlife – Oregon Spotted Frog 

 Manage livestock grazing at sites occupied by Oregon spotted frogs to prevent direct impacts 

to eggs, tadpoles, or adults. 

Wildlife – Siskiyou Mountains Salamander 

 Manage the Siskiyou Mountains salamander consistent with the Conservation Agreement for 

the Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi) in Jackson and Josephine Counties 

of Southwest Oregon; and in Siskiyou County of Northern California (August 17, 2007), as 

amended and as long as in effect. 

Wildlife – Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp 

 Do not authorize or construct additional discretionary roads and trails within designated 

critical habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp or within vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. 

Wild Horses

Management Objective 

 Manage and maintain a healthy population of wild and free-roaming horses in the Pokegama 

Herd Management Area of the Klamath Falls Field Office. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

122 | P a g e

Management Direction 

 Gather horses to maintain the appropriate management level of 30–50 head. During gathers, 

the number of horses will normally be reduced to the low end of the appropriate management 

level, and then allowed to increase to the top end of the appropriate management level before 

another gather occurs. The BLM will remove horses from private land per private landowner 

request. Horses straying outside the herd management area will be removed or returned to the 

herd management area. 

 Maintain existing water developments to provide season-long water for wild horses within 

the herd management area. Consider new developments to assist in meeting the herd 

management objectives. 

 Provide periodic repair and maintenance of fences to protect riparian areas from concentrated 

use by wild horses. 

 Protect Bureau Sensitive plant habitat from concentrated use by wild horses, including 

constructing and maintaining fences as necessary. 

 Adjust the appropriate management level if monitoring data identifies a change in long-term 

forage availability or rangeland health assessments and evaluations determine that wild horse 

numbers or patterns of grazing use are a contributing factor toward not meeting one or more 

of the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for Public 

Lands in Oregon and Washington. 

 Introduce wild horses from other herd areas periodically to maintain the viable genetic 

diversity of the herd. 
Resource Management Plan 

123 | P a g e

References 

Cissel, J., P. Anderson, D. Olson, K. Puettmann, S. Berryman, S. Chan, and C. Thompson. 2006. BLM Density Management and 

Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan. 161 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/plans/files/DMS_Study_Plan.pdf. 

ODFW. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance 

Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bend, OR. 221 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/sagegrouse/docs/20110422_GRSG_April_Final%2052511.pdf. 

Sage-grouse Conservation Partnership. 2015. The Oregon Sage-Grouse Action Plan. Governor’s Natural Resources Office. 

Salem, OR. http://oregonexplorer.info/content/oregon-sage-grouse-action-plan?topic=203&ptopic=179. 

USDI BLM. 1984. BLM Manual 5251 – Timber Production Capability Classification. 7 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.74631.File.dat/Re

formatted%205251%20Timber%20Production%20Capabability%20Classification.pdf

---. 1997. Standards for rangeland health and guidelines for livestock grazing management for public lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in the states of Oregon and Washington. 19 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/csnm/files/rangeland_standards.pdf. 

---. 1998. BLM Handbook H-8270-1 – General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/coop_agencies/paleontology_library.Par.7

8212.File.dat/h8270-1.pdf. 

---. 2006. Record of Decision: Integrated Pest Management. Provolt Seed Orchard, Grants Pass, OR, and Charles A. Sprague 

Seed Orchard, Merlin, OR. BLM Medford District, Medford, OR. 82 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/Provolt-Sprague_eis_ROD_acc.pdf. 

---. 2010a. BLM Forest EcoSurvey Field User Guide. Oregon State Office, Portland OR. 105 pp. May 21, 2010. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/files/blm_ecosurvey.pdf. 

---. 2010b. Records of Decision (RODs) for the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Environmental Impact 

Statement and the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Oregon 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

---. 2012a. BLM Manual 6340 – Management of Designated Wilderness. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.22269.File.dat/63

40.pdf. 

---. 2012b. BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.38337.File.dat/63

10.pdf.

---. 2016. Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Resource Management Plans for 

Western Oregon—Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts, and the Klamath Falls Field Office of the 

Lakeview District. Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. Vol. I–IV. http://1.usa.gov/1YchHea. 

USDI FWS. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). USFWS Region 1, 

Portland, OR. 258 pp. http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

124 | P a g e
125 | P a g e

Appendix A – Guidance for Use of the RMP 

This appendix provides guidance on how the BLM will implement actions consistent with this 

RMP, evaluate this RMP, and change this RMP. These descriptions, which provide background 

information and explanations of how the BLM will use this RMP, do not constitute additional 

requirements beyond the management direction described in this approved RMP. The BLM may 

make changes to the processes described in this background information through plan 

maintenance, as explained below, in that changes to processes, in and of themselves, would not 

expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and decisions 

of this approved plan. 

Implementation of Actions Consistent with the 

Approved RMP 

The ROD and RMP only make decisions on lands that fall under BLM jurisdiction (including 

mineral estate). The major provisions of the RMP include the following land use plan 

decisions—

 Objectives for the management of BLM-administered lands and resources; 

 Land use allocations relative to future uses for the purposes of achieving the various 

objectives; and 

 Management direction that identifies where future actions may or may not be allowed 

and what restrictions or requirements may be placed on those future actions to achieve 

the objectives set for the BLM-administered lands and resources. 

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

resources in an RMP; the resource conditions that the BLM envisions or desires would 

eventually result from implementation of actions consistent with 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. 

Land use plan decisions (land use allocations, management objectives, and management 

direction) do not directly authorize implementation of on-the-ground projects. Land use plan 

decisions guide and control future implementation decisions, which the BLM can carry out only 

after completion of further NEPA compliance and decision-making processes and consultation as 

appropriate. 

Implementation decisions authorize implementation of on-the-ground projects. Examples of 

implementation decisions include but are not limited to the following: offering a specific tract of 

timber for sale, applying a vegetation treatment, approving or denying an application for a 

permit, issuing an individual grazing lease, designating specific roads and trails as open or closed

to motorized travel, 37 or completing a specific land exchange. This approved RMP does not 

include any implementation decisions. 

 

37 The designations in the approved RMP of areas as limited or closed for public motorized access are transportation 

land use plan decisions and not implementation decisions. Land use plan decisions guide future land management 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

126 | P a g e

Revision of an RMP necessarily involves a transition from the application of the old RMP to the 

application of the new RMP. The planning and analysis of implementation projects typically 

requires several years of preparation before the BLM can reach a decision. Allowing for a 

transition from the old RMP to the new RMP avoids disruption of the management of the BLMadministered lands and allows the BLM to utilize work already begun on the planning and 

analysis of projects. The Record of Decision for this approved RMP addresses the application of 

the RMP to new and ongoing projects. 

The analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS describes the cumulative effect of anticipated 

actions that the BLM will implement consistent with the RMP, based on the information 

available to the BLM at this time and forecasting of reasonably foreseeable implementation 

actions consistent with the RMP. The analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS will provide 

useful analysis, including cumulative effects analysis, to which most implementation-level 

analyses will tier, consistent with 40 CFR 1502.20. As the BLM plans and analyzes 

implementation actions, the BLM will have better and more specific information on the location, 

scope, and timing of proposed implementation actions, and site-specific conditions for projectlevel NEPA compliance. 

Timber Harvest in the Harvest Land Base 

The management objectives for the Harvest Land Base include offering for sale the declared 

ASQ of timber. The sub-allocations of the Harvest Land Base each include specific management 

direction to achieve this management objective. The management direction for both the Low 

Intensity Timber Area and the Moderate Intensity Timber Area require the BLM to conduct both 

regeneration harvest and commercial thinning for producing timber to contribute to the 

attainment of the declared ASQ, among other reasons. The BLM will determine which harvest 

practice, regeneration harvest or commercial thinning, to apply to any individual stand in the 

Harvest Land Base by evaluating stand conditions present at the time for harvest. The selection 

of appropriate harvest practices is at the discretion of the BLM, consistent with the management 

direction. 

Both the Low Intensity Timber Area and the Moderate Intensity Timber Area include 

management direction to conduct regeneration harvest for any of several listed reasons, including 

producing timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared ASQ. While application of 

regeneration harvest will often satisfy additional listed reasons, the BLM does not need to meet 

multiple reasons in conducting regeneration harvest and may conduct regeneration harvest solely 

for producing timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared ASQ. 

By the allocation of the Harvest Land Base, the BLM makes all lands within this land use 

allocation available for timber harvest. The BLM will conduct timber harvest on all lands within 

the Harvest Land Base over time, consistent with the management direction. The BLM may elect 

to defer harvest at particular times on particular stands in the Harvest Land Base for reasons 

 

actions and provide guidance for subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Designations of areas as limited

or closed for public motorized access will guide use within these areas until the BLM completes implementationlevel travel management planning, consistent with the BLM Travel and Transportation Handbook H-8342 (USDI 

BLM 2012). 
Appendix A – Guidance for use of the Resource Management Plan 

127 | P a g e

described in the management direction and this appendix. However, the BLM will not defer or 

forego timber harvest of stands in the Harvest Land Base for reasons not described in the 

management direction or this appendix. Lands deferred at any particular time for reasons 

described in the management direction and this appendix would still be available for future 

timber harvest. 

The land use allocations, management direction, and the guidance in this appendix constitute the 

BLM’s contribution towards Recovery Action 10, and the land use allocations constitute the 

BLM’s contribution to Recovery Action 32 in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern 

Spotted Owl (USDI FWS 2011). The BLM will not defer or forego timber harvest of stands in 

the Harvest Land Base to contribute to Recovery Action 10 beyond the specific requirements in 

the management direction or the guidance in this appendix. The BLM will not defer or forego 

timber harvest of stands in the Harvest Land Base to contribute to Recovery Action 32. 

Incidental Take of Northern Spotted Owls 

The BLM will not authorize timber sales that would cause the incidental take38 of northern 

spotted owl territorial pairs or resident singles from timber harvest until implementation of a 

barred owl management program consistent with the assumptions contained in the Biological 

Opinion on the RMP has begun. Implementation of a barred owl management program includes 

the existence of a monitoring program that would evaluate whether a barred owl program is 

having the biological benefits to the northern spotted owl assumed in the Biological Opinion on 

the RMP. 

Whether a specific timber harvest would result in incidental take will be determined on a caseby-case basis. Until implementation of a barred owl management program has begun, the BLM 

will not authorize any timber harvest that it determines would cause incidental take of northern 

spotted owls or is determined to cause incidental take through a ESA Section 7 consultation 

process. The BLM will be authorizing timber harvest that does not result in incidental take of 

northern spotted owls (e.g., harvest in unoccupied home ranges or harvest within occupied home 

ranges that does not constitute incidental take), provided that such harvest otherwise meets 

BLM’s obligations under ESA Section 7. 

As part of the process to determine whether a planned timber harvest would result in take of 

northern spotted owls, the BLM will establish whether the northern spotted owl is actually 

present in the area that will be affected by the timber harvest using the best available science at 

that time, such as through pre-project northern spotted owl surveys consistent with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities That May 

Impact Northern Spotted Owls (February 2, 2011; revised January 9, 2012). The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has updated the northern spotted owl survey protocol to account for the 

influence of barred owl and may update it in the future. 

 

38 The ESA defines ‘take’ as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt 

to engage in any such conduct” 16 U.S.C. 1532(19). The definition of harm is “an act which actually kills or injures 

wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures 

wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR 

17.3); Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Greater Or., 515 U.S. 687, 696–700 (1995). 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

128 | P a g e

If the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jointly determine that implementation of a 

barred owl management program has begun, the BLM may proceed with implementation of 

timber harvest consistent with this approved ROD/RMP that may include incidental take of 

northern spotted owl territorial pairs or resident singles. Any proposed timber harvest that may 

include such incidental take would be implemented only after and consistent with appropriate 

project-level ESA Section 7 consultation and incidental take statement. 

After implementation of a barred owl management program has begun, the BLM and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service will meet as necessary, at least annually, to review the results of the 

monitoring program. If the BLM or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conclude that the 

monitoring program shows that the results of such a barred owl management program are not 

consistent with the assumptions in the Biological Opinion, the BLM would reinitiate ESA 

Section 7 consultation on the RMP. 

If the BLM or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concludes that implementation of a barred owl 

management program consistent with the assumptions contained in the Biological Opinion has 

not begun after 5 years from the effective date of the ROD/RMP, the agencies would meet as 

necessary, at least annually, and evaluate whether implementation of a barred owl management 

program consistent with the assumptions of the Biological Opinion is reasonably certain to 

occur. If both the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agree that such a barred owl 

management program is still reasonably certain to occur, the BLM would continue to not 

authorize timber sales that would cause the incidental take of northern spotted owl territorial 

pairs or resident singles from timber harvest. If the BLM or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

concludes that such a barred owl management program is not reasonably certain to occur, the 

BLM would reinitiate ESA Section 7 consultation on the RMP. 

If implementation of a barred owl management program has not begun after 8 years of the 

effective date of the ROD/RMP, the BLM would reinitiate ESA Section 7 consultation on the 

RMP. 

If reinitiation of ESA Section 7 consultation on the RMP is triggered for any of the reasons 

above, the BLM would comply with ESA Section 7(d) and would not authorize timber harvest 

that is likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl or likely to adversely affect its critical 

habitat until consultation is complete. 

After implementation of a barred owl management program has begun, the BLM will continue to 

seek to avoid or reduce negative impacts to northern spotted owl sites, to the extent consistent 

with the management objectives and management direction for the Harvest Land Base, as 

detailed below. 
Appendix A – Guidance for use of the Resource Management Plan 

129 | P a g e

Management of Northern Spotted Owl Known Sites Associated 

with the Harvest Land Base39

Across the total planning area in 2013, an estimated 175 known sites occurred in what would be 

the Harvest Land Base under the approved RMP. In addition, the Harvest Land Base under the 

Proposed RMP would contribute to the 500-acre core use areas of an additional estimated 660 

known sites located in other land use allocations, and to the median provincial home range areas 

of another estimated 250 known sites. Thus, an estimated 1,085 known sites, or 44 percent of the 

known sites associated with BLM-administered lands, potentially would be affected by BLM 

management actions in the Harvest Land Base under the approved RMP. Given the severe 

biological stressors currently affecting the northern spotted owl, when designing, locating and 

implementing actions in the Harvest Land Base, BLM managers would40 reduce, avoid, or delay 

negative impacts to northern spotted owl known sites located in the Harvest Land Base, and 

avoid causing the abandonment of northern spotted owl known sites located in other land use 

allocations, to the extent consistent with the management objectives and management direction 

for the Harvest Land Base. 

This guidance is not intended to prevent all negative effects to known sites associated with the 

Harvest Land Base or the eventual loss of known sites in the Harvest Land Base. Instead, this 

guidance is intended to avoid or delay, to the extent consistent with the management objectives 

and management direction for the Harvest Land Base, near-term negative effects to known sites 

as northern spotted owl habitat continues to develop in the reserved land use allocations and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluates options for barred owl management. 

The following information is intended to help BLM managers implement this guidance. 

Known Sites Located in the Harvest Land Base 

With respect to sites currently41 occupied by a northern spotted owl territorial pair or resident 

single, to the extent consistent with the management objectives and management direction for the 

Harvest Land Base, BLM managers will—

 Avoid management actions that would cause the abandonment of more than 10 percent of 

such sites during the first decade of plan implementation, more than 15 percent of such sites 

during the second decade of plan implementation, and more than 20 percent of such sites per 

decade thereafter. These thresholds are intended to reflect site abandonment caused by a 

 

39 As stated in the beginning of this appendix, this description, which provides background information and 

explanations of how the BLM will use the approved RMP, does not constitute additional requirements beyond the 

management direction described in this RMP. This description provides guidance for the timing or order of timber 

harvest in the Harvest Land Base but does not alter which lands are available for timber harvest. Guidance in this 

section for avoiding harvest or prioritizing harvest is in the context of those actions that are allowable consistent 

with the management objectives and management direction for the Harvest Land Base. 

40 As stated above, guidance in this section for avoiding harvest or prioritizing harvest is in the context of those 

actions that are allowable consistent with the management objectives and management direction for the Harvest 

Land Base. Thus, statements throughout this section about actions that the BLM would or would not take are solely 

explanations of how the BLM would use the approved RMP and do not constitute additional requirements beyond 

the management direction described in this RMP. 

41 For the purpose of this guidance, “sites currently occupied” means northern spotted owl sites that the BLM has 

determined are occupied at the time of implementation of the management action. The BLM will determine 

occupancy using the best science available at that time, such as through pre-project northern spotted owl surveys. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

130 | P a g e

BLM action; they are not intended to reflect site abandonment from other causes such as 

displacement by barred owls or habitat losses on adjacent lands. If the BLM determines that 

an action would not cause the incidental taking of a territorial pair or resident single, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with that determination, subsequent abandonment of 

a site associated with the action would not be considered as resulting from the action. 

 Give priority to maintaining existing habitat conditions in the associated nest patch, 500-acre 

core use area and median provincial home range area, in that order of priority, to support 

continued site occupancy. 

With respect to sites not currently occupied but known to have been occupied by a territorial pair 

or resident single within the past 5 years, BLM managers will give priority to maintaining 

existing habitat conditions in the nest patch and 500-acre core use area, and maintaining existing 

nesting-roosting-foraging habitat in the associated median provincial home range area, to the 

extent consistent with the management objectives and management direction for the Harvest 

Land Base. If the BLM cannot maintain all existing nesting-roosting habitat in the median 

provincial home range area, BLM managers would give priority to maintaining nesting-roosting 

habitat closest to the 500-acre core use area and maintaining at least 50 percent of the median 

provincial home range area as nesting-roosting-foraging habitat when all lands are considered. 

With respect to sites not currently occupied, but known to have been occupied by a territorial 

pair or resident single within the past 10 years, BLM managers will give priority to maintaining 

existing habitat conditions in the nest patch and maintaining existing nesting-roosting habitat in 

the 500-acre core use area, or promoting the protection and development of nesting-roosting 

habitat in the nest patch and 500-acre core use area, to the extent consistent with the management 

objectives and management direction for the Harvest Land Base. 

BLM managers will give priority to implementing management actions that are located outside 

the median provincial home range area of a site, or would affect sites not known to have been 

occupied by a territorial pair or resident single within the past 10 years, over actions that would 

affect sites that have been occupied within the past 10 years. 

Known Sites Located Outside the Harvest Land Base 

Across the total planning area in 2013, approximately 590 known sites in other BLM land use 

allocations under the approved RMP were occupied by a territorial pair or resident single within 

the past 5 years. In addition, if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implements a barred owl 

management program, the BLM anticipates that northern spotted owls would reoccupy currently 

unoccupied habitat. 

As stated above, when designing, locating and implementing actions in the Harvest Land Base, 

BLM managers will avoid causing the abandonment of northern spotted owl known sites located 

in other land use allocations, to the extent consistent with the management objectives and 

management direction for the Harvest Land Base. 
Appendix A – Guidance for use of the Resource Management Plan 

131 | P a g e

BLM managers will give priority to actions that affect sites—

 That are not known to have been occupied by a territorial pair or resident single within the 

past 10 years. The longer a site has been unoccupied, the less likely it is to be re-occupied by 

northern spotted owls. 

 That have less than 50 percent nesting-roosting-foraging habitat within the associated 

median provincial home range area when all land ownerships are considered. Sites with 

median provincial home range areas supporting less than 50 percent nesting-roostingforaging habitat are less likely to be re-occupied by northern spotted owls until habitat 

conditions recover. 

 With less than 50 percent of the associated median provincial home range area occurring 

in the Late-Successional Reserve, when all land ownerships and U.S. Forest Service 

reserves are considered. Sites associated with more reserved lands are more likely to be 

re-occupied by northern spotted owls, resist displacement by barred owls and contribute 

to species recovery. 

BLM managers will avoid actions that—

 Occur in the nest patch of a site. Habitat modification in the nest patch will negatively 

affect re-occupancy of the site by northern spotted owls until habitat conditions recover. 

 Cause the loss of nesting-roosting-foraging habitat in the 500-acre core use area 

surrounding a site. Sites with core use areas supporting less than 50 percent nestingroosting-foraging habitat, when all land ownerships are considered, are less likely to be 

re-occupied by northern spotted owls until habitat conditions recover. 

 Cause the amount of nesting-roosting-foraging habitat in the median provincial home 

range area surrounding a site to decline below 50 percent, when all land ownerships are 

considered. 

Management of Newly Acquired Lands 

Lands may come under BLM administration after approval of this RMP through exchange, 

donation, purchase, revocation of withdrawals to other Federal agencies, or relinquishment of 

Recreation and Public Purpose leases. Discretionary acquisitions (such as exchanges) would be 

guided by the acquisition criteria described in Appendix D. 

The BLM would manage newly acquired or administered lands or interests in lands for the 

purpose for which they were acquired or in a manner that is consistent with management 

objectives for adjacent BLM-administered lands or other BLM-administered lands having similar 

resource values. For example, the BLM would typically manage acquired lands consistent with 

the land use allocations, management objectives, and management direction of comparable or 

adjacent BLM-administered lands. Newly acquired lands, regardless of status, would be subject 

to non-discretionary access rights provided for under the terms and conditions of most reciprocal 

right-of-way agreements and permits. 

In accordance with Section 205 (e) of the FLPMA (Pub. L. 99-632), lands acquired by the BLM 

in exchange for O&C or Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands would have the same status and 

be administered in accordance with the same provisions of law applicable to those lands disposed 

of; and those newly acquired lands would be designated as O&C or CBWR lands, as appropriate, 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

132 | P a g e

and managed under the sustained yield principles as prescribed in the O&C Act of August 28, 

1937, and other laws applicable to the O&C or CBWR lands. Additionally, lands acquired using 

proceeds generated from the disposal of O&C or CBWR lands under the authority of the Federal 

Land Transaction Facilitation Act (Pub. L. 106-248) would also take on the same status as the 

lands from which the funds were generated (O&C or CBWR) and would likewise be managed in 

accordance with the O&C Act of August 28, 1937, and other applicable laws. 

Lands acquired by the BLM that take on the status of either O&C or CBWR lands would require 

classification in accordance with the Chamberlain-Ferris Act of June 9, 1916, (39 Stat. 218) as to 

power-site, timberlands, or agricultural lands. Lands classified as timberland or agriculture 

would be open to exploration, location, entry, and disposition under the general mining laws in 

accordance with the Act of April 8, 1948 (62 Stat. 162). Lands acquired by the BLM under 

Section 205 or 206 of the FLPMA take on the status of ‘acquired lands,’ and therefore would not 

be available for location, lease, or sale until the BLM formally opened the lands to such entry. 

Land acquisitions resulting in net adjustments in the Harvest Land Base may be made without 

adjusting the declaration of the ASQ for sustained-yield timber production or amending this

RMP, unless the cumulative effects of all changes to the Harvest Land Base indicate that the 

decadal amount of sustained-yield timber production would be modified by more than 10 percent 

of the declared ASQ for sustained-yield timber production. 

Management of Future Proposed Special Areas 

The BLM could receive recommendations, nominations, or identification of new special areas 

after the approval of this RMP, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern or Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, requiring study or evaluation for special management. The BLM would conduct 

reviews and evaluations of these newly proposed or identified areas under the guidance of the 

national programs and BLM policies applicable to their management. Where the BLM 

determines that values are present, the BLM would provide management to protect the values 

while awaiting further evaluations or designations to the extent possible under existing legal 

authorities. The BLM would consider the protection of any identified values through due 

consideration in site-specific NEPA analysis and decisions in conformance with the applicable 

and current agency policies, BLM manuals, and law. 

Valid Existing Rights 

Other Federal, State, or local government agencies, Tribes, private individuals, or companies 

may hold valid existing rights within the decision area. Considering the intermingled nature of 

the BLM-administered lands in the planning area, the BLM has granted many rights-of-way, 

leases, permits, and other established legal rights within the decision area over the years. Valid 

existing rights may pertain to timber sale contracts, mining claims, mineral or energy leases, 

leases, easements, permits, rights-of-way, and water rights. Perhaps the most extensive and 

unique rights are the reciprocal rights-of-way agreements with dozens of adjacent landowners 

established to provide for the logical, effective, and efficient development of access on the 

intermingled lands. 
Appendix A – Guidance for use of the Resource Management Plan 

133 | P a g e

The decisions in this RMP will not alter or extinguish valid existing rights on BLM-administered 

lands. Valid existing rights take precedence over the decisions in this RMP. Authorization for 

implementing an action that would affect these valid existing rights may be subject to approval 

by the holders of valid existing rights and may not be discretionary to BLM. While the BLM 

may have authority to implement conditions for approval of actions implemented consistent with 

the approved RMP, any conditions would have to be consistent with the valid existing rights 

already granted or otherwise obtained. If such authorizations come up for review and can be 

modified by the BLM, the BLM will bring these authorizations into conformance with the 

approved RMP. 

The decisions in the approved RMP describe procedural steps that are relevant to some valid 

existing rights, but do not alter or extinguish the valid existing rights. For example, the 

management direction in the approved RMP describes circumstances under which a Plan of 

Operations will be required for mining activities; such descriptions of procedural steps do not 

alter or extinguish any valid existing mining claims. 

Adaptive Management 

In some instances, management direction in the approved RMP provides for a range of activities 

or resource uses. In these cases, levels of activities or resource uses would vary within the range 

prescribed by the management direction, without the need for additional planning steps such as 

plan amendment. The BLM would adapt the level of activities within the range given by 

management direction, depending on variation in resource needs or organizational capability. 

In addition to the constraints or latitude provided by management direction, the ability to adapt 

or change management without the use of planning steps or NEPA analyses would be restricted 

by how much of a departure would be from analytical assumptions in the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. This is because the BLM derived conclusions regarding environmental consequences from 

analytical assumptions. Analytical assumptions include such things as levels or methods of 

activities, number of acres treated, and miles of roads maintained. 

If the need for adaptive management changes would so alter the implementation of actions 

consistent with the RMP that the environmental consequences would be substantially different 

than those anticipated in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, then the BLM would engage in additional 

planning steps and NEPA procedures. The BLM planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5–5 state, 

“An amendment shall be initiated by the need to consider monitoring and evaluation findings, 

new data, new or revised policy, a change in circumstances or a proposed action that may result 

in a change in the scope of resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions and decisions of the 

approved plan.” The BLM would make the determination as to when additional planning steps 

and NEPA procedures would be required through the plan evaluation process, as discussed 

below. 

The BLM may also apply adaptive management by acting on information found through the 

monitoring questions (Appendix B). Adaptive management associated with monitoring could 

include corrective actions precipitated by findings of non-compliance. Corrective action 

precipitated by monitoring could range from simple changes in administrative procedures, 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

134 | P a g e

refinements of the plan through plan maintenance, or more substantive changes through plan 

amendment or revision, as discussed below. 

Plan Evaluation 

Evaluation is the process of reviewing the RMP to determine whether the BLM is implementing 

actions consistent with the plan decisions as expected and the associated NEPA analyses are still 

valid. The BLM will conduct plan evaluations at 5-year intervals. In addition to the monitoring 

results (Appendix B), the BLM will examine many of the underlying assumptions regarding 

levels of activities and anticipated environmental consequences at the time of the 5-year plan 

evaluation to determine if the plan objectives are being met or are likely to be met. The 

evaluation will also assess whether changed circumstances or new information have created a 

situation in which the expected impacts or environmental consequences of the plan are 

significantly different from those anticipated in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Through the plan 

evaluation, the BLM will make a finding of whether or not a plan amendment or plan revision is 

warranted. 

The BLM could conduct unscheduled plan evaluations to address certain unanticipated events or 

new information that would call into question the underlying analysis and decisions of the plan. 

Changes to the Approved RMP 

The BLM can make changes to this RMP subsequent to the approval through plan maintenance, 

amendment, or revision, consistent with 43 CFR 1610.5. The appropriate mechanism for making 

changes to the RMP depends on the scope of the changes. 

This approved RMP may contain data, typographical, mapping, or tabular errors not apparent at 

the time of approval. Many of the decisions in the approved RMP, such as mapping of land use 

allocations, are based on the BLM data available at the time of RMP approval. Given the extent 

and detail of the data on resource conditions that the BLM used to determine the location of the 

land use allocations, it is inevitable that there are some errors in that underlying data that, if 

corrected prior to approval of the RMP, would have resulted in a change in mapped land use 

allocations. Regardless of any such errors in underlying data, the mapped location of land use 

allocations in the spatial database represents the decision on those allocations, and changes to 

those allocations would require changes to the approved RMP. As noted in the RMP, the BLM 

provides the maps accompanying the RMP for illustrative purposes only.

For example, the BLM used existing, district-specific information on structurally-complex 

forests in part to determine the location of the Late-Successional Reserve. Future identification 

of patches of structurally-complex forest not included in the Late-Successional Reserve, in and 

of itself, would not alter the land use allocation. If the BLM identifies substantial areas of errors 

in the underlying data used to determine land use allocation locations, such that the 

environmental consequences would be substantially different than those anticipated in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS, then the BLM would engage in additional planning steps and NEPA 

procedures to make changes to land use allocations. 
Appendix A – Guidance for use of the Resource Management Plan 

135 | P a g e

For some land use allocation decisions, such as the location of the Riparian Reserve, the decision 

requires identification of features on the ground (e.g., a perennial stream) and the allocation of a 

corresponding width of Riparian Reserve. The BLM will make this identification of features and 

allocation of a corresponding width of Riparian Reserve as needed, generally through project 

implementation. The future identification of features and the allocation of a corresponding width 

of Riparian Reserve will represent implementation of the approved RMP and will not constitute a 

change to the approved RMP. 

For the District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability Classification, the BLM 

spatial database includes the current mapped location of this allocation. Over time, the BLM will 

add additional areas to this allocation through updates to the Timber Production Capability 

Classification system, when examinations indicate that an area meets the criteria for reservation. 

The BLM will also delete areas from this allocation and return the area to the Harvest Land Base 

through updates to the Timber Production Capability Classification system, when examinations 

indicate that an area does not meet the criteria for reservation. The BLM will implement these 

additions and deletions to the District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability 

Classification through plan maintenance, because such changes will represent minor changes 

based on further refining the decision in the RMP. 

The decision also requires the future allocation of some marbled murrelet occupied stands to the 

Late-Successional Reserve, as described earlier in this section. The future identification of 

marbled murrelet occupied stands and allocation to the Late-Successional Reserve will represent 

implementation of the approved RMP and will not constitute a change to the approved RMP. 

These future allocations to the Late-Successional Reserve will not require RMP amendment, 

because they are explicitly required by the management direction of the approved RMP and were 

anticipated in the analysis for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The BLM will provide annual 

reporting of survey results for marbled murrelets (Appendix B) and will consider the extent of 

these future allocations through plan evaluations. 

Plan Maintenance 

The BLM may maintain RMP decisions as necessary to reflect minor changes in data, consistent 

with 43 CFR 1610.5–4. Plan maintenance is limited to further refining, documenting, or 

clarifying a previously approved decision. Plan maintenance would not expand the scope of 

resource uses or restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan. 

Plan maintenance does not require formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or the 

NEPA analysis required for making new RMP decisions. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

136 | P a g e

Plan Amendments and Revisions 

New information, updated analyses, or new resource use or protection proposals may require 

amending or revising the RMP. 

Plan amendments change one or more of the terms, conditions, or decisions of an approved 

RMP. Plan amendments are most often prompted by the need to—

 Consider a proposal or action that does not conform to the plan; 

 Implement new or revised policy that changes RMP decisions; 

 Respond to new, intensified, or changed uses on public land in the decision area; and 

 Consider significant new information from resource assessments, plan evaluations, 

monitoring, or scientific studies relevant to the effects of the RMP. 

Plan amendments would be accompanied by either an environmental assessment or EIS, 

depending on the scope and environmental effects of the amendment. 

Plan revisions involve preparation of a new plan to replace an existing one. An RMP revision 

would be necessary if monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, or 

changes in circumstances indicate that decisions for an entire plan or a major portion of the plan 

would no longer serve as a useful guide for resource management. Plan revisions would be 

accompanied by an EIS. 

References 

USDI FWS. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). USFWS Region 1, 

Portland, OR. 258 pp. http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf. 
137 | P a g e

Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

Monitoring is an essential component of an RMP. Monitoring provides information to determine 

whether the BLM is following the RMP management direction (i.e., implementation monitoring) 

and to verify if the implementation of actions consistent with the RMP is achieving plan-level 

desired results (i.e., effectiveness monitoring). 

The monitoring plan for this RMP focuses specifically on monitoring the implementation and 

effectiveness of the RMP and is not intended as an all-encompassing strategy that addresses all 

ongoing monitoring and research efforts. This monitoring plan does not attempt to address 

research-based questions. There are many ongoing research-based efforts in which the BLM 

participates that address evaluating whether the RMP is based on correct assumptions (i.e., 

validation monitoring). 

The use of this monitoring plan by all BLM offices in the decision area will provide a basis for 

consistent and coordinated monitoring, and allow district information to be compiled and 

considered at the scale of the entire decision area. The BLM will evaluate the monitoring 

questions at each monitoring interval to ascertain if the questions, reporting, methods, sample 

size, or intervals need to be changed. The BLM will make such changes to the monitoring plan 

through plan maintenance. 

Effectiveness Monitoring 

The BLM will continue to rely on the existing interagency effectiveness monitoring modules to 

address key questions about whether implementing actions consistent with the RMP is 

effectively meeting RMP objectives. The existing interagency effectiveness modules are aquatic 

and riparian ecosystems, late-successional and old growth, marbled murrelet, northern spotted 

owl, socioeconomic, and tribal. 

The aquatic and riparian ecosystems effectiveness monitoring program assesses status and trends 

in watershed condition to answer the basic question: 

 Is implementation of the RMP maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian ecosystems 

to desired conditions on Federal lands in the planning area? 

This monitoring effort determines riparian watershed condition status for every 6th field 

watershed (with > 5 percent Federal ownership along the stream length) based on upslope and 

riparian data derived from GIS layers and satellite imagery. In-channel attributes are also 

measured using a statistically valid survey design to assess aquatic watershed condition. Changes 

in riparian and aquatic conditions provide information for tracking status and trend based on 

management activities, natural disturbance, and wildfire. More information on the aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems effectiveness monitoring is contained in the 20-year Monitoring Report 

(Miller et al. 2015), which is incorporated here by reference. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

138 | P a g e

The late-successional and old growth ecosystems effectiveness monitoring program characterizes 

the status and trend of older forests to answer the basic question: 

 Is implementation of the RMP maintaining and restoring late-successional and old 

growth forest ecosystems to desired conditions on Federal lands in the planning area? 

This monitoring effort determines the current status of forest vegetation from classification of 

satellite imagery and analysis of inventory and other available data. Remote sensing change 

detection and trend analysis provide information for tracking losses and gains in forest 

conditions from management activities, natural succession, and wildfire. More information on 

the late-successional and old growth ecosystems effectiveness monitoring is contained in the 20-

year Monitoring Report (Davis et al. in press), which is incorporated here by reference. 

The marbled murrelet effectiveness monitoring program assesses status and trends in marbled 

murrelet populations and nesting habitat to answer the basic questions: 

 Are the marbled murrelet populations associated with the planning area stable, 

increasing, or decreasing? 

 Is implementation of the RMP maintaining and restoring marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat? 

This monitoring effort determines marbled murrelet population size and trends by sampling of 

populations in near-shore waters, using standardized and consistent methodology. Trends in the 

amount, quality, and distribution of nesting habitat in the planning area are evaluated 

periodically using a model approach that applies current vegetation maps along with other data 

derived from GIS layers and other available sources. More information on the marbled murrelet 

effectiveness monitoring is contained in the 20-year Monitoring Report (Falxa et al. 2015), 

which is incorporated here by reference. 

The northern spotted owl effectiveness monitoring program assesses status and trends in northern 

spotted owl populations and habitat to answer the basic questions: 

 Will implementing the RMP reverse the downward trend in spotted owl populations? 

 Is implementation of the RMP maintaining and restoring owl habitat necessary to support 

viable owl populations? 

Population monitoring documents survival, reproductive success, and annual rate of population 

change in northern spotted owl demographic study areas. Maps depicting habitat suitability are 

produced using habitat models applied to current vegetation maps developed by the latesuccessional and old growth monitoring program along with other available data sources. More 

information on the northern spotted owl effectiveness monitoring is contained in the draft 20-

year Monitoring Report (Davis et al. 2015), which is incorporated here by reference. 

The socio-economic effectiveness monitoring program assesses social and economic impacts of 

Federal forest management, framed as two questions: 

 Are predictable levels of timber and non-timber resources available and being produced? 

 Are communities and economies experiencing positive or negative changes that may be 

associated with Federal forest management? 

The key objectives of the socio-economic effectiveness monitoring program are to identify 

communities experiencing significant positive or negative conditions or trends, as well as those 

that are not, and to improve understanding of the relationship between Federal forest 

management and social and economic change. To address the objectives above, the monitoring 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

139 | P a g e

program analyzes trends in data for timber and non-timber resources. The monitoring program 

considers social and economic indicators derived from U.S. census data, analysis of quantitative 

data from agency databases, along with other available data. More information on the 

socioeconomic effectiveness monitoring is contained in the 20-year Monitoring Report 

(Grinspoon et al. 2015), which is incorporated here by reference. 

The tribal effectiveness monitoring program addresses conditions, trends, and access to resources 

protected by treaty or of interest to American Indian tribes, the condition of and access to 

religious and cultural heritage sites, and the quality of the government-to-government 

relationship. The basic effectiveness monitoring questions are: 

 How well and to what degree is government-to-government consultation being conducted 

under the RMP? 

 Have the goals and objectives of the consultation been achieved? 

 Is the consultation occurring because of effects on resources of tribal interest on Federal 

lands or trust resources on tribal lands? 

Effectiveness monitoring data are collected during interviews using a standardized questionnaire 

developed by Federal agency officials. All federally recognized Tribes with Tribal lands or 

territories within the RMP area will be invited to participate in interviews. More information on 

the tribal effectiveness monitoring is contained in the 20-year Monitoring Report (Vinyeta and 

Lynn 2015), which is incorporated here by reference. 

The interagency effectiveness monitoring modules will continue to report every 5 years. The 

BLM will continue to use these reports to state the findings and conclusions made through 

monitoring, and to serve as a report to managers and the public. Effectiveness monitoring reports 

will also include analysis of whether the BLM is achieving desired conditions based on 

effectiveness monitoring questions and, where possible, inform adaptive management. 

In addition to the six interagency effectiveness monitoring modules, the BLM will conduct 

effectiveness monitoring of hazardous fuels treatments through the Fuels Treatment 

Effectiveness Monitoring (FTEM) system. The FTEM is a centralized interagency web-based 

hub for recording on-the-ground documentation describing the effect of hazardous fuels 

reduction treatments on the wildland fire environment, framed around two key questions: 

 Did the fire behavior change as a result of the treatment (as planned in the treatment 

objectives)? 

 Did the treatment contribute to control of the fire? 

The FTEM system is intended to identify the extent which hazardous fuels treatments are 

affecting the wildland fire environment. Field personnel from each field office will fill out an 

online form for every hazardous fuels reduction treatment intersected by a wildfire, within 90 

days of the wildfire burning in the treated area. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

140 | P a g e

Implementation Monitoring 

The implementation monitoring plan for the approved RMP will assess the level of management 

activity and will examine if the BLM is implementing actions in accordance with management 

direction of this RMP. 

The BLM will employ sampling or evaluation of a subset of implementation actions. The BLM 

has designed this monitoring plan to avoid prohibitive costs and effectively answer monitoring 

questions and reporting levels of activities. It is not necessary or desirable for the BLM to 

monitor every implementation action of an RMP. The BLM will select projects to be monitored 

based on those that will yield a greater amount of information or be more beneficial. For 

example, a random sample may result in monitoring of a relatively small straightforward project 

that will yield limited information, whereas a more sophisticated or complex project might be 

available for monitoring that will yield more information or be more effective. As much as 

possible, the BLM will integrate project implementation monitoring among resources and 

programs. This integration saves time and costs, and helps build common information and 

understanding between various resources and programs. 

The BLM will conduct sampling at the level of the entire administrative unit to which the 

resource management applies (e.g., Medford District or Klamath Falls Field Office of the 

Lakeview District). 

The BLM will report implementation monitoring results annually in a monitoring report, which 

may be combined with other documents, such as an annual program summary. The monitoring 

report will report, track, and assess the progress of implementation of actions consistent with the 

RMP, state the findings and conclusions made through monitoring, and serve as a report to 

managers and the public. Monitoring reports will also include any discussions and analysis of 

non-compliance and recommendations for corrective action. 

Some management direction in the RMP is not measurable or quantifiable, or does not have a 

standard or threshold of acceptability, and therefore does not lend itself to being addressed 

through monitoring questions that are almost always dependent on a quantifiable basis of 

measurement. The level of activity for certain management direction that does not have standards 

or thresholds of acceptability will be monitored in the form of a program reporting item. The 

BLM will use the information in the program reporting items, to assess the level of management 

activity and examine if the BLM is implementing actions consistent with the analytical 

assumptions in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and the biological opinions on the Proposed RMP. 

In some cases, where monitoring indicates very high compliance with the plan, the BLM will

subsequently adjust the frequency or interval of monitoring for cost and time efficiency. 

Monitoring of certain questions will not take place in the early years of implementation, because 

the BLM will not yet have completed projects and, therefore, will not be ready for monitoring. 

Although incomplete projects may be informally examined by managers to assess progress 

towards implementing management actions and achieving objectives, the evaluation of 

incomplete projects will not be part of formal plan monitoring. Not all programs or resources 

have monitoring questions. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

141 | P a g e

Monitoring Questions 

Late-Successional Reserve 

M1. Monitoring Question: Have the number of snags been created in the appropriate size 

classes as described in the management direction (Table 4)?

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one completed timber sale in a Late-Successional Reserve 

per field office. Report the number of snags created > 20” DBH and > 10” DBH per project.

Monitoring Interval: Annual; change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M2. Monitoring Question: Has the amount of down woody material described in the 

management direction (Table 5) been retained when implementing fuels or prescribed fire 

treatments? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one fuels or prescribed fire treatment in the LateSuccessional Reserve per field office. Report the percent cover of down woody material and the 

method used to measure percent cover. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual; change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

Late-Successional Reserve – Dry 

M3. Monitoring Question: Have the Medford District and the South River Field Office of 

the Roseburg District applied selection harvest or commercial thinning to meet decadal acreage 

targets set forth in the RMP? Note that acreage in untreated skips counts towards total treatment 

acreage for this calculation. 

Monitoring Scope: Report acres of thinning and selection harvest sold and the cumulative total 

since approval of the plan. Also, report as an annual average and compare with the annual 

average required to meet decadal acreage targets. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

142 | P a g e

Riparian Reserve 

Note: Monitoring questions M4–M9 do not apply to Eastside Management Area – Riparian 

Reserve. 

M4. Monitoring Question: Is the width of the Riparian Reserve established adjacent to 

regeneration harvests in the Moderate Intensity Timber Area or Low Intensity Timber Area in 

accordance with the RMP? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate all streams within at least one completed timber sale per field office. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M5. Monitoring Question: When thinning treatments are applied in the Riparian Reserve 

along fish-bearing streams and perennial streams, is a minimum of 30 percent canopy cover and 

60 trees per acre retained? Are thinning treatments excluded from the inner zone of the Riparian 

Reserve along perennial and intermittent fish-bearing streams? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate all fish-bearing streams and perennial streams treated within at least 

one completed thinning timber sale per field office. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M6. Monitoring Question: When thinning treatments are applied in the Riparian Reserve 

along intermittent non-fish-bearing streams, is a minimum of 30 percent canopy cover and 60 

trees per acre retained? Are thinning treatments excluded within inner zone of the Riparian 

Reserve along intermittent non-fish bearing streams? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 0.25 mile of streams within thinning projects completed within the 

past year per field office. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M7. Monitoring Question: Were Best Management Practices that were identified as 

applicable (as indicated through NEPA decision record or contract stipulations) applied during 

project implementation? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one project with identified Best Management Practices per 

field office. Projects from any land use allocation may be selected for evaluation. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

143 | P a g e

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M8. Monitoring Question: Have the number of snags been created in the appropriate size 

classes as described in the management direction (Table 4)?

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one completed timber sale that includes Riparian Reserve 

per field office. Report the number of snags created > 20” DBH and > 10” DBH per project.

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M9. Monitoring Question: Has the amount of down woody material described in the 

management direction (Table 5) been retained when implementing fuels or prescribed fire 

treatments? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one fuels or prescribed fire treatment in the Riparian 

Reserve per field office. Report the percent cover of down woody material and the method used 

to measure percent cover. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

144 | P a g e

Note: Monitoring question M10 applies only to Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve. 

M10. Monitoring Question: Has the amount of streams in proper functioning condition been 

maintained or increased? (Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve only) 

Monitoring Scope and Monitoring Interval: Monitoring and reporting will be through the use of 

the statewide report, Table 1 from USDI TR-1737-9 1993 (or similar), of lotic and lentic 

waterbodies in properly functioning; functioning at risk with trend up, down or not apparent; and 

not properly functioning. (Note: Table 1 is available online, with instructions, at 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/Final%20TR%201737-9.pdf and is also provided below 

(Table B-1 for reference purposes.) 

State: ___________________ 

Table B-1. Example of Functioning Condition Status Table from USDI TR-1737-9 (1993). 

Habitat Types

Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

Functional – At Risk Nonfunctional Trend Unknown Totals

Up

Trend Not 

Apparent

Trend 

Down

Riverine Miles

(Lotic)

Non-riverine 

Acres

(Lentic)*

* Report only acres associated with lentic riparian-wetland areas. Do not include acres associated with lotic riparian-wetland 

areas. 

Eastside Management Area 

M11. Monitoring Question: Are snags and down woody material retained in accordance with 

RMP requirements? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one completed timber sale. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual, or each year in which there is a completed timber sale. 

M12. Monitoring Question: Is a stand average relative density of 15–55 maintained after 

commercial harvest conducted for the removal and sale of timber and biomass? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one completed timber sale. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual, or each year in which there is a completed timber sale. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

145 | P a g e

Harvest Land Base 

M13. Monitoring Question: Has the allowable sale quantity been offered for sale within the 

variation provided for in the plan? 

Monitoring Scope: Report annual sale quantity offered for sale by sustained-yield unit and the 

cumulative total since approval of the plan. Also report as volume offered by harvest type 

(selection harvest, commercial thinning, regeneration harvest, and timber salvage) by sustainedyield unit. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

M14. Monitoring Question: Have the number of snags been created in the appropriate size 

classes as described in the management direction (Table 3)?

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one completed timber sale per field office. Report the 

number of snags created > 20” DBH and > 10” DBH per project.

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M15. Monitoring Question: Are regeneration harvest areas, salvage harvest areas, and group 

selection openings being reforested in accordance with the RMP? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one completed timber sale per field office. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

Harvest Land Base – Uneven-Aged Timber Area 

M16. Monitoring Question: Is a stand average relative density of 20–45 percent maintained 

after commercial harvest? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one completed timber sale per field office. Report the stand 

average relative density per stand treated within each timber sale evaluated. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

146 | P a g e

Harvest Land Base – Moderate Intensity Timber Area and Low 

Intensity Timber Area 

M17. Monitoring Question: Is a stand average relative density of 25–45 percent maintained 

after commercial thinning? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one completed timber sale per field office. Report the stand 

average relative density per stand treated within each timber sale evaluated. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M18. Monitoring Question: Are trees retained after regeneration harvest in accordance with 

targets set forth in the RMP? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one completed timber sale per field office. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

Air Quality 

M19. Monitoring Question: Have smoke intrusions occurred in areas designated as Class I for 

air quality and non-attainment occurred as a result of BLM prescribed fire? 

Monitoring Scope: Report intrusions through Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) as required 

under the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

M20. Monitoring Question: Are important and relevant values being maintained or restored? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 20 percent of the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

Monitoring Interval: Rotate the monitoring of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, so that 

all of the areas will be monitored over a 5-year period. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

147 | P a g e

Rare Plants and Fungi 

M21. Monitoring Question: Is management of plant species that are listed under the 

Endangered Species Act consistent with recovery plans and designated critical habitat? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least two completed projects per field office that ‘may affect’

ESA-listed species. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M22. Monitoring Question: Have protection measures maintained populations of BLM 

special status plant and fungi species? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least two completed projects per field office in which the BLM 

implemented protection measures for BLM Special Status plant and fungi species. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Including American Indian 

Traditional Uses 

M23. Monitoring Question: Were previously unknown sites discovered within project areas 

after the commencement of ground-disturbing activities? If yes, how many? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least 20 percent of management activities per field office that 

involve ground disturbance that have been completed within the past year. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

M24. Monitoring Question: Have ground-disturbing actions avoided previously recorded sites 

that are listed (or eligible for listing) on the National Register of Historic Places? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 100 percent of recorded listed or eligible sites that lie within the 

boundaries of a ground-disturbing project after the project is completed. Report number of sites 

present and number of sites avoided. 

Monitoring Interval: Annually when listed or eligible sites are present and avoidance prescribed. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

148 | P a g e

M25. Monitoring Question: Are mitigation measures employed on sites that are listed (or 

eligible for listing) on the National Register of Historic Places prior to disturbance (when 

disturbance cannot be practically avoided) through practices such as data recovery, including 

excavation, relocation, or documentation? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 100 percent of sites that are listed (or eligible for listing) on the 

National Register of Historic Places that were at risk of loss from ground disturbing management 

activities that have been completed within the past year. Report number of sites at risk and 

number of sites that were mitigated and with what methods. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

M26: Monitoring Question: Are cultural and paleontological resources that are threatened by 

natural processes or human activity (other than Federal undertakings) stabilized and protected or 

excavated and the data recovered where warranted by the scientific importance of the site? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 100 percent of cultural and paleontological resources threatened or 

impacted by events that have happened within the past year. Report number of sites threatened or 

impacted and report number of sites stabilized or protected and with what measures. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

Energy and Minerals 

M27. Monitoring Question: Has the level of opportunities for the exploration and 

development of locatable, leasable, and salable mineral resources been maintained? 

Monitoring Scope: Identify new closures and withdrawals. 

Monitoring Interval: Five years. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

M28. Monitoring Question: Were fuels managed to reduce wildfire hazard, risk to 

communities, and negative impacts to ecosystems, and highly valued resources? 

Monitoring Scope: Summarize the primary and secondary reason for treatments and the primary 

and secondary initiative for all treatments, based on spatial inventory treatment data. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual.
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

149 | P a g e

M29. Monitoring Question: Have fuels treatments created fuel beds and fuel breaks intended 

to reduce potential fire behavior, reduce potential wildfire severity, or improve fire management 

opportunities? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least one treatment per field office. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M30. Monitoring Question: Did risk-based wildfire management decisions implemented in 

response to natural ignitions include an examination of the full range of fire management 

options? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 100 percent of Wildland Fire Decision Support System decisions 

completed. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M31. Monitoring Question: Did land management treatments intersected by wildfires change 

fire behavior, minimize negative wildfire effects and damage to resource values, or positively 

contribute toward fire management opportunities? 

Monitoring Scope: Complete a treatment effectiveness assessment of 100 percent of treatments 

intersected by wildfire. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

Hazardous Materials 

M32. Monitoring Question: Has the response to hazardous material incidents included 

cleanup, proper notifications, criminal investigations, and site assessments as applicable? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 100 percent of hazardous material incidents. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

M33. Monitoring Question: Are hazardous materials stored, treated, and disposed of in 

accordance with applicable laws and regulations? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 100 percent of district-stored, treated, and disposed hazardous 

materials. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

150 | P a g e

Lands, Realty, Access, and Transportation 

M34. Monitoring Question: Have the acres of O&C lands of all classifications and the acres 

of O&C and public domain lands that are available for harvesting been reduced through disposal, 

exchange, or purchase? 

Monitoring Scope: Review O&C lands records through the Oregon State Office. Evaluate total 

net change in land tenure of O&C lands in the decision area. Evaluate changes at 10-year 

intervals keyed from 1998, the date of the legislation that provides for no net loss of O&C lands. 

Monitoring Interval: Three years. 

Livestock Grazing 

Note: Monitoring questions M37 through M39 apply only to the Medford District and the 

Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District. 

M35. Monitoring Question: Has the condition of public rangelands been maintained or 

improved compared to the baseline year of 2015? 

Monitoring Scope and Monitoring Interval: In ‘I’ category allotments, examine trend plots every 

5 years, determine condition every 10 years, and record utilization data every other year. In ‘M’ 

allotments, determine trend and condition every 10 years and utilization every 5 years. 

Monitoring in ‘C’ allotments is limited to periodic inventories and observations to measure longterm resource condition changes.42

M36. Monitoring Question: Are areas disturbed by natural and human-induced events 

(including wildland fire, prescribed burns, timber-management treatments, and juniper reduction 

treatments) rested from livestock grazing? Is livestock grazing resumed only after a 

determination that soil and vegetation has recovered sufficient to support livestock grazing 

(except where livestock grazing will either not impede site recovery, or where livestock grazing 

could be used as a tool to aid in achieving recovery objectives)? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 10 percent of disturbance events. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual; change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

 

42 Grazing allotments are assigned to one of three management categories: (I) Improve (M) Maintain, and (C) 

Custodial. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

151 | P a g e

M37. Monitoring Question: For streams with ESA-listed or anadromous fish species, is 

livestock restricted from riparian areas during spawning, incubation, and until 30 days following 

the emergence of juveniles from spawning beds? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 20 percent of streams with ESA-listed or anadromous fish species 

within active grazing allotments. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual; change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

Recreation 

M38. Monitoring Question: Are Special Recreation Management Areas managed in 

accordance with their planning frameworks? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 20 percent of the Special Recreation Management Areas. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. The monitoring of Special Recreation Management Areas will be 

rotated so that over a five-year period 100 percent of the areas will be monitored. 

Soils 

M39. Monitoring Question: Have land management actions created more than a 20 percent 

level of detrimental soil conditions at the unit treatment scale? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 10 percent of each treatment unit per Field Office that has the 

potential to affect the existing soil resource condition. Use Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring 

Protocol (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009a, 2009b) to determine level of compaction and disturbance, 

amount of organic matter removed, and extent and intensity of prescribed burning or fuel 

reduction treatment areas. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

Visual Resource Management 

M40. Monitoring Question: Is the level of change in character for the areas designated to be 

managed as VRM Class I, II, and III consistent with RMP requirements? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 20 percent of activities that have the potential to affect the existing 

character in VRM Class I, II, and III. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

152 | P a g e

Wild Horses 

M41. Monitoring Question: Is the population of wild horses in the Pokegama Herd 

Management Area maintained at the appropriate management level of 30–50 head? 

Monitoring Scope: Report on population surveys or censuses. 

Monitoring Interval: Five years. 

M42. Monitoring Question: Are horses from other herd areas periodically introduced to the 

Pokegama herd to maintain the genetic diversity of the herd? 

Monitoring Scope: Report all introductions. 

Monitoring Interval: Five years. 

M43. Monitoring Question: Are water developments maintained or established to provide 

season-long water for wild horses within the herd management area? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 100 percent of water developments. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual; change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

Wilderness Characteristics 

M44. Monitoring Question: Are wilderness characteristics maintained in accordance with 

RMP requirements? 

Monitoring Scope: Report all management activities that will adversely affect wilderness 

characteristics in Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Areas and District-Designated Reserve 

– Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics. Monitor for amount of degradation or loss 

of inventoried wilderness characteristics resulting from undue or unnecessary degradation as a 

result of human or natural causes. 

Monitoring Interval: Five years. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

153 | P a g e

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

M45. Monitoring Question: Are the outstandingly remarkable values of designated Wild and 

Scenic river corridors (including those classified as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational) being 

maintained? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 100 percent of BLM-authorized activities that have the potential to 

affect the outstandingly remarkable values of Wild and Scenic River corridors.

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M46. Monitoring Question: Are the outstandingly remarkable values of the eligible Nestucca 

River Segment B and suitable Little North Santiam River, North Fork Siletz River, Rogue River, 

Sandy River, Table Rock Fork – Molalla River, and West Fork Illinois River Wild and Scenic 

river corridors (including those classified as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational) being maintained? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate 100 percent of BLM-authorized activities that have the potential to 

affect the outstandingly remarkable values of these Wild and Scenic River corridors. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual; change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

Wildlife 

M47. Monitoring Question: Is management of species that are listed under the Endangered 

Species Act consistent with recovery plans and designated critical habitat? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least two completed projects per field office that ‘may affect’

ESA-listed species. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M48. Monitoring Question: Have BLM actions in the Harvest Land Base caused the 

abandonment (i.e., caused a site to not be occupied during the year following the BLM action) of 

more than 10 percent of northern spotted owl occupied sites in the Harvest Land Base during the 

first decade of RMP implementation, more than an additional 15 percent of northern spotted owl 

occupied sites in the Harvest Land Base during the second decade of RMP implementation, and 

more than an additional 20 percent of northern spotted owl occupied sites in the Harvest Land 

Base per decade beginning with the third decade of RMP implementation? 

Monitoring Scope: The BLM State Office wildlife program lead will coordinate this monitoring 

item. BLM wildlife biologists in each district will estimate the number of sites in the Harvest 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

154 | P a g e

Land Base occupied by a northern spotted owl territorial pair or resident single. Biologists will 

base their estimates on the most recent year of protocol surveys supplemented by the previous 4 

years of protocol surveys and, if no protocol surveys of a site has been completed during the 

previous 5 years, by the most recent 10 years of protocol surveys. BLM wildlife biologists in 

each district will examine all actions in the Harvest Land Base implemented under the RMP and 

estimate the number of northern spotted owl occupied sites in the Harvest Land Base that have 

been abandoned by northern spotted owls due to BLM actions in the Harvest Land Base. 

Although the behaviors of individual northern spotted owl pairs and singles vary, in general, the 

following are evidence that BLM actions caused site abandonment:

 The BLM modified or removed habitat in the nest patch, which commonly extends 300 

meters from the occupied site.

 Following a BLM action in the 500-acre core use area surrounding the occupied site, less 

than 250 acres of the core use area supported nesting-roosting habitat, when all land 

ownerships are considered, regardless of the amount of nesting-roosting habitat in this 

area before the BLM action. 

 Following a BLM action in the median provincial home range areas surrounding the 

occupied site, less than 40 percent of the home range area supported nesting-roosting 

habitat, when all land ownerships are considered, regardless of the amount of nestingroosting habitat in this area before the BLM action. 

If, following a BLM action, survey indicates that a site is occupied by a territorial pair or resident 

single, the biologist will determine that the BLM action did not cause site abandonment. 

The State Office wildlife program leader will collect results from all BLM districts, make the 

plan-wide monitoring calculations, and report the results to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Monitoring Interval: Biologists will annually document all BLM actions associated with northern 

spotted owl occupied sites in the Harvest Land Base, and every 5 years will estimate the percent 

of occupied sites in the Harvest Land Base that were abandoned due to BLM actions 

implemented under the RMP. 

M49. Monitoring Question: Have BLM actions avoided adverse effects to vernal pool fairy 

shrimp and Oregon spotted frog, 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? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least 20 percent of actions that ‘may affect’ vernal pool fairy 

shrimp and Oregon spotted frog.

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

155 | P a g e

Program Reporting Items 

Program reporting items involve activities that are related to: (1) certain analytical assumptions 

that are pertinent to non-specific management actions; or (2) analytical assumptions pertinent to 

the analysis of environmental consequences in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and the biological 

opinions on the Proposed RMP. Not all programs or resources have reporting items. 

Late-Successional Reserve 

R1. Program Reporting Item: Report the volume of non-ASQ timber offered for sale from 

the Late-Successional Reserve. Reporting will be annual. 

Riparian Reserve 

Note: Program Reporting Item R2 does not apply to Eastside Management Area – Riparian 

Reserve.

R2. Program Reporting Item: Report the volume of non-ASQ timber offered for sale from 

the Riparian Reserve. Reporting will be annual. 

R3. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of fish-passage blockages that have been 

corrected and the number of resulting miles of stream habitat that are newly accessible. 

Reporting will be annual. 

R4. Program Reporting Item: Report the miles of permanent road construction, road 

renovation, road improvement, and road decommissioning within the Riparian Reserve. 

Reporting will be annual. 

R5. Program Reporting Item: Report the overall level of stream and riparian restoration 

activities (e.g., placement of large wood and boulders in streams, planting, and thinning). Report 

the level of stream restoration activities in high intrinsic potential streams, or streams with high 

priority fish populations. Reporting will be annual. 

Eastside Management Area 

R6. Program Reporting Item: Report the acres of group selection, commercial thinning, 

density management, and regeneration harvest. Reporting will be annual, or each year in which 

there is an completed timber sale. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

156 | P a g e

Harvest Land Base 

R7. Program Reporting Item: Report acres by treatment type for silvicultural treatments 

listed in the following table by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation. Compare against modeling 

results for the appropriate decade of implementation; see Table B-2 and Table B-3 for values for 

decade one and decade two, respectively. See the Proposed RMP/Final EIS for subsequent 

decades. Report commercial thinning, selection harvest, regeneration harvest, and timber salvage 

harvest as acres sold, and report other treatment type categories as acres treated. Reporting will

be annual. 

Table B-2. Decade one modeled acres by treatment type by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation. 

Decade 1

Treatment Type‡

Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Grand

Total

(Acres)

UTA

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

UTA

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

UTA

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

Commercial Thinning* - - - - - 200 1,410 1,610 - 870 310 1,180 2,790

Selection Harvest* 5,750 - - 5,750 28,170 - - 28,170 1,810 - - 1,810 35,730

Regeneration Harvest* - 110 340 450 - 420 2,590 3,010 - 1,330 600 1,930 5,390

Timber Salvage Harvest* - - - - 1,940 - - 1,940 80 30 - 120 2,060

Reforestation†1,150 140 430 1,710 6,670 480 2,980 10,130 380 1,700 750 2,830 14,670

Manual Cutting 580 60 180 810 7,880 500 3,110 11,490 300 1,060 470 1,830 14,130

Mulching 350 30 100 480 980 60 360 1,400 260 930 410 1,600 3,480

Tubing 120 10 30 160 340 30 180 550 260 940 410 1,620 2,330

Shading - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Trapping - - - - 650 40 230 920 - - - - 920

Scalping - - - - 660 40 260 960 - - - - 960

Pre-commercial Thinning 810 160 790 1,760 4,810 460 4,070 9,330 260 1,720 770 2,750 13,840

Pruning 230 20 70 320 330 20 130 480 20 80 40 140 940

Stand Conversion - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Acreage includes untreated portion of stand (i.e., skips, aggregate retention areas). 

† Natural and artificial reforestation. 

‡ These estimates represent analytical results based on the vegetation modeling assumptions described in Appendix C of the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS (USDI BLM 2016). The BLM has made these assumptions and estimations solely for analytical 

purposes. These acreages of silvicultural treatments by district office and by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation for each decade 

do not represent management direction or restrictions on silvicultural treatments under the RMP. Silvicultural treatments will be 

implemented consistent with the management direction for the Harvest Land Base sub-allocation and consistent with projectlevel analysis and decision-making.
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

157 | P a g e

Table B-3. Decade two modeled acres by treatment type by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation. 

Decade 2

Treatment Type‡

Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Grand

Total

(Acres)

UTA

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

UTA

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

UTA

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

Commercial Thinning* - - 20 20 - 50 640 690 - 1,000 760 1,760 2,470

Selection Harvest* 7,360 - - 7,360 27,840 - - 27,840 2,210 - - 2,210 37,410

Regeneration Harvest* - 90 350 440 - 200 2,610 2,810 - 920 370 1,290 4,540

Timber Salvage Harvest* - - - - 1,610 - - 1,610 - - - - 1,610

Reforestation†1,470 110 440 2,020 6,450 230 3,010 9,680 440 1,150 470 2,060 13,760

Manual Cutting 740 50 180 960 7,640 240 3,140 11,010 350 720 290 1,360 13,330

Mulching 440 30 110 570 950 30 370 1,340 310 630 250 1,190 3,100

Tubing 150 10 40 190 330 10 180 530 310 640 260 1,200 1,920

Shading - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Trapping - - - - 630 20 240 880 - - - - 880

Scalping - - - - 640 20 260 920 - - - - 920

Pre-commercial Thinning 1,030 90 350 1,470 4,630 200 2,610 7,440 310 920 370 1,600 10,510

Pruning 290 20 70 380 320 10 130 460 20 60 20 100 940

Stand Conversion - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Acreage includes untreated portion of stand (i.e., skips, aggregate retention areas). 

† Natural and artificial reforestation. 

‡ These estimates represent analytical results based on the vegetation modeling assumptions described in Appendix C of the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS (USDI BLM 2016). The BLM has made these assumptions and estimations solely for analytical 

purposes. These acreages of silvicultural treatments by district office and by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation for each decade 

do not represent management direction or restrictions on silvicultural treatments under the RMP. Silvicultural treatments will be 

implemented consistent with the management direction for the Harvest Land Base sub-allocation and consistent with projectlevel analysis and decision-making. 

Rare Plants and Fungi 

R8. Program Reporting Item: Report the acres of activities designed to maintain or restore 

natural plant communities on non-forest and non-commercial lands. Reporting will be annual. 

Energy and Minerals 

R9. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of biomass utilization projects. Reporting 

will be annual. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

R10. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of acres of hazardous fuels treatments by 

treatment type and by land use allocation (i.e., under burning, broadcast burning, hand pile and 

burn, landing pile and burn, machine pile and burn, slash and scatter, and mastication). Reporting 

will be annual. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

158 | P a g e

Fisheries 

Provide the following reporting items to the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service by species (e.g., by Evolutionarily Significant Unit or Distinct Population 

Segment) every three years following the effective date of the ROD on the cumulative total of 

three years of activities, consistent with the terms and conditions in the incidental take statements 

included with the biological opinions on the Proposed RMP. 

R11. Program Reporting Item: Report the total miles of BLM-managed roads of all surface 

types within 200 feet of streams. Report the miles of BLM-managed roads of all surface types 

constructed within 200 feet of streams. Report the miles of BLM-managed roads of all surface 

types closed within 200 feet of streams. Reporting will be every three years. 

R12. Program Reporting Item: Report the miles of BLM-managed paved roads within 200 

feet of streams. Report the miles of BLM-managed paved roads constructed within 200 feet of 

streams. Report the miles of BLM-managed paved roads closed within 200 feet of streams. 

Reporting will be every three years. 

R13. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of recreational facilities within 216 feet of 

habitat occupied by threatened or endangered fish or designated critical habitat for threatened or 

endangered fish. Report the number of recreational facilities constructed within 216 feet of 

habitat occupied by threatened or endangered fish or designated critical habitat for threatened or 

endangered fish. Report the number of recreational facilities closed within 216 feet of habitat 

occupied by threatened or endangered fish or designated critical habitat for threatened or 

endangered fish. Reporting will be every three years. 

R14. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of road-related sediment reduction 

actions. Report the number of stormwater reduction actions. Reporting will be every three years. 

Forest Management 

R15. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of acres of silvicultural treatments by 

treatment type and by land use allocation, including commercial thinning, selection harvest, 

regeneration harvest, timber salvage harvest, reforestation (natural and artificial), manual cutting, 

mulching, tubing, shading, trapping, scalping, pre-commercial thinning, non-commercial 

thinning, pruning, and stand conversion. Report acres of commercial thinning, selection harvest, 

regeneration harvest, and timber salvage harvest as acres sold; report all other treatment types as 

acres treated. Reporting will be annual. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

159 | P a g e

Invasive Species 

R16. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of acres of manual, mechanical, cultural, 

chemical, and biological treatments used to manage invasive species infestations. Reporting 

would be annual. 

R17. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of acres of invasive species inventories. 

Reporting will be annual. 

Livestock Grazing 

R18. Program Reporting Item: Report the findings of livestock grazing allotments towards 

meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and 

Washington (USDI BLM 1997). Reporting will be annual. 

R19. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of acres of prescribed livestock grazing 

used to control invasive plants, reduce fire danger, or accomplish other management objectives. 

Reporting will be annual. 

R20. Program Reporting Item: Report the acres or number of range improvements. 

Reporting will be annual. 

Socioeconomics 

R21. Program Reporting Item: Report the payments to counties associated with BLMadministered lands including O&C, Coos Bay Wagon Roads, and Public Domain lands. 

Reporting will be annual. 

R22. Program Reporting Item: Report receipts from timber sales, special forest products, 

recreation, and permits. Reporting will be annual. 

R23. Program Reporting Item: Report appropriations; number of full time and temporary 

employees; and major new facility developments or improvements. Reporting will be annual. 

Recreation 

R24. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of service-oriented and outreach 

programs, including interpretation and education provided to visitors. Reporting will be annual. 

R25. Program Reporting Item: Report the status of development of comprehensive travel 

management plans for off-highway vehicle management areas and travel management areas. 

Reporting will be annual. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

160 | P a g e

R26. Program Reporting Item: Within Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), 

conduct visitor studies or on-site monitoring to assess recreation outcome attainment, targeted 

recreation activity participation, and protection of recreation setting characteristics during the 

primary recreation use season. Reporting will be conducted along a rotating schedule, focusing 

on a cross section of SRMAs within one district each year. Monitoring cycle will run every 6 

years between districts. 

Special Forest Products 

R27. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of permits for harvest and collection of 

special forest products. Reporting will be annual. 

Soils 

R28. Program Reporting Item: When greater than 20 percent of the acres treated in any 

manner have detrimental soil disturbance resulting from timber harvest or fuel reduction 

treatments, report the total number of treatment units and the representative percentage of total 

acres sampled these units entail. Base reporting on evaluation of at least 10 percent of the total 

number of completed timber harvest units and 10 percent of completed fuel reduction treatment 

units. Reporting will be annual. 

Wildlife 

R29. Program Reporting Item: Report the survey effort for marbled murrelet and the 

outcomes of that survey effort. For each survey polygon, report: acres of survey, years surveys 

were conducted, age of stand at time of survey, presence/absence of platform trees, protocol used 

for the survey, and occupied or presence detections of marbled murrelet. For consistency, an 

example table format is presented below (Table B-4). Reporting will be annual. 

Table B-4. Marbled murrelet survey reporting. 

Survey Polygon (Name)

Survey 

Area 

(Acres)

Survey 

Date(s) 

(Years)

Stand 

Age 

(Years)

Protocol 

Used

Marbled 

Murrelet 

Detections Occupied Presence None

Sample Project 000 20XX–20XX 000 Citation X X X
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

161 | P a g e

R30. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of newly discovered occupied marbled 

murrelet sites. For each newly discovered occupied marbled murrelet site, report: name of site 

(master site number), associated survey that discovered the site, survey dates (years of survey), 

and acreage included in the occupied site designation. For consistency, an example table format 

is presented below (Table B-5). The table should present a running list of all occupied sites 

designated and the cumulative number and acreage of occupied sites. Reporting will be annual. 

Table B-5. Marbled murrelet occupied site.

Survey Dates (Years) Occupied Site Name Associated Survey

(Name)

Area 

Designated

(Acres)

20XX, 20XX Sample Project (MSNO XXXX) Sample Project 000

Cumulative Total 000 sites - 000

R31. Program Reporting Item: Report the amount of marbled murrelet nesting habitat that 

was modified or removed within the Harvest Land Base without pre-disturbance surveys (i.e., 

35–50 miles from the Pacific Ocean except within exclusion Areas C and D as shown in Figure 

2). For stands of marbled murrelet nesting habitat modified or removed without surveys, report: 

harvest type, acres, date of treatment, and age at time of treatment. For consistency, an example 

table format is presented below (Table B-6). Reporting will be annual. 

Table B-6. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat modified or removed without surveys. 

Project (Name) Harvest 

Type

Area 

(Acres)

Date Modified/

Removed

(Year)

Stand Age at the

Time of

Modification/Removal 

(Years)

Sample Project Harvest Type 000 20XX 000

R32. Program Reporting Item (Medford District and Klamath Falls Field Office only): 

Report number and acres of deer and elk forage planting projects within deer and elk 

management areas. Reporting will be annual. 

R33. Program Reporting Item (applies to Eastside Management Area only): Report acres of 

thinning or removal of encroaching western juniper. Reporting will be annual. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

162 | P a g e

References 

Davis, R. J., B. Hollen, J. Hobson, J. E. Gower, D. Keenum. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 20 years (1994–2013): status 

and trends of northern spotted owl habitats. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-XXX. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yrreport/NSO%20Habitat%2020yr%20Report%20-%20Draft%20for%20web.pdf. 

Davis, R. J., J. L. Ohmann, R. E. Kennedy, W. B. Cohen, M. J. Gregory, Z. Yang, H. M. Roberts, A. N. Gray, and T. A. Spies. In 

press. Northwest Forest Plan–the first 20 years (1994–2013): status and trends of late-successional and old-growth forests. 

General Technical Report PNWGTR-XXX. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report/LSOG%2020yr%20Report%20-%20Draft%20for%20web.pdf. 

Falxa, G. A., and M. G. Raphael, 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-XXX. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yrreport/MAMU%20GTR_for%20posting_26May2015.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. 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report/20150511NWFP%20Soc%20Econ%20FinalFullReport.pdf. 

Miller, S. A., S. N Gordon, P. Eldred, R. M. Beloin, S. Wilcox, M. Raggon, H. Andersen, and A. Muldoon. 2015. Northwest 

Forest Plan–The first 20 years (1994–2013): watershed condition status and trend. General Technical Report PNW-GTR932. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yrreport/GTR_AREMP_DRAFT_MAY_2015.pdf. 

Page-Dumroese, D. A., A. M. Abbott, and T. M. Rice. 2009a. Forest soil disturbance monitoring protocol—Volume 1: Rapid 

assessment. General Technical Report WO-82a. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, ID. 35 

pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/wo_gtr082a.pdf. 

---. 2009b. Forest soil disturbance monitoring protocol, Volume 2: Supplementary methods, statistics, and data collection. 

General Technical Report WO-82b. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, ID. 70 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/wo_gtr082b.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 1997. Standards for rangeland health and guidelines for livestock grazing management for public lands administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management in the states of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 22 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/csnm/files/rangeland_standards.pdf. 

---. 2016. Proposed RMP/Final EIS for the Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon. Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

Vinyeta, K., and K. Lynn. 2015. Strengthening the Federal-Tribal Relationship: A Report on Monitoring Consultation under the 

Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report/NWFP%20-%20Strengthing%20the%20FederalTribal%20Relationship%20WEB.pdf. 
163 | P a g e

Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

Introduction 

A Best Management Practice (BMP) is a practice or combination of practices that have been 

determined to be the most effective and practicable in preventing or reducing the amount of 

pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (40 CFR 

130.2 (m)). The use of BMPs is required by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1251 et seq.) to 

reduce nonpoint source pollution to the maximum extent practicable. Nonpoint source pollution 

is defined as pollutants detected in waterbodies, such as a streams or lakes, which come from the 

landscape in a dispersed manner. The BMPs are the primary controls for achieving Oregon’s 

water quality standards pertaining to nonpoint source pollution. Oregon’s narrative and numeric 

criteria within water quality standards are designed to protect designated beneficial uses such as 

salmonid spawning and rearing, resident fish and aquatic life, domestic water supplies, and 

water-contact recreation. 

The BLM is responsible for implementing BMPs on the lands the BLM administers.43 The BMPs 

provide compliance with the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, State of Oregon water 

quality legislation (Chapter 340), and the O&C Act. For actions implemented consistent with the 

approved RMP, the BLM will design and implement BMPs in a manner that is consistent with 

the ODEQ Memorandum of Understanding (ODEQ and USDI BLM 2011), and with the Clean 

Water Act. 

The BLM’s and ODEQ’s strategy for managing and controlling nonpoint source water pollution 

from BLM-administered lands in the State of Oregon is managed through a Memorandum of 

Understanding between the two agencies (ODEQ and USDI BLM 2011). This MOU defines the 

process by which the BLM and ODEQ will cooperatively meet State and Federal water quality 

rules and regulations. The physical, chemical, and biological conditions of ‘waters of the State’ 

that support beneficial uses44will be protected, restored, and maintained by working in a 

proactive, collaborative, and adaptive manner. The MOU specifies that the BLM will implement 

site-specific BMPs as specified in management objectives, standards, guidelines, design features, 

and mitigation developed in RMPs, RMP amendments, project-level plans, and Water Quality 

Restoration Plans to meet applicable water quality standards. The MOU requires monitoring to 

ensure that practices are properly designed and applied, to determine the effectiveness of 

practices in meeting water quality standards, and to provide for adjustment of BMPs when it is 

found that water quality standards are not being protected. 

The RMP contains measures in both management direction and BMPs to prevent and reduce the 

amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality 

goals. Where a specific measure applies to all actions on all sites (either in a specific land use 

 

43 The ODEQ has granted Designated Management Agency status to the BLM through a Memorandum of 

Understanding (ODEQ and USDI BLM 2011). 

44 Beneficial uses are defined in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS), Chapter 468B Water Quality, and Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR), Division 41. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

164 | P a g e

allocation or across the decision area), the BLM presents the measure as management direction.45

Where the applicability of a specific measure depends upon site-specific conditions, technical 

feasibility, resource availability, and the water quality of those waterbodies potentially affected, 

the BLM presents the measure as a BMP. This appendix only lists the BMPs, which must be 

considered together with the management direction for land use allocations and resource 

programs contained in the Resource Management Plan. 

The BMPs described in this appendix are methods, measures, or practices selected based on sitespecific conditions to ensure that the BLM will maintain water quality at its highest practicable 

level to meet water quality standards and TMDL load allocations as set by ODEQ. These sitespecific BMPs are a compilation of commonly employed practices developed through 

professional experience or research, and designed to minimize water quality degradation and loss 

of soil productivity. The BMPs include, but are not limited to, avoidance, structural and 

nonstructural treatments, operations, and maintenance procedures. Although normally 

preventative, BMPs can be applied before, during, and after pollution-producing activities to 

reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA 

Water Quality Standards Regulation). The implementation of these BMPs will be the beginning 

of an iterative process that includes the monitoring and modification of BMPs, where needed, to 

achieve water quality goals. This cyclic process will be the primary mechanism to achieve 

Oregon’s water quality standards. 

The BMPs described in this appendix also include methods, measures, or practices to ensure that 

the BLM will implement actions related to stream crossings consistent with state fish passage 

criteria (OAR 635-412-0035 (3)) and, for streams with ESA-listed fish, with fish passage criteria 

in the biological opinion on Reinitiation of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal 

Programmatic Conference and Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Aquatic Restoration Activities in 

the States of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II) (USDC NMFS 2013). The primary method for 

implementing state fish passage laws shall be through active collaboration and cooperation 

between the BLM and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 

For vegetation treatments using herbicides on BLM-administered lands in the decision area, 

BMPs are included in Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon 

Record of Decision (USDI BLM 2010) as mitigation measures and standard operating practices, 

and are incorporated here by reference. Briefly, mitigation and standard operating procedures in 

Attachment A; General, Soil, Water Resources, Wetlands and Riparian Areas, Fish and Other 

Aquatic Organisms, Recreation and other beneficial uses and values (pp. 33–45), and additional 

mitigation measures (pp. 13–15) are considered BMPs for herbicide treatments. For other 

management activities, including minerals exploration and development, linear transmission 

projects, and most hazardous materials, the mechanism to achieve Oregon State Water Quality 

Standards will be guided by RMP management direction, regulations, or project-level design 

features, and not necessarily be covered by the BMPs contained in this RMP. For example, 

management of locatable minerals is governed by regulations found in 43 CFR 3809. The BMPs 

 

45 Management direction is listed in the RMP by land use allocation and by resource programs, and identifies where 

future actions may or may not be allowed and what restrictions or requirements may be placed on those future 

actions to achieve the objectives set for the BLM-administered lands and resources.
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

165 | P a g e

for locatable minerals include language from 43 CFR 3809 that requires operators to prevent 

unnecessary and undue degradation from mining operations, as defined in 43 CFR 3809.5 and 43 

CFR 3809.415. 

Selection and Application of BMPs 

For actions implemented consistent with this RMP, BLM decision-makers will select the 

appropriate and applicable BMPs, using input from BLM staff. The BLM will select BMPs 

based upon site-specific conditions, technical feasibility, resource availability, and the water 

quality of those waterbodies potentially impacted. Not all of the BMPs listed will be selected for 

any specific management action. The BMPs below do not provide an exhaustive list of nonpoint 

source control measures. The BLM may identify additional nonpoint source control measures 

during project-level planning and analysis. The BLM will apply the selected BMPs in a manner 

that will be in conformance with all RMP management direction. 

The BMPs that relate to instream activities may coincidently be similar to applicable practices 

specified in applicable permits, such as Army Corps of Engineers and Department of State Lands 

joint removal/fill permits, ODEQ water quality permits and 401 certifications, or project design 

criteria contained in biological assessments. The BMPs in the following tables are not specific 

permit requirements, but rather demonstrate the process by which the BLM will control nonpoint 

source pollution from instream activities. 

Monitoring and Adjustment 

The BLM will monitor the application of BMPs through implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring. Post-project implementation monitoring of selected BMPs will evaluate whether the 

BLM has carried forward BMPs from the project-level plans. Effectiveness monitoring will 

evaluate whether implementing selected BMPs has met water quality standards and criteria and 

assured protection of beneficial uses. The BLM will modify BMPs if monitoring demonstrates 

that water quality standards are not being protected. The BLM will make changes to individual 

BMPs, or additions or deletions to the BMP lists below, through plan maintenance, consistent 

with 43 CFR 1610.5–4. 

BMP Lists 

Table C-1 through Table C-14 are organized by core activities on BLM-administered lands in 

the decision area. For each core activity, the table displays the sequential number and BMP in the 

left columns, the source or reference in the center column, and the applicable ODEQ narrative or 

numeric water quality standards in the right column. The table identifies the ODEQ Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR) number(s) in the right column and provides OAR references within 

the roads and landings section, to compare these BMPs to similar ODF or ODFW OARs. See the 

OAR on water pollution (ODEQ OARs, Division 41, 2015) for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the BMPs. 

Core activities with BMPs include: 

• Road and landing maintenance and construction 

• Timber harvest activities 

• Silvicultural activities 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

166 | P a g e

• Fire and fuels management 

• Surface source water for drinking water 

• Recreation management 

• Range management 

• Minerals (salable) development 

• Spill prevention and abatement 

• Restoration activities 

• Dry forest-specific BMPs 

The following lists of BMPs are not intended to be all-inclusive nor replace site-specific project 

planning, which may require the use of different or additional BMPs. 
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

167 | P a g e

Roads and Landings 

Table C-1. Best management practices for roads and landings. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

General Construction

R 01

Locate temporary and permanent roads 

and landings on stable locations, e.g., ridge 

tops, stable benches, or flats, and gentleto-moderate side slopes. Minimize road 

construction on steep slopes (> 60 

percent). 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 1, p. 270

OAR 629-625-0200 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 02

Locate temporary and permanent road 

construction or improvement to minimize 

the number of stream crossings.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 2, p. 270

OAR 629-625-0200 

(3-4)

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 03

Locate roads and landings away from 

wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, 

and waters of the State, unless there is no 

practicable alternative. Avoid locating 

landings in areas that contribute runoff to 

channels.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 4, p. 270

OAR 629-625-0200 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 04

Locate roads and landings to reduce total 

transportation system mileage. Renovate 

or improve existing roads or landings 

when it would cause less adverse 

environmental impact than new 

construction. Where roads traverse land in 

another ownership, investigate options for 

using those roads before constructing new 

roads.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 2, p. 270

EPA 2005, p. 3-12, 

Bullet 1

OAR 629-625-0200 

(5)

EPA 2005, p. 3-10, 

Bullet 1

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 05

Design roads to the minimum width 

needed for the intended use as referenced 

in BLM Manual 9113 – 1 – Roads Design 

Handbook (USDI BLM 2011).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 8, p. 271

OAR 629-625-0310 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 06

Confine pioneer roads (i.e., clearing and 

grubbing of trees, stumps and boulders 

along a route) to the construction limits of 

the permanent roadway to reduce the 

amount of area disturbed and avoid 

deposition in wetlands, Riparian Reserve, 

floodplains, and waters of the State. Install 

temporary drainage, erosion, and sediment

control structures, as needed to prevent 

sediment delivery to streams. Storm proof 

or close pioneer roads prior to the onset of 

the wet season.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 11, p. 271

EPA 2005, p. 3-41, 

Bullet 2

OAR 629-625-0410-ODF, Disposal of Waste 

Materials

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

168 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 07

Design road cut and fill slopes with stable 

angles, to reduce erosion and prevent slope 

failure.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 3, p. 270

EPA 2005 

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 08

End-haul material excavated during 

construction, renovation, or maintenance 

where side slopes generally exceed 60 

percent and any slope where side-cast 

material may enter wetlands, floodplains, 

and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 10, p. 271

EPA 2005, p. 3-12, 

Bullet 5

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 09

Construct road fills to prevent fill failure 

using inorganic material, compaction, 

buttressing, sub-surface drainage, rock 

facing, or other effective means.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 13, p. 271.

OAR 629-625-0310-

5

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 10

Design and construct sub-surface drainage 

(e.g., trench drains using geo-textile 

fabrics and drain pipes) in landslide-prone 

areas and saturated soils. Minimize or 

avoid new road construction in these areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 19, p. 272

ODEQ 2005, RC-1, 

RC-6, pp.4-5, 4-6

OAR 629-625-0300-ODF, Road Design

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 11

Locate waste disposal areas outside 

wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, 

and unstable areas to minimize risk of 

sediment delivery to waters of the State. 

Apply surface erosion control prior to the 

wet season. Prevent overloading areas, 

which may become unstable.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 80, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0340

OAR 629-625-0340-ODF, 

Waste Disposal Areas

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 12

Use controlled blasting techniques to 

minimize loss of material on steep slopes 

or into wetlands, Riparian Reserve, 

floodplains, and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 12, p. 271

OAR 629-625-0410-ODF, Disposal of Waste 

Materials

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 13

Use temporary sediment control measures 

(e.g., check dams, silt fencing, bark bags, 

filter strips, and mulch) to slow runoff and 

contain sediment from road construction 

areas. Remove any accumulated sediment 

and the control measures when work or 

haul is complete. When long-term

structural sediment control measures are 

incorporated into the final erosion control 

plan, remove any accumulated sediment to 

retain capacity of the control measure.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 14, p. 271

ODEQ 2005, RC-11

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 14

Avoid use of road fills for water 

impoundment dams unless specifically 

designed for that purpose. Impoundments 

over 9.2-acre-feet or 10 feet in depth will 

require a dam safety assessment by a 

registered engineer. Upgrade existing road 

fill impoundments to withstand a 100-year 

flood event.

OAR 629-625-0310-

5

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

169 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Permanent Stream Crossings

R 15

Minimize fill volumes at permanent and 

temporary stream crossings by restricting 

width and height of fill to amounts needed 

for safe travel and adequate cover for 

culverts. For deep fills (generally greater 

than 15 feet deep), incorporate additional 

design criteria (e.g., rock blankets, 

buttressing, bioengineering techniques) to 

reduce the susceptibility of fill failures.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 47, p. 276

OAR 629-625-0320 

(1b)

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 16

Locate stream-crossing culverts on welldefined, unobstructed, and straight reaches 

of stream. Locate these crossings as close 

to perpendicular to the streamflow as 

stream allows. When structure cannot be 

aligned perpendicular, provide inlet and 

outlet structures that protect fill, and 

minimize bank erosion. Choose crossings 

that have well-defined stream channels 

with erosion-resistant bed and banks.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 48, p. 276

EPA 2005, p. 3-14

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

5–30 

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 17

On construction of a new culvert, major 

replacement, or fundamental change in 

permit status of a culvert in streams 

containing native migratory fish, install 

culverts consistent with ODFW fish 

passage criteria (OAR 635-412-0035 (3)), 

and at the natural stream grade, unless a 

lessor gradient is required for fish passage. 

On abandonment of a culvert (i.e., removal 

of a culvert without replacement) in 

streams containing native migratory fish, 

restore the natural stream grade, unless a 

lessor gradient is required for fish passage. 

On construction of new culverts in streams 

with ESA listed fish, stream crossings 

must also meet ARBO II (USDOC NMFS 

2013 and USDI FWS 2013) fish passage 

criteria and state fish passage criteria.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 49, p. 276

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 18

Design stream crossings to minimize 

diversion potential in the event that the 

crossing is blocked by debris during storm 

events. This protection could include 

hardening crossings, armoring fills, 

dipping grades, oversizing culverts, 

hardening inlets and outlets, and lowering 

the fill height.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 53, p. 277

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

170 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 19

Design stream crossings to prevent 

diversion of water from streams into 

downgrade road ditches or down road 

surfaces.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 31, p. 274

OAR 629-625-0330 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 20

Place instream grade control structures 

above or below the crossing structure, if 

necessary, to prevent stream head cutting, 

culvert undermining and downstream 

sedimentation. Employ bioengineering 

measures to protect the stability of the 

streambed and banks.

ODEQ 2005 , RC -

2

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp 

5–31

USDA FS 2002 

Chapter 20

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 21

Prevent culvert plugging and failure in 

areas of active debris movement with 

measures such as beveled culvert inlets, 

flared inlets, wingwalls, over-sized 

culverts, trash racks, or slotted risers.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 59, p. 278

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 22

To reduce the risk of loss of the road 

crossing structure and fill causing 

excessive sedimentation, use bridges or 

low-water fords when crossing debris-flow 

susceptible streams. Avoid using culverts 

when crossing debris-flow susceptible 

streams, when practicable.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 70, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 23

Utilize stream diversion and isolation 

techniques when installing stream 

crossings. Evaluate the physical 

characteristics of the site, volume of water 

flowing through the project area, and the 

risk of erosion and sedimentation when 

selecting the proper techniques.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 50, R 51, p. 277

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

171 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 24

Limit activities and access points of 

mechanized equipment to streambank 

areas or temporary platforms when 

installing or removing structures. Keep 

equipment activity in the stream channel to 

an absolute minimum.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 52, p. 277

OAR 629-625-0430 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 25

Install stream crossing structures before 

heavy equipment moves beyond the 

crossing area.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 60, p. 278

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 26

Disconnect road runoff to the stream 

channel by outsloping the road approach. 

If outsloping is not practicable, use runoff 

control, erosion control and sediment

containment measures. These may include 

using additional cross drain culverts, ditch 

lining, and catchment basins. Prevent or 

reduce ditch flow conveyance to the 

stream through cross drain placement 

above the stream crossing.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 26, p. 273, R 33 p. 

274

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

5–22

OAR 629-625-0330 

(4)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temporary Stream Crossings for Roads and Skid Trails

R 27

When installing temporary culverts, use 

washed rock as a backfill material. Use 

geotextile fabric as necessary where 

washed rock will spread with traffic and 

cannot be practicably retrieved.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 63, p. 279

ODEQ 2005, NS-3

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 28

Use no-fill structures (e.g., portable mats, 

temporary bridges, and improved hardened 

crossings) for temporary stream crossings. 

When not practicable, design temporary 

stream crossings with the least amount of 

fill and construct with coarse material to 

facilitate removal upon completion.

OAR 629-625-0320 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 29

Remove temporary crossing structures 

promptly after use. Follow practices under 

the Closure/Decommissioning section for 

removing stream crossing drainage 

structures and reestablishing the natural 

drainage.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 65, p. 279

OAR 629-625-0430 

(5)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

172 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Surface Drainage

R 30

Effectively drain the road surface by using 

crowning, insloping or outsloping, grade 

reversals (rolling dips), and waterbars or a 

combination of these methods. Avoid 

concentrated discharge onto fill slopes 

unless the fill slopes are stable and 

erosion-resistant.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 22, p. 272

EPA 2005, p. 3-41

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 31

Outslope temporary and permanent low 

volume roads to provide surface drainage 

on road gradients up to 6 percent unless 

there is a traffic hazard from the road 

shape.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 23, R 24, p. 273

EPA 2005, p. 3-42

USDA FS 2002 

Chapter 13

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 32

Consider using broad-based drainage dips 

or lead-off ditches in lieu of cross drains 

for low volume roads. Locate these surface 

water drainage measures where they will 

not drain into wetlands, floodplains, and 

waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 25, R 26, p. 273

EPA 2005, pp. 3-41 

 3-45

USDA FS 2002 

Chapter 13

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 33

Avoid use of outside road berms unless 

designed to protect road fills from runoff. 

If road berms are used, breach to 

accommodate drainage where fill slopes 

are stable.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 27, p. 273

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

3–7

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 34

Construct variable road grades and 

alignments (e.g., roll the grade and grade 

breaks) which limit water concentration, 

velocity, flow distance, and associated 

stream power.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 28, p. 273

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

5–20

OAR 629-625-0310 

(1)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 35

Install underdrain structures when roads 

cross or expose springs, seeps, or wet 

areas rather than allowing intercepted 

water to flow down gradient in ditchlines.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 29, p. 273

OAR 629-625-0330 

(5)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 36

Design roads crossing low-lying areas so 

that water does not pond on the upslope 

side of the road. Provide cross drains at 

short intervals to ensure free drainage.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 19, p. 272

EPA 2005, p. 3-14, 

Bullet 1

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

173 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 37

Divert road and landing runoff water away 

from headwalls, slide areas, high landslide 

hazard locations, or steep erodible fill 

slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 29, p. 273

OAR 629-625-0330 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 38 Design landings to disperse surface water 

to vegetated stable areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 30, p. 274

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Cross Drains

R 39

Locate cross drains to prevent or minimize 

runoff and sediment conveyance to waters 

of the State. Implement sediment reduction 

techniques such as settling basins, brush 

filters, sediment fences, and check dams to 

prevent or minimize sediment conveyance. 

Locate cross drains to route ditch flow 

onto vegetated and undisturbed slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 33, p. 274

OAR 629-625-0330 

(4)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 40

Space cross drain culverts at intervals 

sufficient to prevent water volume 

concentration and accelerated ditch 

erosion. At a minimum, space cross drains 

at intervals referred to in the BLM Road 

Design Handbook 9113-1 (USDI BLM 

2011), Illustration 11 –‘Spacing for 

Drainage Lateral.’ Increase cross drain 

frequency through erodible soils, steep 

grades, and unstable areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 34, p. 274

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 41

Choose cross drain culvert diameter and 

type according to predicted ditch flow, 

debris and bedload passage expected from 

the ditch. Minimum diameter is 18”.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 35, p. 274

Johansen et al. 1997, 

p. 3

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 42

Locate surface water drainage measures 

(e.g., cross drain culverts, rolling dips and 

water bars) where water flow will be 

released on convex slopes or other stable 

and non-erosive areas that will absorb road 

drainage and prevent sediment flows from 

reaching wetlands, floodplains, and waters 

of the State. Where practicable locate 

surface water drainage structures above 

road segments with steeper downhill 

grade. Locate cross drains at least 50 feet 

from the nearest stream crossing and allow 

for a sufficient non-compacted soil and 

vegetative filter. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 26, p. 273

Johansen et al. 1997, 

p. 3

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 43

Armor surface drainage structures (e.g., 

broad based dips and lead-off ditches) to 

maintain functionality in areas of erosive 

and low-strength soils.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 38, p. 275

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

174 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 44

Discharge cross drain culverts at ground 

level on non-erodible material. Install 

downspout structures or energy dissipaters 

at cross drain outlets or drivable dips 

where alternatives to discharging water 

onto loose material, erodible soils, fills, or 

steep slopes are not available.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 39, R 40, p. 275

ODEQ 2005, RC-2

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

5–31

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 45

Cut protruding ‘shotgun’ culverts at the fill 

surface or existing ground. Install 

downspout or energy dissipaters to prevent 

erosion.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 41, p. 275

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 46

Skew cross drain culverts 45–60 degrees 

from the ditchline and provide pipe 

gradient slightly greater than ditch 

gradient to reduce erosion at cross drain 

inlet.

BLM Road Design 

Handbook H9113-1 

2009

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 47

Provide for unobstructed flow at culvert 

inlets and within ditch lines during and 

upon completion of road construction prior 

to the wet season.

OAR 629-625-0420

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Timing of In-water Work

R 48

Conduct all nonemergency in-water work 

during the ODFW instream work window,

unless a waiver is obtained from 

permitting agencies. Avoid winter 

sediment and turbidity entering streams 

during in-water work to the extent 

practicable. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 44, p. 276, R 65, 

p. 279

Oregon guidelines 

for timing of inwater work to 

protect fish and 

wildlife resources 

ODFW 2008

OAR 629-625-0430

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 49

Remove stream crossing culverts and 

entire in-channel fill material during 

ODFW instream work period.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 93, p. 283

Oregon guidelines 

for timing of inwater work to 

protect fish and 

wildlife resources 

ODFW 2008

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF,Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

175 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Low-water Ford Stream Crossings

R 50

Harden low-water ford approaches with 

durable materials. Provide cross drainage 

on approaches. Limit ford crossings to the 

ODFW instream work period.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 67, p. 279

EPA 2005, p. 3-50

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 51 Restrict access to unimproved low-water 

stream crossings.

USDI BLM 2008,

Appendix I – Water, 

R 69, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0430 

(5)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 52

Use permanent low-water fords (e.g., 

concrete and well-anchored concrete mats) 

in debris-flow susceptible streams. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 70, p. 280.

EPA 2005, p. 3-50

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Maintaining Water Quality - Non-native Invasive Plants, including Noxious Weeds

R 53

Locate equipment-washing sites in areas 

with no potential for runoff into wetlands, 

Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters 

of the State. Do not use solvents or 

detergents to clean equipment on site.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 75, p. 280

ODEQ 2005, NS-5

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Water Source Development and Use

R 54

Limit disturbance to vegetation and 

modification of streambanks when 

locating road approaches to in-stream 

water source developments. Surface these 

approaches with durable material. Employ 

erosion and runoff control measures.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 102, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 55

Direct pass-through flow or overflow from 

in-channel and any connected off-channel 

water developments back into the stream.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 104, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 56

Direct overflow from water harvesting 

ponds to a safe non-eroding dissipation 

area, and not into a stream channel.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 105, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

176 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 57

Limit the construction of temporary inchannel water drafting sites. Develop 

permanent water sources outside of stream 

channels and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 106, p. 286

ODEQ 2005, NS-1

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 58

Do not place pump intakes on the substrate 

or edges of the stream channel. When 

placing intakes instream, place on hard 

surfaces (e.g., shovel and rocks) to 

minimize turbidity. Use a temporary liner 

to create intake site. After completion of 

use, remove liner and restore channel to 

natural condition.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 107, p. 286

ODEQ 2005, NS-1

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 59

Do not locate placement of road fill in the 

proximity of a public water supply intake

(404(f) exemption criteria xi) in waters of 

the State.

USACOE (1972) 

404(f) exemption 

criteria xi

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 60

Avoid water withdrawals from fishbearing streams whenever practicable. 

Limit water withdrawals in ESA-listed fish 

habitat and within 1,500 feet of ESA-listed 

fish habitat to 10 percent of stream flow or 

less at the point of withdrawal, and in nonESA-listed fish habitat to 50 percent or 

less at the point of withdrawal, based on a 

visual assessment by a fish biologist or 

hydrologist. The channel must not be 

dewatered to the point of isolating fish.

USDC NMFS 2013 

ARBO II, p. 43 

(NWR-2013-9664)

USDA FS 2012, p. 

146

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Erosion Control Measures

R 61

During roadside brushing, remove 

vegetation by cutting rather than 

uprooting.

OAR 629-625-0430 

(4)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 62

Limit road and landing construction, 

reconstruction, or renovation activities to 

the dry season. Keep erosion control 

measures concurrent with ground 

disturbance to allow immediate 

stormproofing.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 9, p. 271

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

177 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 63

Apply native seed and certified weed-free 

mulch to cut and fill slopes, ditchlines, and 

waste disposal sites with the potential for 

sediment delivery to wetlands, Riparian 

Reserve, floodplains and waters of the 

State. If needed to promote a rapid ground 

cover and prevent aggressive invasive 

plants, use interim erosion control nonnative sterile annuals before attempting to 

restore natives. Apply seed upon 

completion of construction and as early as 

practicable to increase germination and 

growth. Reseed if necessary to accomplish 

erosion control. Select seed species that are 

fast-growing, provide ample ground cover, 

and have adequate soil-binding properties. 

Apply mulch that will stay in place and at 

site-specific rates to prevent erosion.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 17, p. 272

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 64

Place sediment-trapping materials or 

structures such as straw bales, jute netting, 

or sediment basins at the base of newly 

constructed fill or side slopes where 

sediment could be transported to waters of 

the State. Keep materials away from 

culvert inlets or outlets.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 14, p. 271, R 21, 

p. 272

USDA FS 2002 

Chapter 18

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 65

Use biotechnical stabilization and soil 

bioengineering techniques to control bank 

erosion (e.g., commercially produced 

matting and blankets, live plants or 

cuttings, dead plant material, rock, and 

other inert structures).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 54, p. 277

USDA FS 2002, 

Chapters 18 and 20

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 66

Suspend ground-disturbing activity if 

projected forecasted rain will saturate soils 

to the extent that there is potential for 

movement of sediment from the road to 

wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the 

State. Cover or temporarily stabilize 

exposed soils during work suspension. 

Upon completion of ground-disturbing 

activities, immediately stabilize fill 

material over stream crossing structures. 

Measures could include but are not limited 

to erosion control blankets and mats, soil 

binders, soil tackifiers, or placement of 

slash.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 57, p. 278, R 88, 

p. 282

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 67

Apply fertilizer in a manner to prevent 

direct fertilizer entry to wetlands, Riparian

Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the 

State.

OAR 629-625-0440

Aquatic Resources 

Biological Opinion 

NMFS-ARBO 2013

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

178 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Road Use and Dust Abatement

R 68

Apply water or approved road surface 

stabilizers/dust control additives to reduce 

surfacing material loss and buildup of fine 

sediment that can enter into wetlands,

floodplains and waters of the State. 

Prevent entry of road surface 

stabilizers/dust control additives into 

waters of the State during application. For 

dust abatement, limit applications of lignin 

sulfonate to a maximum rate of 0.5 gal/yd2

of road surface, assuming a 50:50 (lignin 

sulfonate to water) solution. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 76, p. 281

ODEQ 2005, EP-13

Western Oregon 

Programmatic 2011

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Road Maintenance

R 69

Prior to the wet season, provide effective 

road surface drainage maintenance. Clear 

ditch lines in sections where there is 

lowered capacity or obstructed by dry

ravel, sediment wedges, small failures, or 

fluvial sediment deposition. Remove 

accumulated sediment and blockages at 

cross-drain inlets and outlets. Grade 

natural surface and aggregate roads where 

the surface is uneven from surface erosion

or vehicle rutting. Restore crowning, 

outsloping or insloping for the road type 

for effective runoff. Remove or provide 

outlets through berms on the road 

shoulder. After ditch cleaning prior to 

hauling, allow vegetation to reestablish or 

use sediment entrapment measures (e.g., 

sediment trapping blankets and silt fences).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 81, R 84, R 85, p. 

281

OAR 629-625 0600 

(2-4)

EPA 2005, pp. 3-61 

 3-62

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 70

Retain ground cover in ditch lines, except 

where sediment deposition or obstructions 

require maintenance.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 86, p. 282

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 71

Maintain water flow conveyance, sediment

filtering and ditch line integrity by limiting 

ditch line disturbance and groundcover 

destruction when machine cleaning within 

200 feet of road stream crossings.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

113–114.

EPA 2005, p. 3-62

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 72 Avoid undercutting of cut-slopes when 

cleaning ditch lines.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 78, p. 281

EPA 2005, p. 3-62

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 73

Remove and dispose of slide material 

when it is obstructing road surface and 

ditch line drainage. Place material on 

stable ground outside of wetlands, 

Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters 

of the State. Seed with native seed and 

weed-free mulch.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 79, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(6)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

179 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 74

Do not sidecast loose ditch or surface 

material where it can enter wetlands, 

Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters 

of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 80, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(7)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 75 Retain low-growing vegetation on cut-andfill slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 86, p. 282

EPA 2005, EP-6

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 76

Seed and mulch cleaned ditch lines and 

bare soils that drain directly to wetlands, 

floodplains, and waters of the State, with 

native species and weed-free mulch.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 78, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Road Stormproofing

R 77

Inspect and maintain culvert inlets and 

outlets, drainage structures and ditches 

before and during the wet season to 

diminish the likelihood of plugged culverts 

and the possibility of washouts.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 81, R 82, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 78

Repair damaged culvert inlets and 

downspouts to maintain drainage design 

capacity.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 82, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 79

Blade and shape roads to conserve existing 

aggregate surface material, retain or 

restore the original cross section, remove 

berms and other irregularities that impede 

effective runoff or cause erosion, and 

ensure that surface runoff is directed into 

vegetated, stable areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 84, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(4)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 80

Stormproof open resource roads receiving 

infrequent maintenance to reduce road 

erosion and reduce the risk of washouts by 

concentrated water flows. Stormproof 

temporary roads if retained over winter.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 87, p. 282

OAR 629-625-0600 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 81

Suspend stormproofing/decommissioning 

operations and cover or otherwise 

temporarily stabilize all exposed soil if 

conditions develop that cause a potential 

for sediment-laden runoff to enter a 

wetland, floodplain, or waters of the State. 

Resume operations when conditions allow 

turbidity standards to be met.

USDI BLM 2008,

Appendix I – Water, 

R 88, p. 282

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

180 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Road Closure and Decommissioning

R 82

Inspect closed roads to ensure that 

vegetation stabilization measures are 

operating as planned, drainage structures 

are operational, and non-native invasive 

plants, including noxious weeds, are not 

providing erosion control. Conduct 

vegetation treatments and drainage 

structure maintenance as needed.

OAR 629-625-0650 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 83 Decommission temporary roads upon 

completion of use.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 90, p. 283

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 84

Prevent use of vehicular traffic utilizing 

methods such as gates, guard rails, 

earth/log barricades, to reduce or eliminate 

erosion and sedimentation due to traffic on 

roads.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 91, p. 283

OAR 629-625-0650 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 85

Convert existing drainage structures such 

as ditches and cross drain culverts to a 

long-term maintenance free drainage 

configuration such as an outsloped road 

surface and waterbars.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 92, p. 283

OAR 629-625-0650 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 86

Place and remove temporary stream 

crossings during the dry season, without 

overwintering, unless designed to 

accommodate a 100-year flood event. See 

also R 49.

OAR 629-625-0430 

(5)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 87

Place excavated material from removed 

stream crossings on stable ground outside 

of wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, 

and waters of the State. In some cases, the 

material could be used for recontouring old 

road cuts or be spread across roadbed and 

treated to prevent erosion.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 94, p. 284

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 88

Reestablish stream crossings to the natural 

stream gradient. Excavate sideslopes back 

to the natural bank profile. Reestablish 

natural channel width and floodplain.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 95, p. 284

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 89

Install cross ditches or waterbars upslope 

from stream crossing to direct runoff and 

potential sediment to the hillslope rather 

than deliver it to the stream.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 96, p. 284

OAR 629-625-0650 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

181 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 90

Following culvert removal and prior to the 

wet season, apply erosion control and 

sediment trapping measures (e.g., seeding, 

mulching, straw bales, jute netting, and 

native vegetative cuttings) where sediment 

can be delivered into wetlands, Riparian 

Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the 

State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 97, p. 284

OAR 629-625-0650 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 91

Implement tillage measures, including 

ripping or subsoiling to an effective depth. 

Treat compacted areas including the 

roadbed, landings, construction areas, and 

spoils sites.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 98, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 92

After tilling the road surface, pull back 

unstable road fill and end-haul or contour 

to the natural slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 99, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Wet-season Road Use

R 93

On active haul roads, during the wet 

season, use durable rock surfacing and 

sufficient rock depth to resist rutting or 

development of sediment on road surfaces 

that drain directly to wetlands, floodplains, 

and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 71, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0700 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 94

Prior to winter hauling activities, 

implement structural road treatments such 

as: increasing the frequency of cross 

drains, installing sediment barriers or catch 

basins, applying gravel lifts or asphalt road 

surfacing at stream crossing approaches, 

and armoring ditch lines.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 72, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0700 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 95

Remove snow on surfaced roads in a 

manner that will protect the road and 

adjacent resources. Retain a minimum 

layer (4”) of compacted snow on the road 

surface. Provide drainage through the 

snow bank at periodic intervals to allow 

snowmelt to drain off the road surface.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 74, p. 280

BLM snow removal 

letter

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 96

Avoid removing snow from unsurfaced 

roads where runoff drains to waters of the 

State.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

120–123

EPA 2005, p. 3-80

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 97

Maintain road surface by applying 

appropriate gradation of aggregate and 

suitable particle hardness to protect road 

surfaces from rutting and erosion under 

active haul where runoff drains to 

wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, 

and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 71, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0700 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

182 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 98

To reduce sediment tracking from natural 

surface roads during active haul, provide a 

gravel approach before entrance onto 

surfaced roads.

EPA 2005, pp. 3-57 

– 3-58

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 99

Install temporary culverts and washed rock 

on top of low-water ford to reduce vehicle 

contact with water during active haul. 

Remove culverts promptly after use.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

119–120

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Timber Harvest Activities 

Table C-2. Best management practices for timber harvest activities. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Cable Yarding

TH 01

Design yarding corridors crossing streams 

to limit the number of such corridors, 

using narrow widths, and using the most 

perpendicular orientation to the stream 

feasible. Minimize yarding corridor widths 

and space corridors as far apart as is 

practicable given physical and operational 

limitations, through practices such as 

setting limitations on corridor width, 

corridor spacing, or the amount of 

corridors in an area. For example, such 

practices could include, as effective and 

practicable:

 Setting yarding corridors at 12–15 foot 

maximum widths, and

 Setting corridor spacing where they 

cross the streams to no less than 100 feet 

apart when physical, topography, or 

operational constraints demand, with an 

overall desire to keep an average spacing 

of 200 feet apart.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 2, p. 287

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

TH 02

Directionally fall trees to lead for skidding 

and skyline yarding to minimize ground 

disturbance when moving logs to skid 

trails and skyline corridors.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 17, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 03

Require full suspension over flowing 

streams, non-flowing streams with highly 

erodible bed and banks, and jurisdictional 

wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 3, p. 287

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 04

When logging downhill into Riparian 

Reserve, design the logging system to 

prevent converging yarding trails from 

intersecting the stream network.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 4, p. 287

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

183 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

TH 05

Prevent streambank and hillslope 

disturbance on steep slopes (generally > 60 

percent) by requiring full-suspension within 

50 feet of definable stream channels. Yard 

the remaining areas across the Riparian 

Reserve using at least one-end suspension.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 5, p. 287

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 06

Implement erosion control measures such 

as waterbars, slash placement, and seeding 

in cable yarding corridors where the 

potential for erosion and delivery to 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands 

exists.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 6, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Ground-based Harvesting

TH 07

Exclude ground-based equipment on 

hydric soils, defined by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 8, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 08

Limit designated skid trails for thinning or 

regeneration harvesting to ≤ 15 percent of 

the harvest unit area to reduce 

displacement or compaction to acceptable 

limits.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 09

Limit width of skid roads to single width 

or what is operationally necessary for the 

approved equipment. Where multiple 

machines are used, provide a minimumsized pullout for passing.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 10, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 10 Ensure leading-end of logs is suspended 

when skidding.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 11, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 11

Restrict non-road, in unit, ground-based 

equipment used for harvesting operations 

to periods of low soil moisture; generally 

from May 15 to Oct 15. Low soil moisture 

varies by texture and is based on sitespecific considerations. Low soil moisture 

limits will be determined by qualified 

specialists to determine an estimated soil 

moisture and soil texture.46

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 12, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 12

Incorporate existing skid trails and 

landings as a priority over creating new 

trails and landings where feasible, into a 

designated trail network for ground-based 

harvesting equipment, consider proper 

spacing, skid trail direction and location 

relative to terrain and stream channel 

features.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 13, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

 

46 Soil moisture is the ratio of the weight of the water in the soil to the weight of the solids, expressed as a 

percentage. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

184 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

TH 13

Limit non-specialized skidders or tracked 

equipment to slopes less than 35 percent, 

except when using previously constructed 

trails or accessing isolated ground-based 

harvest areas requiring short trails over 

steeper pitches. Also, limit the use of this 

equipment when surface displacement 

creates trenches, depressions, excessive 

removal of organic horizons, or when 

disturbance would channel water and 

sediment as overland flow.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 14, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 14

Limit the use of specialized ground-based 

mechanized equipment (those machines 

specifically designed to operate on slopes 

greater than 35 percent) to slopes less than 

50 percent, except when using previously 

constructed trails or accessing isolated 

ground-based harvesting areas requiring 

short trails over steeper pitches. Also, limit 

the use of this equipment when surface 

displacement creates trenches, depressions, 

excessive removal of organic horizons, or 

when disturbance would channel water and 

sediment as overland flow.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 15, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 15

Designate skid trails in locations that 

channel water from the trail surface away 

from waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands, or unstable areas adjacent to 

them.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 16, p. 289.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 16

Apply erosion control measures to skid 

trails and other disturbed areas with 

potential for erosion and subsequent 

sediment delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, or wetlands. These practices 

may include seeding, mulching, water 

barring, tillage, and woody debris 

placement. Use guidelines from the road 

decommissioning section.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 18, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 17

Construct waterbars on skid trails using 

guidelines in Table C-6 where potential 

for soil erosion or delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands exists.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 19, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 18

Subsoil skid trails, landings, or temporary 

roads where needed to achieve no more 

than 20 percent detrimental soil 

conditions, and minimize surface runoff, 

improve soil structure, and water 

movement through the roadbed. See also 

R 92–93.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 98, p. 285

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 19

Block skid trails to prevent public 

motorized vehicle and other unauthorized 

use at the end of seasonal use.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 21, p. 290

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 20

Allow harvesting operations (cutting and 

transporting logs) when ground is frozen 

or adequate snow cover exists to prevent 

soil compaction and displacement.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 12, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

185 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

TH 21

Minimize the area where more than half of

the depth of the organically-enriched 

upper horizon (topsoil) is removed when 

conducting forest management operations.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 22

Maintain at least the minimum percent of 

effective ground cover needed to control 

surface erosion, as shown in Table C-3,

following forest management operations. 

Ground cover may be provided by 

vegetation, slash, duff, medium to large 

gravels, cobbles, or biological crusts.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Helicopter

TH 23

Consider the use of helicopter or aerial 

logging systems to prevent water quality 

impacts from road construction or groundbased timber yarding, where other BMPs 

would be more costly or have limited 

effectiveness.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 23, p. 290

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Horse

TH 24 Within Riparian Reserve, limit horse 

logging to slopes less than 20 percent.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 24, p. 290

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 25

Construct waterbars on horse skid trails 

when there is potential for soil erosion and 

delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 25, p. 290

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Table C-3. Soil cover based on erosion hazard ratings. 

NRCS Erosion

Hazard Rating*

Minimum Percent Effective

Ground Cover – Year 1

Minimum Percent Effective

Ground Cover – Year 2

Very Severe 60% 75%

Severe 45% 60%

Moderate 30% 40%

Slight 20% 30%

* Rating obtained from Natural Resources Conservation Services County Soil Survey information by map unit. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

186 | P a g e

Silvicultural Activities 

Table C-4. Best management practices for planting, pre-commercial thinning, and fertilization. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Planting and Pre-commercial Thinning

S 01

Limit the crossing of stream channels with 

motorized support vehicles (e.g., OHVs) 

and mechanized equipment to existing 

road crossings or temporary ford crossings 

to the ODFW instream work period, 

unless a waiver is obtained from 

permitting agencies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

S 1, p. 291

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

S 02

Scatter treatment debris on disturbed soils 

and water bar any equipment access trails 

that could erode and deposit sediment in 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

S 4, p. 291

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Fertilization

S 03

For streams and waterbodies that support 

domestic use, apply fertilizer further than 

100 feet from the edge of the active 

channel or shoreline.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

S 5, p. 291

EPA 440/5-86-001,-10 mg/L nitrate nitrogen for 

domestic water supply.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

S 04

Locate storage, transfer, and loading sites 

outside Riparian Reserve and separated 

from hydrological connections (e.g., road 

ditches that are linked to stream channels).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

S 6, p. 291

EPA 822-R-13-001 2013,-salmonid acute 

criterion, 17 mg total ammonia nitrogen/L at pH 

7 and temperature of 20 °C.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Fire and Fuels Management 

Table C-5. Best management practices for fire and fuel management. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Underburn, Jackpot Burn, and Broadcast Burn

F 01

Locate fire lines so that open meadows 

associated with streams do not burn, 

unless prescribed for restoration.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 1, p. 293

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

F 02

Reduce fuel loads by whole tree yarding, 

and piling material, as necessary, prior to 

under burning in dry forest types where 

fuel loads are elevated.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 2, p. 293

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

187 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

F 03

Avoid burning of large woody material 

that is touching the high water mark of a 

waterbody or that may be affected by high 

flows.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water,

F 3, p. 293

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

F 04

Avoid delivery of chemical retardant foam 

or additives to waterbodies, and wetlands. 

Store and dispose of ignition devices/ 

materials (e.g., flares and plastic spheres) 

outside Riparian Reserve or a minimum of 

150 feet from waterbodies, floodplains, 

and wetlands. Maintain and refuel 

equipment (e.g., drip torches and 

chainsaws) a minimum of 100 feet from 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands. 

Portable pumps can be refueled on-site 

within a spill containment system.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 4, p. 293

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

F 05

Limit fire lines inside Riparian Reserve. 

Construct fire lines by hand on all slopes 

greater than 35 percent and inside the 

Riparian Reserve inner zone. Use erosion 

control techniques such as tilling, 

waterbarring, or debris placement on fire 

lines when there is potential for soil 

erosion and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands. Space the 

waterbars as shown in Table C-6. Avoid 

placement of fire lines where water would 

be directed into waterbodies, floodplains, 

wetlands, headwalls, or areas of 

instability.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 5, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 06

In broadcast burning, consume only the 

upper horizon organic materials and allow 

no more than 15 percent of the burned 

area mineral soil surface to change to a 

reddish color.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Pile and Burn

F 07 Avoid burning piles within 35 feet of a 

stream channel.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 6, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 08

Avoid creating piles greater than 16 feet in 

height or diameter. Pile smaller diameter 

materials and leave pieces > 12” diameter 

within the unit. Reduce burn time and 

smoldering of piles by extinguishment 

with water and tool use.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 09

When burning machine-constructed piles, 

preferably locate and consume organic 

materials on landings or roads. If piles are 

within harvested units and more than 15 

percent of the burned area mineral soil 

(the portion beneath the pile) surface 

changes to a reddish color, then consider 

that amount of area towards the 20 percent 

detrimental soil disturbance limit.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

188 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Mechanical and Manual Fuels Treatments

F 10

Do not operate ground-based machinery 

for fuels reduction within 50 feet of 

streams (slope distance), except where 

machinery is on improved roads, 

designated stream crossings, or where 

equipment entry into the 50-foot zone 

would not increase the potential for 

sediment delivery into the stream.

Do not operate ground-based machinery 

for fuels reduction on slopes > 35 percent. 

Mechanical equipment with tracks may be 

used on short pitch slopes of greater than 

35 percent but less than 45 percent when 

necessary to access benches of lower 

gradient (length determined on a sitespecific basis, generally less than 50 feet 

(slope distance)).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 7, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 11

Use temporary stream crossings if 

necessary to access the opposite side with 

any equipment or vehicles (including 

OHVs). Follow Temporary Stream 

Crossing practices under Roads section.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 8, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 12

Place residual slash on severely burned 

areas, where there is potential for 

sediment delivery into waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 9, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Wildfire Suppression

F 13

Limit fire lines inside Riparian Reserve. 

Construct fire lines by hand on all slopes 

greater than 35 percent and inside the 

Riparian Reserve Inner Zone.

Limit heavy equipment to slopes less than 

35 percent.

Locate fire lines to minimize directing 

water into waterbodies, wetlands, 

headwalls, or areas of instability.

Use erosion control techniques such as 

tilling, waterbarring, or debris placement 

on fire lines when there is potential for 

soil erosion and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands. Space 

waterbars as shown in Table C-6. Block 

dozer lines and roads or landing 

intersections with an approved barricade 

or scattered slash to preclude public 

motorized vehicle use.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 5, p. 294, F 11, p. 

295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 14

Avoid cutting logs that extend into the 

stream channel.

Fall snags in the Riparian Reserve towards 

the stream channel when felling is 

necessary for safety or fire suppression 

activities.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 12, p. 295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

189 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

F 15

Avoid locating incident bases, camps, 

helibases, staging areas, constructed

helispots, and other centers for incident 

activities in Riparian Reserve or within 

200 feet of any waterbody, floodplain, or 

wetland. Allow water drafting sites for 

engines and tankers.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 13, p. 295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1))

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

F 16

Locate and maintain portable sanitation 

facilities at incident bases, camps 

(including spike/remote camps), helibases, 

staging areas, constructed helispots, and 

other centers for incident activities in 

accordance with State and local regulations.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 14, p. 295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

F 17

Avoid application of chemical retardant, 

foam, or other chemicals to waterways, 

maintain a 300 ft. buffer (FA-IM-2008-

029), unless the wildfire is deemed a 

threat to human safety or private property

or where use is essential for wildfire 

control, as determined by the Incident 

Commander.

Apply aerial retardant adjacent to Riparian 

Reserve by making parallel passes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 15, p. 295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

190 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Emergency Stabilization or Rehabilitation

F 18

Implement emergency fire stabilization or 

rehabilitation treatments to accomplish 

erosion control as quickly as practicable 

and before the wet season.

Soil and water conservation practices may 

include, but are not restricted to:

 Seeding or planting native vegetation 

for short-term cover development and 

long-term recovery, unless not available 

in quantities necessary for the 

emergency response.

 Mulching with straw, wood chips, or 

other suitable material. To avoid 

introducing non-native invasive plants, 

including noxious weeds when 

mulching, use certified weed-free straw 

mulch or rice straw where available.

 Placing straw wattles on the contour at 

adequate spacing between each row to 

capture eroded material without 

overflowing. Embed to the surface of 

the soil in slight trench to prevent 

undermining.

 Placing and anchoring log erosion 

barriers similarly to straw wattles.

 Spreading available cut vegetation or 

slash on bare soils.

 Placing channel sediment retention or 

stabilization structures.

 Placing trash racks for debris above 

road drainage structures.

 Installing drainage structures, such as 

waterbars or drainage dips, on fire lines, 

fire roads, and other cleared areas 

according to guidelines in Table C-6

(Waterbar spacing by gradient and 

erosion class).

 Repairing damaged road drainage 

facilities, such as flattened or ripped 

culvert ends, or burned out plastic pipes, 

or cleaning ditch lines of materials that 

impede natural flow.

 Blocking or decommissioning roads and 

trails.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 16, p. 296

Interagency Burned 

Area Emergency 

Response 

Guidebook; 

Interpretation of 

Department of the 

Interior 620 DM 3 

and USDA Forest 

Service Manual 

2523 For the 

Emergency 

Stabilization of 

Federal and Tribal 

Trust Lands Version 

4.0 February 2006

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

191 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Post-Fire Road Repair

F 19

Implement emergency fire rehabilitation 

treatments to accomplish erosion control 

as quickly as practicable and before the 

wet season.

Soil and water conservation practices may 

include, but are not restricted to:

 Reducing road system hydrologic 

conductivity though proper grading, 

culvert spacing, and installing drivable 

dips.

 Replacing culverts to increase peak flow 

capacity of stream crossing culverts to 

accommodate the 100-year design flood.

 Preventing culvert plugging.

 Correcting stream diversions.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 17, p. 297

Interagency Burned 

Area Emergency 

Response 

Guidebook; 

Interpretation of 

Department of the 

Interior 620 DM 3 

(USDI BLM 2006) 

and USDA Forest 

Service Manual 

2523 For the 

Emergency 

Stabilization of 

Federal and Tribal 

Trust Lands Version 

4.0 (USDA FS et al.

2006)

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Table C-6. Water bar spacing by gradient and erosion class. 

Gradient

(Percent)

Water Bar Spacing* By Erosion Class†

High

(Feet)

Moderate

(Feet)

Low

(Feet)

2–5% 200 300 400

6–10% 150 200 300

11–15% 100 150 200

16–20% 75 100 150

21–35% 50 75 100

36+% 50 50 50

* Spacing is determined by slope distance and is the maximum allowed for the grade. 

† The erosion classes include the following rock types:

High: Granite, sandstone, andesite porphyry, glacial or alluvial deposits, soft matrix conglomerate, volcanic ash, and 

pyroclastics 

Moderate: Basalt, andesite, quartzite, hard matrix conglomerate, and rhyolite 

Low: Metasediments, metavolcanics, and hard shale 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

192 | P a g e

Surface Source Water for Drinking Water 

Table C-7. Best management practices for surface source water for drinking water protection. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SW 01

Plan, locate, design, construct, operate, 

inspect, and maintain sanitary facilities to 

minimize water contamination.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 1, p. 299

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 02

Locate contractor camps outside DEQ 

sensitive zones in drinking water source 

areas for public water systems. If this is 

not practicable, require self-contained 

sanitary facilities.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 2, p. 299

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program47

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 03

Require self-contained sanitary facilities 

in surface source water watersheds, when 

long-term camping (greater than 14 days) 

is involved with contract implementation.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 3, p. 299

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 04

Provide self-contained sanitary facilities 

when there is high recreational use 

(almost continuous occupancy) inside 

DEQ sensitive zones within drinking 

water source areas for public water 

systems, known domestic source water 

watersheds, or Riparian Reserve inner 

zone.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 4, p. 299

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program47

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 05

Locate pack and riding facilities outside 

DEQ sensitive zones within drinking 

water source areas for public water 

systems, known domestic source water 

watersheds, or Riparian Reserve inner 

zone. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 5, p. 299

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program47

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 06

Do not allow surface occupancy within 

200 feet of a known domestic water 

source or within DEQ sensitive zones in 

drinking water source areas for public 

water systems.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 6, p. 299

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program47

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 07

Do not apply sewage sludge as a soil 

amendment within drinking water source 

areas for public water systems, known 

domestic source water watersheds, or 

Riparian Reserve.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 7, p. 300

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program47

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

 

47 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/swcountymap.htm
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

193 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SW 08

Avoid loading or storing chemical, fuel, or 

fertilizer in DEQ sensitive zones within 

drinking water source areas for public 

water systems, known domestic source 

water watersheds, or Riparian Reserve 

inner zone.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 8, p. 300

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program48

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 09

Conduct equipment maintenance outside 

DEQ sensitive zones within drinking 

water source areas for public water 

systems, known domestic source water 

watersheds, or Riparian Reserve inner 

zone.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 9, p. 300

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program48

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 10 Use non-oil-based dust suppressants 

within surface source water watersheds.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 10, p. 300

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 11

Use fire retardant and surfactants as a last 

resort in fire suppression activities within 

surface source water watersheds.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 11, p. 300

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

 

48 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/swcountymap.htm
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

194 | P a g e

Recreation 

Table C-8. Best management practices for recreation management. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

All Recreation Facilities

REC 01

Implement erosion control measures at 

recreation sites to stabilize exposed soils 

where water flows or sediment may reach 

waterbodies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 1, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 02

Minimize development of recreation 

facilities that are not water-dependent 

(e.g., boat ramps and docks) in the 

Riparian Reserve.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 2, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Developed Recreation Sites

REC 03

Use self-contained sanitary facilities at all 

developed recreational facilities, unless a 

sewage system and drain field is approved 

by ODEQ.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 3, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

REC 04

When conducting recreation site 

maintenance, do not cut portions of logs 

or down woody material that fall across 

the active stream channel. Keep adequate 

lengths of material on the banks to anchor 

it in place. If not practicable to make the 

log stable, it may be removed.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 5, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Water Dependent Facilities

REC 05

Construct boat ramps and approaches with 

hardened surfaces. Minimize riprap to a 4-

foot width to protect concrete ramps. 

Docks must not be wider than 6 feet, and 

not include any treated wood. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 6, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) Trails

REC 06

Locate new OHV trails on stable locations 

(e.g., ridge tops, benches, and gentle-tomoderate side slopes). Minimize trail 

construction on steep slopes where runoff 

could channel to a waterbody.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 07

Design, construct, and maintain trail 

width, grades, curves, and switchbacks 

suitable to the terrain and designated use. 

Use and maintain surfacing materials 

suitable to the site and use, to withstand 

traffic and to minimize runoff and erosion.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 08

Suspend construction or maintenance of 

trails where erosion and runoff into 

waterbodies would occur.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 11, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 09

Locate staging areas outside Riparian 

Reserve. Design or upgrade staging areas 

to prevent sediment/pollutant delivery to 

wetlands, floodplains, and waterbodies, 

(e.g., rocking or hardening and drainage 

through grading or shaping).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 12, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

195 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

REC 10

Designate class of vehicle suitable for the 

trail location, width, trail surfaces, and 

waterbody crossings, to prevent erosion 

and potential sediment delivery.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 11

Designate season of use if the trail bed is 

prone to erosion, rutting, gullying, or 

compaction, due to high soil moisture, 

standing water or snowmelt.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 12

Use existing road crossings of streams and 

floodplains on low-volume roads and 

partially decommissioned roads that tie 

with the trail system, where safety 

permits.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 13

Minimize low-water stream crossings for 

constructed or existing trails. Cross 

streams on stable substrate (e.g., bedrock, 

cobble) in areas of low streambanks. 

Block alternate stream-crossing routes 

where OHV wheel slippage (acceleration/ 

braking) would tear down banks or deliver 

sediment.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 7, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 14

Avoid public motorized vehicle use in 

ponds and wetlands, and navigating up or 

down streams and side-channels. Use 

suitable barriers where feasible.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 7, pp. 302–303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 15

Design improved stream crossings 

(culverts and bridges) for the 100-year 

flood event. In streams containing native 

migratory fish, install culverts consistent 

with ODFW fish passage criteria (OAR 

635-412-0035 (3)). In streams with ESA 

listed fish, stream crossings must also 

meet ARBO II (USDOC NMFS 2013 and 

USDI FWS 2013) fish passage criteria and 

state fish passage criteria. (See Roads and 

Landings section for stream crossing 

BMPs).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 10, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 16

In OHV bridge structures, avoid 

chemically treated materials at water level 

contact points where leachate or solids 

may enter waterbodies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 15, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(10)

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 17

Use a temporary flow diversion bypass to 

minimize downstream turbidity, when 

constructing in perennial stream crossings 

(See Roads and Landings section for 

Stream Crossing BMPs).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 16, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 18

When constructing or maintaining trails 

within Riparian Reserve, do not cut the 

portion of logs or down woody material 

that extend into the active stream channel. 

Provide for adequate stabilization of the 

logs if not doing so would create a safety 

hazard.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 8, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

196 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

REC 19

Harden trail approaches to stream 

crossings using materials such as 

geotextile fabric and rock aggregate.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 13, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 20

Hydrologically disconnect trails from 

waterbodies to the extent practicable.

Install drainage features (e.g., drain dips 

and lead-off ditches), on approaches to 

stream crossings as needed to divert 

runoff and reinforce with rock for 

longevity.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 14, p. 302.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 21

Where trails intersect road ditches, 

provide erosion resistant crossings. Divert 

water from the trail to keep from reaching 

wetlands, floodplains, and waterbodies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 18, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 22

If trail width is too wide for the designated 

use (such as old roads converted to trails), 

consider tilling one side of the trail, 

covering with brush, and seeding or 

planting.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 19, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 23

Repair rills and gullies to keep sediment

from reaching wetlands, floodplains, and 

waterbodies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 20, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 24

Construct and repair water bars, drain 

dips, and lead-off ditches as needed. 

These features may need rock 

reinforcement to promote longevity. Selfmaintaining drain dips or lead-off features 

are the preferred design.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 21, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 25

Monitor trail condition to identify surface 

maintenance and drainage needs to 

prevent or minimize sediment delivery to 

waterbodies.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 26

Close and rehabilitate unauthorized trails, 

where needed, to protect sensitive areas 

and water quality.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Trails (Hiking)

REC 27

When constructing or maintaining trails 

within Riparian Reserve, do not cut any 

portion of logs or down woody material

that extend into the active stream channel. 

Use alternative passage options, such as 

earthen ramps, small notch steps, or slight 

trail realignments, to facilitate 

maintenance of intact logs. Cut and 

stabilize if necessary for safe passage and 

safety.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 23, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-004(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Trail Closure

REC 28

Remove existing stream crossings or 

bridges (See Road Decommissioning 

BMPs).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 24, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (8)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

197 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

REC 29

Position fill or waste material in a location 

that would avoid direct or indirect 

sediment discharge to streams or 

wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 25, p. 304

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 30

Plant restored stream banks with native 

vegetation, using water-tolerant species 

where appropriate, then mulch.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 26, p. 304

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 31 Barricade and allow nearby vegetation to 

grow into closed trails.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 27, p. 304

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Dispersed Recreation

REC 32

Site camps for permitted group overnight 

camping greater than 150 feet from 

surface water.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 28, p. 304

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

Range Management 

Table C-9. Best management practices for livestock grazing. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

G 01

Fence water developments, including 

springs and seeps, unless other methods 

are available. Pipe overflow away from 

the developed source area.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 1, p. 305

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

G 02

Do not locate salting areas within 0.25 

mile of permanent water sources or 

Riparian Reserve.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 2, p. 305

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

G 03

Locate new permanent livestock handling 

or management facilities (corrals, pens, or 

holding pastures) outside Riparian 

Reserve or 200 feet from waterbodies and 

on level ground where drainage would not 

enter surface waters.

Make changes as necessary to existing 

facilities within Riparian Reserve to meet 

water quality standards and regulations.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 3, p. 305

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

198 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

G 04

Apply specific livestock grazing strategies 

for riparian wetland areas, including 

timing, intensity, or exclusion for 

maintenance of proper functioning 

condition.

Use one or more of the following features:

 Include the waterbodies, floodplains, 

and wetlands within a separate pasture.

 Fence or herd livestock out of 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands 

for as long as necessary to allow 

vegetation to recover.

 Control the timing and intensity of 

grazing to keep livestock off stream 

banks when they are most vulnerable to 

damage and to coincide with the 

physiological needs of target plant 

species.

 Add more rest to the grazing cycle to 

increase plant vigor, allow stream banks 

to re-vegetate, or encourage more 

desirable plant species composition.

 Limit grazing intensity to a level that 

will maintain desired species 

composition and vigor.

 Permanently exclude livestock from 

those waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands areas that are at high risk and 

have poor recovery potential, and when 

there is no practical way to protect them 

while grazing adjacent uplands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 4, p. 306

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

G 05

Recover degraded waterbodies through 

adjustments to forage utilization levels, 

improved livestock distribution, and 

management through fencing, vegetation 

treatments, water source developments, or 

changes in season of use or livestock 

numbers.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 5, p. 306

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

199 | P a g e

Salable Mineral Material Disposal 

Table C-10. Best management practices for salable mineral material disposal. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Salable Minerals

M 01

Locate stockpile sites on stable ground 

where the material would not move into 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

M 18, p. 309

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

M 02

Locate, design, and construct salable 

mineral sites to control runoff and prevent 

or minimize sediment delivery to streams.

Prevent overburden, solid wastes, 

drainage water or petroleum products 

from entering wetlands, Riparian Reserve, 

flood plains, and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

M 18, p. 309

OAR 629-625-0500 

1-5

OAR 629-625-0500-ODF, Rock Pits and 

Quarries

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

M 03 Locate, design, and maintain settling 

ponds to contain sediment discharges.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

M 1, p. 309

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

M 04

When a quarry or rock pit is depleted or 

vacated, stabilize cutbanks, headwalls, and 

other surfaces to prevent surface erosion 

and landslides. Close roads, excavations, 

and crusher pads in accordance with 

Roads and Landings section. Remove all 

potential pollutants to prevent their entry 

into wetlands, Riparian Reserve, 

floodplains, and waters of the State.

OAR 629-625-0500

ODEQ 2005 NS - 6

OAR 629-625-0500-ODF, Rock Pits and

Quarries

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

M 05

Use erosion-reduction practices, such as 

seeding, mulching, silt fences, and woody 

debris placement, to limit erosion and 

transport of sediment to streams from 

quarries. Provide drainage from stockpiles 

and mineral sites, dispersed over stable 

vegetated areas rather than directly into 

stream channels. Grade all material sites, 

where practicable to conform with the 

surrounding topography prior to closure. 

Utilized topsoil as a medium for 

successful revegetation. Reseed and plant 

trees, where needed.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

M 22, p. 309

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

200 | P a g e

Spill Prevention and Abatement 

Table C-11. Best management practices for spill prevention and abatement. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Operations Near Waterbodies

SP 01

Take precautions to prevent leaks or 

spills of petroleum products (e.g., fuel, 

motor oil, and hydraulic fluid) from 

entering the waters of the State.

40 CFR 112

OAR 629-620-

0100(2)

40 CFR 112 – Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

OAR 629-620-0100-ODF, Chemical and Other 

Petroleum Product Rules

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

SP 02

Take immediate action to stop and 

contain leaks or spills of chemicals and 

other petroleum products. Notify the 

Oregon Emergency Response System, 

through the District Hazard Materials 

specialist, of any spill that enters the 

waters of the State.

40 CFR 112

OAR 629-620-

0100(3), (4)

40 CFR 112 – Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

OAR 629-620-0100-ODF, Chemical and Other 

Petroleum Product Rules

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

201 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SP 03

Inspect and clean heavy equipment as 

necessary prior to moving on to the 

project site, in order to remove oil and 

grease, non-native invasive plants, 

including noxious weeds, and excessive 

soil.

Inspect hydraulic fluid and fuel lines on 

heavy-mechanized equipment for proper 

working condition.

Where practicable, maintain and refuel 

heavy equipment a minimum of 150 feet 

away from streams and other 

waterbodies. 

Refuel small equipment (e.g. chainsaws 

and water pumps) at least 100 feet from 

waterbodies (or as far as practicable from

the waterbody where local site conditions 

do not allow a 100-foot setback) to 

prevent direct delivery of contaminants 

into a waterbody. Refuel small equipment 

from no more than 5-gallon containers. 

Use absorbent material or a containment 

system to prevent spills when re-fueling 

small equipment within the stream 

margins or near the edge of waterbodies.

In the event of a spill or release, take all 

reasonable and safe actions to contain the 

material. Specific actions are dependent 

on the nature of the material spilled.

Use spill containment booms or as 

required by ODEQ. Have access to 

booms and other absorbent containment 

materials.

Immediately remove waste or spilled 

hazardous materials (including but not 

limited to diesel, oil, hydraulic fluid) and 

contaminated soils near any stream or 

other waterbody, and dispose of it/them 

in accordance with the applicable 

regulatory standard. Notify Oregon 

Emergency Response System of any spill 

over the material reportable quantities, 

and any spill not totally cleaned up after 

24 hours.

Store equipment containing reportable 

quantities of toxic fluids outside of 

Riparian Reserve.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 1, p. 311

40 CFR 112 – Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is 42 U.S. gallons not 

involving waterways, a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

202 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SP 04

If more than 42 gallons of fuel or 

combined quantity of petroleum product 

and chemical substances would be 

transported to a project site as project 

materials, implement the following 

precautions:

1. Plan a safe route and material transfer 

sites so that all spilled material will be 

contained easily at that designated 

location.

2. Plan an active dispatch system that can 

relay information to appropriate 

resources.

3. Ensure a spill containment kit that can 

absorb and contain 55 gallons of 

petroleum product and chemical 

substances is readily available.

4. Provide for immediate notification to 

OERS in the event of a spill. Have a 

radio-equipped vehicle lead the 

chemical or fuel truck to the project 

site.

5. Assemble a spill notification list that 

includes the district hazardous 

materials coordinator, ODEQ, and 

spill clean-up contractors.

6. Construct a downstream water user 

contact list with addresses and phone 

numbers.

7. When operating within source water 

watersheds, pre-estimate water flow 

travel times through the watershed to 

predict downstream arrival times.

8. Be prepared to sample water and carry 

sample containers.

9. Be prepared to assist OSP and ODFW 

to assess wildlife impacts of any 

material spilled.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 2, p. 312

40 CFR 112 – Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is 42 U.S. gallons not 

involving waterways, a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Spill Abatement

SP 05

Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan (SPCC): All 

operators shall develop a modified SPCC 

plan prior to initiating project work if 

there is a potential risk of chemical or 

petroleum spills near waterbodies. The 

SPCC plan will include the appropriate 

containers and design of the material 

transfer locations. No interim fuel depot 

or storage location other than a manned 

transport vehicle would be used.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 3, p. 312

40 CFR 112 – Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is 42 U.S. gallons not 

involving waterways, a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

OAR-340-142-0030-DEQ, Oil and Hazardous 

Materials Emergency Response Requirements

SP 06

Spill Containment Kit (SCK): All 

operators shall have a SCK as described 

in the SPCC plan on-site during any 

operation with potential for run-off to 

adjacent waterbodies. The SCK will be 

appropriate in size and type for the oil or 

hazardous material carried by the 

operator.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 4, p. 313

OAR-340-142-0030-DEQ, Oil and Hazardous 

Materials Emergency Response Requirements
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

203 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SP 07

Operators shall be responsible for the 

clean-up, removal, and proper disposal of 

contaminated materials from the site.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 5, p. 313

OAR-340-102-DEQ, Standards Applicable to 

Generators of Hazardous Waste

OAR-340-122-DEQ, Hazardous Substance 

Remedial Action Rules

Instream Restoration Activities 

Table C-12. Best management practices for instream restoration activities. 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

RST 01

Confine work in the stream channels to 

the ODFW instream work period unless a 

waiver is obtained from permitting 

agencies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 1, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 02

Do not drive heavy equipment in flowing 

channels and floodplains in stream 

channels that are sensitive to disturbance 

(e.g., meadow streams).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 2, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 03

In well-armored channels that are 

resistant to damage (e.g., bedrock, small 

boulder, and cobble-dominated), consider 

conducting the majority of heavyequipment work from within the channel, 

during low streamflow, to minimize 

damage to sensitive riparian areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 3, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

RST 04

Design access routes for individual work 

sites to reduce exposure of bare soil and 

extensive stream bank shaping.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 4, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 05

Limit the number and length of 

equipment access points through Riparian 

Reserve.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 5, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

RST 06

Limit the amount of stream bank 

excavation to the minimum necessary to 

ensure stability of enhancement 

structures. Provide isolation from flowing 

water during excavation. Place excavated 

material above the flood-prone area and 

cover or place a berm to avoid its reentry 

into the stream during high-flow events.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 6, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

RST 07

Inspect all mechanized equipment daily 

for leaks and clean as necessary to ensure 

that toxic materials, such as fuel and 

hydraulic fluid, do not enter the stream.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 7, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

204 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

RST 08

Locate equipment storage areas at least 

100 feet from any water feature, 

including machinery used in stream 

channels for more than one day.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 8, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

RST 09

When using heavy equipment in or 

adjacent to stream channels during 

restoration activities, develop and 

implement an approved spill containment 

plan that includes having a spill 

containment kit on-site and at previously 

identified containment locations.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 9, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

RST 10

Refuel equipment, including chainsaws 

and other hand power tools, at least 100 

feet from waterbodies (or as far as 

practicable from the waterbody where 

local site conditions do not allow a 100-

foot setback) to prevent direct delivery of 

contaminants into a waterbody.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 10, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

RST 11

Use waterbars, barricades, seeding, and 

mulching to stabilize bare soil areas 

along project access routes prior to the 

wet season.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 11, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 12

Prior to the wet season, stabilize 

disturbed areas where soil will support 

seed growth, with the potential for 

sediment delivery to wetlands, and waters 

of the State. Apply native seed and 

certified weed-free mulch or erosion 

control matting in steep or highly erosive 

areas. If needed to promote a rapid 

ground cover and prevent aggressive 

invasive plants, use interim erosion 

control non-native sterile annuals before 

attempting to restore native seed or 

plants.

USDI BLM 2008,

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 12, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 13

When replacing culverts, design 

placement location, crossing type, and 

installation depth to avoid excessive 

scour through the site, consider using 

larger culverts and embedding the culvert 

to 30 percent bedload. Use bridges on 

high-gradient stream channels.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 13, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 14 Rehabilitate headcuts and gullies. Use 

large wood in preference to rock weirs.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 14, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 15

Implement measures to control turbidity. 

Measures may include installation of 

turbidity control structures (e.g., 

isolation, diversion, and silt curtains) 

immediately downstream of in-stream 

restoration work areas. Remove these 

structures following completion of 

turbidity-generating activities.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 15, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

205 | P a g e

Dry Forest-specific BMPs 

Soils of concern in the dry forest area include those with a high potential for severe surface 

erosion, soil creep, periodic slumping (even when not overly saturated), and low nutrient 

potential. These soils weathered from granite, schist, and pyroclastic materials. The Timber 

Production Capability Classification (TPCC) and Handbook (5251-1, USDI BLM 1986) involves 

mapping, with discrete mapping units and interpretations of timbered lands. The classification 

uses geology, landform, topographic position, climate (especially precipitation), soil properties, 

and vegetation. Lands with the capacity to erode excessively or prone to movement are denoted 

with either a fragile code of FM (surface erosion potential) or FP (mass movement potential) 

(Table C-13). 

Table C-13. Timber Production Capability Classification soil categories of concern. 

Category Description of Soil Categories

Surface 

Erosion FM

These sites have soil surface horizons that are highly erodible, easily detached and subject to 

bouncing or sliding downhill (dry ravel), even if partially vegetated. The soils overlay intrusive 

volcanic bedrock (e.g., granite, diorite, and schist). The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) provides a Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation soil loss tolerance factor, known as T 

factor, which ranges from a low of 1 (on shallow soils, 1–10” depth), to 5 (on soils deeper than 60”). 

This factor describes the maximum rate of annual soil loss in tons/acre that can be lost and still permit 

crop productivity to sustain economically and indefinitely. Disturbances from harvesting or burning 

create increased dry raveling of soil, losses of soil nutrients, and burying of newly planted seedlings. 

Classification coding may be FMR for suitable lands or FMNW for non-suitable lands.

Mass 

Movement 

FP

These sites range from gentle to moderately steep slopes, 10–60 percent, where the rate of sliding is 

slow enough to permit forest management, but with some loss in wood quality in certain areas. Sites 

may have an impervious clay pan overlaying pyroclastic bedrock (e.g., volcanic tuffs, breccia, and are 

subject to movement). Tree roots providing strength and certain landforms act as resisting forces, 

while gravity and soil moisture may initiate non-uniform spatial and temporal rates of movement. 

Slow deep seated, slump or earth flow types of mass movements may occur, forming an undulating 

topography. Classification coding may be FPR for suitable lands or FPNW for non-suitable lands.

Table C-14. Best management practices specific to the dry forest (refer to Table C-13 for 

category type). 

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Roads and Landings: General Construction, Maintenance

Timber Harvest: Cable Yarding

DF 01

Use full log suspension whenever 

practicable on TPCC soils identified as 

prone to surface erosion, category FM 

in Table C-13. Use one-end suspension 

on these soils if full suspension is not 

practicable. Restrict yarding to the dry 

season, generally from June to end of 

September.

Suspend the leading end over TPCC 

soils identified as prone to mass 

movement, category FP in Table C-13. 

Restrict yarding to the dry season.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 1, p. 

317

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

206 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Timber Harvest: Ground-based

DF 02

Limit non-specialized ground-based 

yarding equipment to slopes less than 20 

percent on TPCC soils identified as 

category FM or FP in Table C-13, 

where soils average less than or equal to 

20 percent clay in the top 6” of soil as 

determined by NRCS soil survey data. 

Otherwise, limit non-specialized 

ground-based yarding equipment to 

slopes less than 35 percent, on TPCC 

soils identified as category FM or FP in 

Table C-13, where soils average greater 

than 20 percent clay in the top 6”.

Avoid tilling on TPCC soils identified 

as category FM (when moisture is 

excessive) or FP in Table C-13, unless 

adequate ground cover is present to 

arrest potential erosion.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 2, p. 

317

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Fire and Fuels Management

DF 03

Avoid mechanical piling to limit severe 

surface disturbance and displacement on 

TPCC soils identified as category FM or 

FP in Table C-13.

USDI BLM 2008,

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 3, p. 

318

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

DF 04

Implement prescribed burning on FP 

and FM soils when fuel moisture 

contents would result in ‘cool burns.’ 

Post-burn surface soil characteristics 

may include litter that is consumed and 

duff that is deeply charred or consumed 

or organic matter that is partially 

charred to a depth >1.0 cm, but mineral 

soil is not visibly altered.

USDA Forest 

Service Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR42-vol. 4 2005 

Table 1.4 Part B

None

Wildfire: Suppression

DF 05

Limit the use of non-specialized 

ground-based fire line construction 

equipment and other major surfacedisturbing activities (for example, safety 

zones or helispots) to slopes equal to 20 

percent or less on TPCC soils identified 

as category FM or FP in Table C-13.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 5, p. 

318

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Rights-of-Way

DF 06

Avoid facility construction on soils 

identified on TPCC soils identified as 

the FM category in Table C-13, unless 

water quality would be maintained.

Locate rights-of-ways to minimize 

surface disturbance on TPCC soils 

identified as category FM or FP in 

Table C-13.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 6, p. 

318

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

207 | P a g e

References 

Gesford, A. L., and J. A. Anderson. 2006. Environmentally sensitive maintenance for dirt and gravel roads. Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation. 360 pp. https://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution/environmentallysensitive-maintenance-dirt-and-gravel. 

Johansen, K., R. Copstead, and J. Moll. 1997. Relief culverts. Water/road interaction technology series. Research Report 9777 

1812-SDTDC. USDA FS, San Dimas Technology and Development Program, Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road/. 

ODEQ. 2015. Oregon Administrative rules. Water Pollution, Division 41. Water quality standards, beneficial uses, policies and 

criteria for Oregon. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_041.html. 

ODEQ and USDI BLM. 2011. Memorandum of understanding between United States Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, and State of Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality to meet State and Federal water quality rules and 

regulations. Agreement Number BLM-OR932-1013 and DEQ Agreement # 040-11/I, Subject Function Code 1786, 7240 

(P), April 2011. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/pubs/igas/DEQBLMMOU20110401.pdf. 

---. 2005. Erosion and sediment control manual. Prepared by: Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA. Project Number SW0106-

01.

ODFW. 2008. Oregon guidelines for timing of in-water work to protect fish and wildlife resources. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/inwater/Oregon_Guidelines_for_Timing_of_%20InWater_Work2008.pdf. 

USACOE. 1972. Clean Water Act, Section 404. 

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/materials/cwa_sec404doc.pdf. 

USDA FS. 1998. U.S. Forest Service Manual 2500, Chap. 2520 Watershed Protection and Management, R-6 Supplement 

2520.98-1. 6 pp. 

---. 2002. Management and techniques for riparian restorations: roads field guide. Vol. I and II. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR102 vol. I and II. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 38 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr102.html. 

---. 2012. National best management practices for water quality management on National Forest system lands. Volume 1: 

National core BMP technical guide. FS-990a. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf. 

USDA FS, USDI BIA, USDI BLM, USDI NPS, and USDI FWS. 2006. Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response 

Guidebook. Interpretation of Department of the Interior 620 DM 3 and USDA Forest Service Manual 2523. For the 

Emergency Stabilization of Federal and Tribal Trust Lands Version 4.0. 

http://www.fws.gov/fire/ifcc/esr/Policy/es_handbook_2-7-06.pdf. 

USDC NMFS. 2013. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Programmatic consultation conference and biological opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat response for reinitiation of aquatic 

restoration activities in states of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II). NMFS consultation number NWR-2013-9664. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/nmfs-arboii.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 1986. Timber production capability classification. Handbook 5251-1. Available at district offices. 

---. 2006. Interagency burn area rehabilitation guidebook. Interpretation of Department of the Interior 620 DM 3. For the burned 

area rehabilitation of federal and tribal trust lands. Version 1.3. Washington, D.C. 36 pp. 

---. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon 

Bureau of Land Management Districts. Vol. I–IV. Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php. 

---. 2010. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on BLM lands in Oregon. Record of Decision. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/vegtreatmentseis/files/Veg_Treatments_ROD_Oct2010.pdf. 

---. 2011. BLM Road Design Handbook H9113-1. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.5566.File.dat/H

-9113-1.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. National management measures to control nonpoint source pollution from 

forestry. Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-841-B-05-001. http://www2.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-sourcepollution/national-management-measures-control-nonpoint-source. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

208 | P a g e
209 | P a g e

Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

This appendix provides a map of right-of-way avoidance areas (Map D-1) and the following 

detailed data about lands and realty: 

 Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria 

 Land Withdrawals 

 Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands 

 Inventory of Communication Sites 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

210 | PageMap INSERT MAP HERE 

D-1. Right-of-way avoidance areas and right-of-way exclusion areas.

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP210 | PageMap INSERT MAP HERE 

D-1. Right-of-way avoidance areas and right-of-way exclusion areas.
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

211 | P a g e

Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria 

In accordance with the FLPMA and other laws, Executive Orders, and Departmental and BLM 

policy, the BLM will consider the following factors in evaluating opportunities for disposal or 

acquisition of lands or interests in lands. The lists are not all-inclusive, but represent the major 

factors that the BLM will consider. 

General Land Tenure Adjustment Evaluation Factors 

The BLM will use the following criteria to evaluate all land tenure adjustments: 

 Improves manageability of specific areas 

 Maintains or enhances important public resource values and uses 

 Consolidates Federal mineral estate or reuniting split surface and mineral estates 

 Facilitates development of energy and mineral potential 

 Reduces difficulty or cost of public land administration 

 Provides accessibility to Federal land for public recreation and other uses 

 Amount of public investments in facilities or improvements and the potential for 

recovering those investments 

 Suitability of land for management by another Federal agency 

 Significance of decision in stabilizing or enhancing business, social, and economic 

conditions, or lifestyles 

 Meets long-term public management goals as opposed to short term 

 Facilitates National, State, and local BLM priorities 

 Consistency with cooperative agreements and plans or policies of other agencies 

 Facilitates implementation of other aspects of the approved resource management 

plans

Acquisition Criteria 

The BLM will use the following criteria to identify parcels for acquisition: 

 Facilitates access to public land and resources retained for long-term public use 

 Secures Threatened or Endangered or Bureau Sensitive plant and animal species 

habitat 

 Protects riparian areas and wetlands 

 Contributes to biodiversity 

 Protects high-quality scenery 

 Enhances the opportunity for new or emerging public land uses or public resource 

values 

 Facilitates management practices, uses, scales of operation, or degrees of 

management intensity that are viable under economic program efficiency standards 

 Protects significant cultural resources and sites eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register of Historic Places where non-Federal sites exist for the proposed use 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

212 | P a g e

Disposal Criteria 

The BLM will use the following criteria to identify the disposal of parcels in Land Tenure Zone 2 

as part of an exchange, or the disposal of parcels in Land Tenure Zone 3: 

 Suitability for purposes including but not limited to community expansion or 

economic development, such as industrial, residential, or agricultural development 

 Lands of limited public resource value 

 Lands that are difficult for the BLM to manage and unsuitable for transfer to other 

Federal agencies or State and local governments 

 Lands that aid in aggregating or repositioning other public lands or public land resource 

values where the public values to be acquired outweigh the values to be exchanged 

O&C Land Exchange Criteria 

An O&C land exchange is an exchange within the O&C area as delineated in Public Law 105-

321. The BLM will consider the following forest management and related factors when 

evaluating the feasibility of an O&C land exchange: 

 Land exchanges that maintain the existing balance between the various land use 

allocations will be considered favorably 

 Land exchanges that enhance public resource values or improve land patterns and 

management capabilities of both non-Federal and BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area by consolidating ownership and reducing the potential for land use 

conflict 

 Offered lands that are primarily suitable for agriculture, business, and home sites, or 

lands that require extensive post-acquisition management will not be favorably 

considered. The O&C lands designated for timber production will generally not be 

exchanged for lands, which will be managed solely for a single use, such as species 

protection. 

 Generally, where cutting rights are reserved on existing and future timber stands by 

the proponent, the proposed exchange will not be considered favorably. 

The exchange of O&C and CBWR lands specifically for lands located outside of the 18 O&C 

counties is prohibited by regulations in 43 CFR 2200. This restriction applies to timber and other 

interests in lands as well. 
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

213 | P a g e

Land Withdrawals 

Table D-1 through Table D-4 contains detailed information about existing and proposed land 

withdrawals. 

Table D-1. Withdrawal tables legend. 

Authority/Order Type: Segregation Effect:

DO Director Order A

Withdrawn from operation of the general land 

laws, the mining laws, and the Mineral Leasing 

Act

EO Executive Order B

Withdrawn from operation of the general land and 

mining laws

SO Secretarial Order C

Withdrawn from operation of the general land 

laws

BO Bureau Order D

Withdrawn from operation of the general land 

laws; Open to mining subject to Public Law 359

PL Public Law E

Withdrawn from operation of the general land 

laws; Withdrawn from mining except 

metalliferous

PLO Public Land Order F

Withdrawn from operation of the general 

PSR Power Site Reserve agricultural and mining laws

PSC Power Site Classification Recommendation:

R&PP Recreation and Public Purpose C Continue

WPD Water Power Designation R Revoke

FPC Federal Power Commission

E Expire FO Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission Order

Notes:

Location description indicates sections within which withdrawn lands are located. Information on which portions of the cited 

sections are withdrawn is available within the District Office. 

Table does not include lands that have been completely transferred out of Federal ownership subsequent to withdrawal or lands 

within U.S. Forest Service National Forest boundaries. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

214 | P a g e

Note: Acres are based on the most available information, but may have discrepancies because of the general nature of some of the 

information. 

Table D-2. Withdrawals in the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

ORE 05433 BO of 

6/14/57

T. 40 S., R. 10 E., Sec. 9 80 Air Navigation/ANS 57 FAA A R

T. 40 S., R. 10 E., Sec. 10 80 Air Navigation/ANS 57 FAA A Partial R/C

Total Acres for ORE 05433: 160

OR 36244 BO of 

2/11/47 T. 39 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 21 51.12 Kingsley Field USAF B C

OR19001 EO 5907 T. 38 S., R. 13 E., Sec. 35 40 Public Water Reserve 146 BLM E C

OR 20219 EO of 

1/24/1914

T. 41 S., R. 13 E., Sec. 6 52.14 Public Water Reserve 15 BLM E C

T. 40 S., R. 13 E., Secs. 

19, 31 189.55 Public Water Reserve 15 BLM E C

T. 41 S., R. 12 E., Sec. 1 40 Public Water Reserve 15 BLM E C

T. 40 S., R. 12 E., Sec. 24 160 Public Water Reserve 15 BLM E C

Total Acres for OR 20219: 441.69

OR 9041 EO 

4/17/1926

T. 40 S., R. 11 E., Sec. 11 80 Public Water Reserve 107 BLM E C

T. 41 S., R. 14.5 E., Sec. 1 40 Public Water Reserve 107 BLM E C

Total Acres for OR 9041: 120

ORE 

016183E PLO 3869 T. 39 S., R. 13 E., Secs. 2, 11 160 Gerber Reservoir Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 

016183D PLO 3869 T. 38 S., R. 5 E., Sec. 21 40 Surveyor Mountain Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 

016183D PLO 3869 T. 40 S., R. 7 E., Sec. 6 14.35 Topsy Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 

012799 PLO 3274 T. 39 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 21 10.04 Administrative Site USFWS B R

OR 20243 SO of 

7/9/1904

T. 39 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 5–

8, 16–22 3,425.82 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR/BLM B R

T. 38 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 

31, 32 160 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR/BLM B R

Total Acres for OR 20243: 3,585.82

SO of 

7/27/1904

T. 38 S., R. 13 E., Sec. 35 120 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR/BLM B R

T. 39 S., R. 13 E., Secs. 1, 

2, 11–14, 23, 26, 27, 33, 34 2,758.87 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR/BLM B R

Total Acres for SO of 7/27/1904: 2,878.87

OR 2870 PL 88-567

T. 34 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

12, 13, 25, 26, 35, 36 2,636.09 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and Klamath Basin Reclamation Project USFWS B R

T. 35 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

2, 12, 13, 24, 25, 35, 36, 3,800.24 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge andKlamath Basin Reclamation Project USFWS B R
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

215 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

PB 37, 38

T. 37 S., R. 8 E., Sec. 36 500.10 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and 

Klamath Basin Reclamation Project USFWS

Closed to 

homestead 

entry

R

Total Acres for OR 2870: 6,936.43

OR 4669 PLO 1512 T. 37 S., R. 7.5 E., Secs. 9, 

10 6

Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, 

Addition USFWS C

OR 20587 EO 4851

T. 35 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

2, 12, 13, 24, 25, 35, 36, 

PB 37, 38

3,800.24 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and 

Klamath Basin Reclamation Project

USFWS/ 

BR B R

T. 36 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 2, 

3, 11–14, PB 37–42 3,120 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and Klamath Basin Reclamation Project

USFWS/ 

BR B R

Total Acres for OR 20587: 6,926.24

OR 22625 EO 924

T. 37 S., R. 8 E., Secs. 23–

28, 31–36

See total acres 

below Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 40 S., R. 8 E., Secs. 1–

16, 21–27, 34–36 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 40 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 6–

8, 17–21, 27–35 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 41 S., R. 10 E., Secs. 7, 

17, 18 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 41 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 1–

6, 8–13 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 41 S., R. 8 E., Secs. 1–

5, 9–16 95.9 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

Total Acres for OR 22625: Not available

OR 20246 SO of 

1/28/1905 T. 37 S., R. 8 E., Sec. 17 68.7 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project USFWS/ BR B R

OR 20249 SO of 

1/20/1910

T. 34 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

12, 13, 25, 26, 35, 36

See total acres 

below Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B R

T. 35 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

2, 12, 13, 24, 25, 35, 36, 

PB 37, 38

Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 36 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 2, 

3, 11–14, PB 37–42 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for OR 20249: Not available

OR 20253 SO of 

6/25/1919

T. 41 S., R. 10 E., Secs. 

15, 16

See total acres 

below Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 41 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 3–

6, 8–10, 12, 14–18 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 41 S., R. 8 E., Secs. 1, 

4, 9, 11–16 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

216 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 40 S., R. 8 E., Sec.25 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for OR 20253: Not available

OR 20244 SO of 

7/19/1904

T. 40 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 24 See total acres 

below Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 41 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 3–

6, 8–10, 12, 14–17 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for OR 20244: Not available

OR 20246 SO of 

1/28/1905

T. 41 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 3–

6, 8–10, 12, 14–17 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

OR 20254 SO of 

7/31/1919 T. 39 S., R. 11 E., Sec. 19 80 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B

R – Withdrawal 

relinquished, 

suitable for return 

to Public Domain

OR 20240 SO of 

6/20/1922

T. 41 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 

19, 20 29.55 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

OR 20259 SO of 

2/25/1939

T. 39 S., R. 12 E., Secs. 

22, 26 120 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B

R – Withdrawal 

relinquished, 

suitable for return 

to Public Domain

OR 20261 SO of 

4/21/1940 T. 40 S., R. 14 E., Sec. 5 41.04 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B

R – Withdrawal 

relinquished, 

suitable for return 

to Public Domain

OR 20239 SO of 

2/21/1946

T. 41 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 

15, 20–23 1,063.8 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

OR 20264 BO of 

2/11/1947

T. 39 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 20–

22, 25, 27, 28, 31–34 60.14 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 40 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 3 278.41 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for OR 20264: 338.55

OR 20263 SO of 

1/6/1944 T. 40 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 15 160 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

OR 20262 SO of 

6/18/1940 T. 39 S., R. 12 E., Sec. 28 40 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BLM D C

SO of 

3/31/1939

T. 40 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 

5*, 7*, 17* 53.35 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project C

OR 19085 EO 

2/1/1917

T. 41 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 2, 

7, 10, 18 313.95 Water Power Potential/PSR 579 BLM D C

OR 44762

T. 40 S., R. 6 E., Secs.1, 

12–14, 23, 26, 34, 35

See total acres 

below Klamath Wild and Scenic River Various C

T. 40 S., R. 7 E., Sec.6 Klamath Wild and Scenic River C

Total Acres for OR 44762: Not available

OR 19054 EO T. 41 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 4, See total acres Water Power Potential/PSR 258 BLM D C
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

217 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

4/13/1912 8, 10 below

T. 40 S., R. 6 E., Sec. 12, 

14, 26, 34 Water Power Potential/PSR 258 BLM D C

T. 41 S., R. 5 E., Sec. 13 Water Power Potential/PSR 258 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19054: 1,611.34

OR 18974

FPC Order 

of 

1/28/1954

T. 39 S., R. 7 E., Secs. 26–

29, 35, 36 J.C. Boyle Power Project/Power Project 2082 FERC C

T. 40 S., R. 7 E., Sec. 6 14.47 J.C. Boyle Power Project/Power Project 2082 FERC B C

T. 40 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

12–14, 23, 26, 27, 34, 35 23.41 J.C. Boyle Power Project/Power Project 2082 FERC B C

T. 41 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 3, 

5, 6, 10 J.C. Boyle Power Project/Power Project 2082 FERC B C

Total Acres for OR 18974: Not available

OR 19131 SO 

5/19/1921 T. 41 S., R. 5 E., Sec. 12 6.42 Protect Water, Power, and Reservoir Development Potential/PSC 2 BLM B C

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

218 | P a g e

Table D-3. Withdrawals in the Medford District. 

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

ORE 

016674 PLO 5105

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 11, 

13, 14, 23, 24, 27, 35

See total acres 

below Lost Creek Reservoir COE B C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 11, 

15, 19 Lost Creek Reservoir COE B R (716.88 acres)

Total Acres for ORE 016674: 2,483.48

ORE 

016753 PLO 6373

T. 32 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 33 See total acres 

below Elk Creek Reservoir COE B C

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 5, 

9, 21, 29 Elk Creek Reservoir COE B C

Total Acres for ORE 016753: 840.59

OR 49 PLO 4132 T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 9 200 Sprague Orchard BLM B C

OR 10729 PLO 5481 T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 3 160 Sprague Orchard BLM B C

ORE 04135 PLO 1726

T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Sec. See total acres 

below Recreation Area BLM B R (519.8 acres)

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs.9, 

10, 16 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 8, 

16–18, 22, 23, 26, 35, 36 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

32–35 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 31 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 23, 

24, 32 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 11, 

19 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1, 2 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

5, 6, 12, 13, 24, 25 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 6, 

19, 30, 31 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 10 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 1 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3–

6, 9, 10, 24 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 11, 12 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

11–13 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 13 Recreation Area BLM B C
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

219 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 39 S., R. 2 W., Secs.19, 

23 Recreation Area BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 04135: 15,481.14

ORE 

012261 PLO 3165

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 33 See total acres 

below Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 13, 25 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 1 Recreation Area BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 012261: 174.21

ORE 

016183D PLO 3869

T. 32 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 16 See total acres 

below Recreation Area BLM B R

T. 35 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 11 Recreation Area BLM B R

T. 38 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 1 Recreation Area BLM B R

T. 39 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 25 Recreation Area BLM B R

T. 39 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 21, 

22 Recreation Area BLM B R

Total Acres for ORE 016183D: 444.35

OR 19008 SO of 

1/19/1917

T. 38 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 25* See total acres 

below Water Power Potential/WPD 3 BLM C R

T. 38 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 

31*, 33 Water Power Potential/WPD 3 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3*, 

11*, 15* Water Power Potential/WPD 3 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 5*, 

9, 15, 21†, 27† Water Power Potential/WPD 3 BLM C R

Total Acres for OR 19008: 5,631.54

OR 19010 SO of 

4/27/1917

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 23, 

27, 32, 33†

See total acres 

below Water Power Potential/WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1*, 

11*, 15, 17*, 19† Water Power Potential/WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7* Water Power Potential/WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 3†, 

15, 21*, 29* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 3†, 

11*, 13, 23*, 25†, 35 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 2 E., Sec.7, 

33† Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3–

5, 9–11, 13, 25*, 35* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 19 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

220 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 

5*, 9*, 13† Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 17 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 13 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 11 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 21 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

21*, 23* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

19, 21†, 25†, 29* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

11, 13, 17*, 21* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

1*, 13*, 15* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 38 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

27, 35 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 3, 

5

†

, 9†, 17, 20*, 27*, 29 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19010: 12,228.88

OR 19013 SO of 

4/27/1917

T. 32 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 23 See total acres 

below Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 33 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 15 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 13, 

32, 33 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 17–

19 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

17, 29 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 21 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 9, 

21, 29, 31 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 35 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 19 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 36 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 5, 

23 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 36 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 21 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 17, 

35 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

221 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 40 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 7, 

17, 21, 27, 35 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 41 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 41 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 7, 

17 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

Total Acres for OR 19013: 127.27

OR 19018 SO of 

4/13/1942

T. 33 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 31 See total acres 

below Water Power Potential/WPD 18 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 31 Water Power Potential/WPD 18 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 5 Water Power Potential/WPD 18 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

23, 25, 35 Water Power Potential/WPD 18 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19018: 872.35

OR 19047 EO of 

12/1/1910

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 24, 

32, 31†

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 161 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 10 Power Site Potential/PSR 161 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19047: 157.49

OR 19048 EO of 

12/19/1910

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 4, 

6, 10, 26

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 167 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

2*, 12 Power Site Potential/ PSR 167 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

11, 12* Power Site Potential/PSR 167 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19048: 495.38

OR 19078 EO of 

3/28/1916

T. 36 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

22, 24* 2.17 Power Site Potential/PSR 528 BLM C C

OR 19088 EO of 

1/19/1917

T. 38 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 25† See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 583 BLM C R

T. 38 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 31, 

33 Power Site Potential/PSR 583 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 5†, 

9, 15, 21, 27 Power Site Potential/PSR 583 BLM C R

Total Acres for OR 19088: 1,799.03

OR 19089 EO of 

1/19/1917

T. 39 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3, 

11, 15 160 Power Site Potential/PSR 584 BLM C R

OR 19094 EO of 

4/30/1917

T. 34 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 3†, 

11, 13, 23, 25, 35

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 7 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 13 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM C C
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

222 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 35 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 17 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 3, 13 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19094: 3,360.34

OR 19096 EO of 

4/28/1917

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 

23†, 27†, 33†

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 1, 

11*, 15*, 17*, 19† Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 3†, 

15*, 21*, 29* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3, 

5

†

, 9, 11, 13†, 25*, 35* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 19 Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

5*, 9* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 11* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 21 Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

21*, 23* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

19*, 21*, 25, 29* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

11†, 13, 17*, 21* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

1*, 13*, 15* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19096: 5,379.4

OR 19139 SO of 

5/8/1926

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

3, 9, 10, 12–14

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 8, 

16–18, 23, 26, 36 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

32, 34, 35 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

31†, 32† Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 13, 

14*, 23 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 3* Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 2 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

223 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 2, 

6, 12, 13, 24, 25, 35 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

6, 18, 19†, 30, 31 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 15, 

23 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 33 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 1, 2 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5–

7

Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 2* Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 18 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 37 S., R. 6 W., Secs.13, 

15†, 23, 24 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 37 S., R. 5 W., Secs.17, 

19* Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19139: 22,948.95

OR 19143 SO of 

12/10/1926

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 5 See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 158 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 15†Power Site Potential/PSC 158 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19143: 71.8

OR 19154 SO of 

2/27/1929

T. 38 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 32 See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 218 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 26, 

35 Power Site Potential/PSC 218 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 11, 

19, 20 Power Site Potential/PSC 218 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 

5***, 15 Power Site Potential/PSC 218 BLM C R

Total Acres for OR 19154: 1,482.21

OR 19173 SO of 

4/11/1942

T. 33 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 31 See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 330 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 31 Power Site Potential/PSC 330 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 5 Power Site Potential/PSC 330 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

23, 25, 26, 35 Power Site Potential/PSC 330 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19173: 1,151.73

OR 19174 SO of 

4/27/1943

T. 33 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

29, 33, 35

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 13, 

17, 18, 23, 27, 31 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM C C
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

224 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 16, 

17, 19 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 9, 

15, 23, 27, 29, 31 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 3, 

11, 15, 23 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 7 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19174: 5,207.45

OR 19291 PLO 3530 T. 39 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 5, 

6

210.36 Brewer Spruce RNA BLM B C

ORE 03644 B.O. of 1-

24-1956

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 10 See total acres 

below Rogue River Basin Project BOR B C

T. 34 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 20 Rogue River Basin Project BOR B C

T. 34 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 24 Rogue River Basin Project BOR B C

T. 34 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 32 Rogue River Basin Project BOR B C

T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 6 Rogue River Basin Project BOR B C

Total Acres for ORE 03644: 875.93

ORE 

011495 PLO 4289 T. 40 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 1†

1,132.39 Rogue River Basin Project BOR C C

ORE 

017844 PLO 4037 T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 6 162.5 Rogue River Basin Project BOR B C

OR 20519 S.O. of 2-

20-1943

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 32 See total acres 

below Medford/SV Project BOR B R

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 2 Medford/SV Project BOR B R

Total acres for OR 20519: 84.64

OR 20572 B.O. of 8-

18-1950

T. 35 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

34, 35 80 Air Navigation Site FAA A C

ORE 03801 PLO 1189 T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 2 395.5 Recreation Area USFS B R

OR 19110 EO of 

7/23/1917

T. 32 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 23 See total acres 

below Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 15 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 13 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 9, 

17–19 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

17, 29 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 21 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 9, 

21, 27, 29, 31 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 5, 

23 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

225 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 36 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 21 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 17, 

35 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 40 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 7, 

17, 21, 27, 35 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 41 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 41 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 7, 17 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19110: Not available

OR 37299 FO of 

1/19/1983

T. 31 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

27, 28, 34, 35

See total acres 

below Water Power Project/PP-7161 FERC C C

T. 32 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 3 Water Power Project/PP-7161 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 37299: Not available

OR 19014 SO of 

12/12/1917

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

9

†

, 10, 11, 13

See total acres 

below Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs.17, 

21, 23, 35 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

33†, 35 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 19014: Not available

OR 19125 EO of 

12/27/1919

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

9

†

, 10, 11, 13

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 

17, 21, 23, 35 Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

33†, 35 Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1 Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5 Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 19125: Not available

OR 4337 PL 90-542

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

9–14

See total acres 

below Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 8, 

15–18, 21–23, 26, 27, 35, 

36

Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

31–36 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 33 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 31 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

226 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 1, 

2

Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1–

3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 34 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 6, 

18, 19, 30, 31 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 1 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3–

11, 14, 15, 23–26, 35, 36 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 1,

2, 11–14, 24 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 

18, 19 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

Total Acres for OR 4337: Not available

OR 57512 FO of 

6/6/2002

T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 

19, 20, 29–31 Not available Water Power Project/PP-12205 FERC B R

OR 19098 EO of 

5/7/1917

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1* See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 623 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 6†, 

10 Power Site Potential/PSR 623 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 12 Power Site Potential/PSR 623 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19098: Not available

OR 49212 PLO 7136

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 35 See total acres 

below Galice Creek Recreation Area BLM B E

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 2, 

3

Galice Creek Recreation Area BLM B E

Total Acres for OR 49212: 290

ORE 

012261 PLO 3259 T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 11 79.73 Protection of R&PP/Recreation Area BLM B C

OR 49218 PLO 7103

T. 37 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 36 See total acres 

below

Protection of Scenic, Fisheries, Wildlife, and 

Recreation Values BLM B C

T. 37 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 31 Limestone Caves and Crook Creek BLM B C

T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 11 Fisheries Area BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 49218: 758.46

OR 19138 SO of 

1/7/1926

T. 38 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 9, 

26*, 27, 28, 34, 35

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 123 BLM C C

T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 5†, 

15, 27†, 29, 33, 34†, 35 Power Site Potential/PSC 123 BLM C C

T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 5†, 

9

Power Site Potential/PSC 123 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19138: Not available
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

227 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 19093 EO of 

4/28/1917

T. 38 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

27, 35

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 618 BLM C C

T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 3, 

4*, 5, 9†, 17†, 21†, 27*, 

29*

Power Site Potential/PSR 618 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19093: Not available

OR 19092 EO of 

4/28/1917 T. 38 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 28 27.90 Power Site Potential/PSR 617 BLM C C

OR 56726 FO of 

5/21/2001

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 34, 

35

See total acres 

below Water Power Project/PP-12022 FERC C R

T. 40 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 2 Water Power Project/PP-12022 FERC C R

Total Acres for OR 56726: Not available

OR 18974

FPC Orders 

OF 

4/22/1959, 

2/25/1975

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 28, 

35

See total acres 

below Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

T. 40 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

T. 40 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 6, 

17 Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

T. 41 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

T. 41 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 6–

9, 12, 17 Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 18974: Not available

Act of 

12/30/1982

T. 40 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 31, 

32

See total acres 

below BLM Wilderness Study Area BLM C

T. 41 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 5, 6 BLM Wilderness Study Area BLM C

Total Acres for Act of 12/30/1982: Not available

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

228 | P a g e

Table D-4. Withdrawals in the Roseburg District.49

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 19101 EO of 

8/7/1917

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

25, 27†, 33*, 35 600 Water Power Potential/PSR 629 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

9

392.59 Water Power Potential/PSR 629 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19101: 992.59

OR 19011 SO of 

7/13/1959

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

25, 27†, 33*, 35 600 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

9

392.59 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM C

T. 22 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

19, 31 47.45 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

9*, 15, 23, 27 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3, 

11, 13*, 15*, 17, 21*, 23, 

29*, 33

Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

5*, 7

†

, 9, 15, 17, 21†, 23, 

27

Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 7, 

13, 15, 17, 23 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 1, 

9*, 11, 17* Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 7 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 5*, 

7

Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

25†, 29*, 31, 33†, 35 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

15, 21, 23, 25†, 27 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19011: 992.59

OR 19105 EO of 

7/24/1917

T. 22 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

19, 31 47.45 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

9*, 15, 23, 27 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C

T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3, 

11, 13*, 15*, 17, 21*, 23, 

29*, 33

Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C

 

49 Table D-4 includes withdrawals for the entire Roseburg District, including withdrawals located in the Swiftwater Field Office. 
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

229 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5*, 

7

†

, 9, 15, 17, 21†, 23, 27 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 

5*, 7 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19105: Not available

OR 19057 EO of 

6/4/1912

T. 23 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

21, 32 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

20*, 28 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

6

†

, 7* Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 21 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 9* Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 18* Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 8 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 28 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 25* Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19057: Not available

OR 19341 PLO 754 T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

20, 21 28.28 Timber Preservation BLM A C

ORE 

016183B PLO 3869

T. 21 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 1 80 Gunter Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 13 23.7 Tyee Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 23 20 Scaredman Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 24 40 Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 25 20 Scaredman Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 30 40 Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 15 160 Rock Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 21 320 Mill Pond Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 14 160 Susan Creek Falls BLM B C

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 9 6.44 Lone Rock BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 16 178.53 Wolf Creek Trail BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 23 80 Cavitt Creek Forest BLM B C

T. 31 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 35 20 Island Creek Day-Use Area BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 016183B: Not available

OR 1102 EO of 

6/29/1917 T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 6 Water Power Potential/PSR 630 BLM D C

OR 3660A PLO 4537 T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 9, 

10, 15 91.88 Umpqua Recreation Site BLM B C

OR 19144 SO of 

1/20/1970

T. 25 S., R. 8 W., Sec.12 20.8 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 30* Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 26 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D C
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

230 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

Total Acres for OR 19144: Not available

OR 19153 SO of 

6/29/1928

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 

17* Water Power Potential/PSC 202 BLM D C

OR 44740 PL 100-

557

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 7, 

8, 13–18, 20–24 1,620 North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River BLM Various C

OR 18874

FPC 

Orders of 

12/28/1948 

and 

5/18/1953

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 35 100 foot wide electric transmission line/PP 

1927 BLM B C

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 7, 

13–15, 17, 21, 29–31 110.11 100 foot wide electric transmission line/PP 1927 FERC B C

Total Acres for OR 18874: Not available

OR 19103 EO of 

7/10/1917

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 7, 

13, 15, 17, 23 397.3 Water Power Potential/PSR 631 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 1, 

9*, 11, 17* Water Power Potential/PSR 631 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 7 Water Power Potential/PSR 631 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19103: Not available

OR 19184 SO of 

5/29/1951

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

14, 22, 24 300 Water Power Potential/PSC 416, BLM D C

OR 19016 SO of 

10/24/1919 T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 21 33.78 Water Power Potential/WPD 16 BLM D C

OR 18874

FPC Order 

of 

3/30/1945

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 1, 

35 12.17 100 foot wide electric transmission line/PP 1927 FERC B

OR 5263 PLO 4848

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 1 80 Swiftwater Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 80 Emile Creek Recreation Site BLM B

T. 27 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 8 80 Little River Wayside BLM B

Total Acres for OR 5263: 585.95

ORE 

013683 PLO 4448

T. 29 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

17, 21 60.22 Umpqua River Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 30 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

6

50.15 Umpqua River Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for ORE 013683: 110.37

OR 19113 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 3 40 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 29 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

25†, 29*, 31, 33†, 35 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

15, 21, 23, 25†, 27 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 3 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

231 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

Total Acres for OR 19113: Not available

OR 19014 SO of 

12/12/1917

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 3 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 29 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 3 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19014: Not available

OR 19152 SO of 

2/15/1928

T. 30 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

23, 29, 31 Water Power Potential/PSC 198 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 

15* Water Power Potential/PSC 198 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19152: Not available

OR 19171 SO of 

1/6/1940

T. 30 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 12 Water Power Potential/PSC 315 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

19, 29 Water Power Potential/PSC 315 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 29 Water Power Potential/PSC 315 BLM D C

T. 31 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 3 83.61 Water Power Potential/PSC 315 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19171: Not available

OR 53486 PLO 7413

T. 31 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 4 Iron Mountain Gold Panning Area BLM B C

T. 30 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 23 Pickett Bridge Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 30 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 5 Olalla-Thompson Creek Day Use Area BLM B C

T. 31 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 1 Island Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 53486: 143.32

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

232 | P a g e

Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands 

Table D-5 through Table D-7 list Land Tenure Zone 3 lands that are available for disposal. 

Table D-5. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

37 S. 14 E. 10 W1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 PD

38 S. 8 E. 31 Lot 4 10.3 PD

38 S. 11 E. 17 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 120 PD

38 S. 11 E. 32 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 PD

39 S. 8 E. 6 Lot 8 27.2 PD

39 S. 8 E. 7 Lot 5 16.9 PD

39 S. 11 E. 2 Lot 1 40.24 PD

39 S. 12 E. 28 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 8 E. 17 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 8 E. 33 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 9 E. 23 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 11 E. 9 N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 160 PD

40 S. 11 E. 10 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

W1⁄2SE1⁄4 280 PD

40 S. 11 E. 14 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

N1⁄2SW1⁄4 240 PD

40 S. 12 E. 10 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 120 PD

40 S. 12 E. 14 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 200 PD

40 S. 12 E. 15 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 200 PD

40 S. 12 E. 21 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 12 E. 22 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 80 PD

40 S. 13 E. 35 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

41 S. 7 E. 13 Lot 4, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 64.69 PD

41 S. 11 E. 8 Lot 6 7.12 PD

Grand Total 2,006.45 -
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

233 | P a g e

Table D-6. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Medford District. 

Townshi

p

Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

33 S. 2 E. 1 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

34 S. 2 E. 29 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

34 S. 6 W. 22 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

34 S. 6 W. 33 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 OC

34 S. 6 W. 35 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

34 S. 8 W. 26 Lot 3 24.23 PD

35 S. 1 W. 15 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

35 S. 5 W. 31 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 281.12 OC

35 S. 5 W. 32 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 160 PD

35 S. 6 W. 11 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 160 OC

35 S. 6 W. 14 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

35 S. 6 W. 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 80 OC

35 S. 6 W. 19 NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4 239.94 OC

35 S. 6 W. 21 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

35 S. 6 W. 29 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

35 S. 6 W. 30 S1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 PD

35 S. 6 W. 31 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 403.96 OC

35 S. 6 W. 33 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 240 OC

35 S. 6 W. 5 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4 280 OC

35 S. 6 W. 7

NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 198.71 OC

36 S. 1 E. 6 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

36 S. 2 E. 34 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 PD

36 S. 3 W. 21 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

36 S. 3 W. 33 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

36 S. 3 W. 33 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 10 PD

36 S. 3 W. 35 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

36 S. 4 W. 25 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 60 OC

36 S. 4 W. 35 Lot 5, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 112.4 OC

36 S. 5 W. 29 S1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 OC

36 S. 5 W. 4 E1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 159.26 PD

36 S. 5 W. 5 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC

36 S. 5 W. 9 W1⁄2E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2, E1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 340 OC

36 S. 6 W. 1

Lots 2 – 4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 440.2 OC

36 S. 6 W. 11 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

36 S. 6 W. 17 N1⁄2N1⁄2 160 OC

36 S. 6 W. 3 SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4 240 OC

36 S. 6 W. 30 NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 37.78 PD

36 S. 6 W. 31 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 37.47 OC

36 S. 6 W. 33 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

234 | P a g e

Townshi

p

Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

36 S. 6 W. 4 W1⁄2W1⁄2 161.06 PD

36 S. 6 W. 5 E1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 200 OC

36 S. 6 W. 8 W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD

36 S. 6 W. 9 N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 200 OC

37 S. 1 E. 15 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

37 S. 3 W. 1 Lot 8 13.82 PD

37 S. 3 W. 4 Lot 2 4.28 PD

37 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 7 39.69 PD/OC

37 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 8 30.72 PD/OC

37 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 9 4.78 PD

37 S. 5 W. 18 W1⁄2SW1⁄4 90.4 PD

37 S. 5 W. 5 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 118.87 OC

37 S. 5 W. 7 W1⁄2SW1⁄4 90.15 OC

37 S. 6 W. 11 N1⁄2NW1⁄4 80 OC

37 S. 6 W. 13 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 120 OC

37 S. 6 W. 15 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC

37 S. 6 W. 24 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

37 S. 6 W. 3 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC

37 S. 6 W. 8 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

37 S. 6 W. 9

NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

W1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 400 OC

38 S. 1 E. 3 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

38 S. 1 E. 5 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

38 S. 1 W. 21 Lot 1, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4 147.04 OC

38 S. 2 E. 34 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 80 PD

38 S. 2 W. 10 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

38 S. 2 W. 28 Lot 1 5 PD

38 S. 4 W. 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

38 S. 4 W. 25 Lot 7 9.26 PD

39 S. 1 W. 1 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.23 OC

39 S. 2 W. 18 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 10 PD

40 S. 8 W. 1 Lots 7 and 8 11.53 OC

40 S. 8 W. 5 Lots 6 and 7 21.21 OC

Grand Total 7,143.11 -
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

235 | P a g e

Table D-7. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Roseburg District.50

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

24 S. 5 W. 29 Lot 5 28 OC

24 S. 6 W. 27 W1⁄2, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 360 OC

25 S. 6 W. 3 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 122 OC

25 S. 6 W. 33 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

26 S. 2 W. 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 (part North of 

Highway 138) 0.3 OC

26 S. 4 W. 10 Lot 1 7 PD

26 S. 4 W. 17 Lots 9 and 10 12 OC

26 S. 6 W. 17 Lot 2, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 126 OC

26 S. 6 W. 3 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC

27 S. 4 W. 7 Lot 2 4 OC

28 S. 4 W. 29 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

28 S. 5 W. 28 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

28 S. 5 W. 29 E1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 OC

30 S. 2 W. 34 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

30 S. 4 W. 1 Lot 9 4 OC

30 S. 6 W. 18 Lots 1 and 2 39 PD

Grand Total 1,022.3 -

 

50 Table D-7 includes Land Tenure Zone 3 for the entire Roseburg District, including withdrawals located in the 

Swiftwater Field Office. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

236 | P a g e

Inventory of Communication Sites 

Table D-8 through Table D-10 contains information on existing communication sites. The RMP 

contains management direction related to management of communication sites.

Table D-8. Communication sites in the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section

Yaniax 37 S. 12 E. 26 SW1⁄4

Harpold 39 S. 11 E. 19 SE1⁄4 and SW1⁄4

Hamaker 40 S. 7 E. 26 NW1⁄4

Stukel 40 S. 10 E. 10 SW1⁄4

15 NW1⁄4

Buck Butte 40 S. 12 E. 20 NW1⁄4

Brady Butte 41 S. 14 1⁄2 E. 14 NW1⁄4

Table D-9. Communication sites in the Medford District. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section

Cedar Springs 32 S. 4 W. 25 NE1⁄4

Ninemile Mountain 32 S. 9 W. 13 SW1⁄4

Buck Rock 33 S. 1 W. 15 NW1⁄4

King Mountain 33 S. 5 W. 24 NE1⁄4

Peavine Lookout 34 S. 8 W. 21 NE1⁄4

Flounce Rock 33 S. 2 E. 5 SE1⁄4

Mt. Isabelle 37 S. 3 W. 31 SW1⁄4

Mt. Sexton 34 S. 6 W. 24 SW1⁄4

Elk Mountain 35 S. 5 W. 11 SE1⁄4

Manzanita/Round Top 37 S. 6 W. 31 SE1⁄4

Anderson Butte 38 S. 2 W. 34 NE1⁄4

Nugget Butte 36 S. 3 W. 9 SE1⁄4

Tin Pan Peak 36 S. 4 W. 23 SW1⁄4

Squires Peak 38 S. 3 W. 34 SE1⁄4

Woodrat 38 S. 3 W. 36 NW1⁄4

Gilbert Peak 35 S. 5 W. 33 NW1⁄4

Fielder Mountain 36 S. 4 W. 7 SE1⁄4

Beacon Hill 36 S. 5 W. 9 SE1⁄4

Mt. Bluie 37 S. 5 W. 3 SE1⁄4

Table Mountain 39 S. 3 E. 8 NW1⁄4

Chestnut Mountain 39 S. 3 E. 35 NW1⁄4

Mt. Baldy 36 S. 5 W. 27 NW1⁄4

Tallowbox 39 S. 4 W. 11 NW1⁄4

Rock Creek 39 S. 5 W. 21 NE1⁄4 and NW1⁄4

Little Grayback Lockout 39 S. 7 W. 2 SE1⁄4

Soda Mountain 40 S. 3 E. 28 NW1⁄4
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

237 | P a g e

Table D-10. Communication sites in the Roseburg District.51

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section

Yellow Butte 23 S. 6 W. 27 NW1⁄4

Lane Mountain 27 S. 4 W. 25 NE1⁄4

Kenyon Mountain 30 S. 9 W. 3 NW1⁄4

Canyon Mountain 31 S. 5 W. 3 SW1⁄4

 

51 Table D-10 includes communication sites for the entire Roseburg District, including withdrawals located in the 

Swiftwater Field Office. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP

238 | P a g e
239 | P a g e

Appendix E – Energy and Minerals 

This appendix contains a map of areas closed to salable mineral material disposal (Map E-1) and 

the proposed stipulations on leasable fluid mineral exploration and development activity. 
240 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map EINSERT MAP HERE 

-1. Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal. 

240 Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map EINSERT MAP HERE 

-1. Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal. 
Appendix E – Energy and Minerals 

241 | P a g e

Proposed Stipulations on Leasable Fluid Mineral Exploration 

and Development Activity 

Apply the following special stipulations for all forms of leasable fluid minerals, including 

geothermal, on specifically designated tracts of land as identified below. 

No Surface Occupancy 

Resource: Eligible Wild and Scenic River segments

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within all eligible Wild and Scenic River 

segments. 

Objective: To protect eligible Wild and Scenic River segments. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the 

operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable 

or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, 

if the eligible Wild and Scenic River segment boundaries are changed. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire 

leasehold no longer contains eligible Wild and Scenic River segments. 

No Surface Occupancy 

Resource: District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for Their Wilderness 

Characteristics

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within District-Designated Reserve –

Lands Managed for Their Wilderness Characteristics. 

Objective: To protect District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for Their Wilderness 

Characteristics lands. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the 

operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable 

or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, 

if the District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for Their Wilderness Characteristics 

boundaries are changed. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire 

leasehold no longer contains District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for Their 

Wilderness Characteristics. 

No Surface Occupancy

Resource: Land Use Authorizations

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) 

and FLPMA leases. 

Objective: To protect uses on existing R&PP and FLPMA leases. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the 

operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable 

or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if 

the land use authorization boundaries are modified. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

242 | P a g e

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if all land use authorizations 

within the leasehold have been terminated, canceled, or relinquished. 

No Surface Occupancy

Resource: Recreation Management Areas

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within Recreation Management Areas. 

Objective: To protect developed recreation areas. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the 

operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable 

or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, 

if the Recreation Management Area boundaries are changed. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire 

leasehold no longer contains Recreation Management Areas. 

No Surface Occupancy

A 30-day public notice period will be required prior to modification or waiver of this stipulation. 

Resource: Special Areas

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC). 

Objective: To protect important historic, cultural, scenic values, natural resources, natural 

systems or processes, threatened and endangered plant species, and/or natural hazard areas of 

the ACEC. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the 

operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable 

or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, 

if the ACEC boundaries are changed. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire 

leasehold no longer contains designated ACECs. 

No Surface Occupancy

Resource: Progeny test sites

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within progeny test sites. 

Objective: To protect progeny test sites. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, 

if the progeny test site boundaries are changed. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire 

leasehold no longer contains progeny test sites. 

No Surface Occupancy

A 30-day public notice period will be required prior to modification or waiver of this stipulation. 

Resource: Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited in VRM Class I areas. 

Objective: To preserve the existing character of the landscape. 
Appendix E – Energy and Minerals 

243 | P a g e

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the 

operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable 

or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, 

if the boundaries of the VRM Class I area are changed. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if all VRM Class I areas 

within the leasehold are reduced to a lower VRM class. Areas reduced to VRM Class II will 

be subject to the Controlled Surface Use stipulation for visual resources, and areas reduced to 

VRM Class III will be subject to standard lease stipulations. 

Controlled Surface Use

Resource: Soils

Stipulation: Prior to disturbance of any suspected unstable slopes or slopes over 60 percent, an 

engineering/reclamation plan must be approved by the Authorized Officer. This plan must 

demonstrate how the following will be accomplished: 

 Restoration of site productivity 

 Adequate control of surface runoff 

 Protection of off-site areas from accelerated erosion, such as rilling, gullying, piping, and 

mass wasting 

In addition, water quality and quantity will be in conformance with State and Federal water 

quality laws, surface-disturbing activities will not be conducted during extended wet periods, 

and construction will not be allowed when soils are frozen. 

Objective: To maintain soil productivity, provide necessary protection to prevent excessive soil 

erosion on steep slopes, and to avoid areas subject to slope failure, mass wasting, piping, or 

having excessive reclamation problems.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer if the 

operator submits a plan, which demonstrates that the impacts from the proposed action are 

acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if 

it is determined that portions of the area do not include suspected unstable slopes or slopes 

over 60 percent. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer if it is determined that the 

entire leasehold does not include any suspected unstable slopes or slopes over 60 percent. 

Controlled Surface Use

A 30-day public notice period will be required prior to modification or waiver of this stipulation. 

Resource: Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II

Stipulation: All surface-disturbing activities and semi-permanent and permanent facilities in 

VRM Class II areas may require special design features including altering the location and 

painting and camouflage to blend with the natural surroundings to meet the visual quality 

objectives for the area. 

Objective: To control the visual impacts of activities and facilities within acceptable levels. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that there are no 

longer any VRM Class II areas in the leasehold. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

244 | P a g e

Controlled Surface Use

Resource: Riparian Reserve 

Stipulation: Unless otherwise authorized, drill site construction and access through Riparian 

Reserve within this leasehold will be limited to established roadways. 

Objective: To protect riparian vegetation and reduce sedimentation. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the 

operator submits a plan, which demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are 

acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if 

it is determined that portions of the area do not include Riparian Reserve. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if it is determined that the 

entire leasehold no longer includes Riparian Reserve. 

Controlled Surface Use

Resource: Late-Successional Reserve

Stipulation: Unless otherwise authorized, drill site construction and access through LateSuccessional Reserve within this leasehold will be limited to established roadways. 

Objective: To protect vegetation and to retain and/or restore structurally-complex forest 

characteristics. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer if the 

operator submits a plan, which demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are 

acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if 

it is determined that portions of the area do not include Late-Successional Reserve. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer if it is determined that the 

entire leasehold does not include Late-Successional Reserve. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

245 | Page

Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

This appendix provides detailed information about special management needs and relevant and 

important values for designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) for the 

Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District, Medford District, and the South River Field 

Office of the Roseburg District. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, defined in the FLPMA, represent areas within the 

public lands where special management attention is required to protect or to prevent irreparable 

damage to any of the following categories: 

 Important historic, cultural, or scenic values 

 Fish and wildlife resources 

 Other natural processes or systems 

 Safety from natural hazards 

The BLM develops special management direction to protect relevant and important values, but 

does not apply special management when other management mechanisms adequately protect the 

relevant and important values or where designation is not warranted. 

The BLM designs some special management attention to move the relevant and important value 

onto a trajectory to reach a desired condition. The BLM designs other special management 

attention to protect the relevant and important values from management actions or other human 

activities. This may include prohibiting or modifying certain management activities. 

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) represent a specific type of ACEC. These areas are established 

and maintained for the primary purpose of research and education because the area has one or 

more of the following characteristics: 

 Typical representation of a common plant or animal association 

 Unusual plant or animal association 

 ESA-listed plant or animal species 

 Typical representation of common geologic, soil, or water feature 

 Outstanding or unusual geologic, soil, or water feature 

Outstanding Natural Areas are also specific types of ACECs. Outstanding Natural Area 

designations aim to protect unique scenic, scientific, educational, and recreational values of 

certain areas within the public lands. It is important to note that, when applied by Congress, the 

term ‘outstanding natural area’ has a different meaning than when the BLM applies it through a 

planning decision to create a type of ACEC. A congressionally designated ‘outstanding natural 

area’ provides permanent protection for the values for which Congress designated the area.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

Klamath Falls

Map FINSERT MAP HERE 

-1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview Distri

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. 

246 | Page

 District in the 

244 Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

ResourceControlled Surface Use

: Riparian Reserve 

Stipulation: Unless otherwise authorized, drill site construction and access through Riparian 

Reserve within this leasehold will be limited to established roadways. 

Objective: To protect riparian vegetation and reduce sedimentation. Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the 

acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. operator submits a plan, which demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if 

it is determined that portions of the area do not include Riparian Reserve. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if it is determined that the 

entire leasehold no longer includes Riparian Reserve. 

ResourceControlled Surface Use

: Late-Successional Reserve

Stipulation: Unless otherwise authorized, drill site construction and access through LateSuccessional Reserve within this leasehold will be limited to established roadways. 

Objective: To protect vegetation and to retain and/or restore structurally-complex forest 

characteristics. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer if the 

acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. operator submits a plan, which demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if 

it is determined that portions of the area do not include Late-Successional Reserve. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer if it is determined that the 

entire leasehold does not include Late-Successional Reserve. 
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

247 | P a g e

Table F-1. Special Management Needs for Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Klamath Falls Field Office 

of the Lakeview District in the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. 

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Relevant and 

Important Value 

Category

Public Motorized 

Access 

Designation*

Leasable

Mineral Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable 

Mineral Entry

Vegetation 

Management

Livestock Grazing 

Management

Bumpheads 113 Cultural, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal N/A Maintain gap fence to exclude livestock

Old Baldy RNA 355 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest Closed

Tunnel Creek 79 Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Open with stipulations: 

fencing to keep 

livestock out of 

sensitive wetland areas

Upper Klamath 

River 5,206† Historical, cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest Closed

Upper Klamath 

River Addition 874‡

Cultural, scenic, fish 

and wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest Closed

Yainax Butte 706 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest Maintain current management

* Public motorized access designations include either closed or limited designations. In ACECs designated as closed for public motorized access, all types of public motorized 

travel will be prohibited anywhere within the area. In ACECs designated as limited for public motorized access, public motorized travel activities will be restricted to existing 

routes and trails. Subsequent implementation-level travel management planning will refine limited designations to identify specific routes and trails appropriate for public 

motorized travel, and will apply restrictions to times/seasons of use and types of vehicles. 

† Acres within the Upper Klamath River ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands within the 

Klamath River (upper reach) designated ‘scenic’ Wild and Scenic River segment. Due to priority given to the protection designation of lands allocated to the Congressionally 

Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands, the BLM manages these overlapping lands first for the protection management needs of the designated Wild and Scenic River 

segment and second for the special management needs of the ACEC designation. 

‡ Acres within the Upper Klamath River Addition ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands 

within the Klamath River (upper reach) designated ‘scenic’ Wild and Scenic River segment. Due to priority given to the protection designation of lands allocated to the 

Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands, the BLM manages these overlapping lands first for the protection management needs of the designated Wild 

and Scenic River segment and second for the special management needs of the ACEC designation.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

248 | P a g e

Table F-2. Specific Relevant and Important Values of Designated ACECs within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview 

District within the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP boundary. 

ACEC Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural 

Hazard

Bumpheads

Numerous undisturbed prehistoric cultural 

artifacts/sites; will be nominated for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places in 2016; 

rare views of natural landscape from high 

elevation

--

Western juniper/Idaho fescue (Juniperus 

occidentalis/Festuca idahoensis) plant community that has 

been naturally somewhat isolated from livestock grazing

--

Old Baldy 

RNA

Scenic viewing opportunities from a section of 

Pacific Crest Trail --

ONHP cells: high elevation white fir communities with 

Shasta red fir, mountain hemlock, Pacific silver fir, and 

Western white pine; Southern Oregon Cascades chaparral

--

Tunnel Creek -- Oregon spotted frog

High altitude lodgepole pine swamp with bog blueberry 

(Vaccinium uliginosum) and high diversity of sedge 

species; several Bureau Sensitive plants: Carex capitata, 

Utricularia minor, Tomentypnum nitens, and Gentiana 

newberryi var. newberryi, Carex lasiocarpa var. americana

--

Upper 

Klamath 

River

Historic road, prehistoric cultural artifacts/sites; 

the Klamath River Canyon holds great spiritual 

and religious significance for the Klamath Tribe 

and the Shasta Nation; has a unique landform, 

diverse vegetation, water, and a low level of 

adverse cultural modifications

Lost River and shortnose suckers, 

Klamath large scale sucker, native 

inland redband trout, bald eagle 

nests, Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

northern spotted owl critical 

habitat

Unique plant communities bisecting the Cascade 

Mountains, which range from montane conifer forest 

communities to high desert communities, and from riparian 

communities to oak savannah communities; Red-root 

yampah (Perideridia erythrorhiza), Astragalus 

californicus, Carex comosa

--

Upper 

Klamath 

River 

Addition

Historic road, prehistoric cultural artifacts/site; 

the Klamath River Canyon holds great spiritual 

and religious significance for the Klamath Tribe 

and the Shasta Nation; has a unique landform, 

diverse vegetation, water, and a low level of 

adverse cultural modifications

Lost River and shortnose suckers, 

Klamath largescale sucker, native 

inland redband trout, and bald 

eagle nests, northern spotted owl 

critical habitat

Unique plant communities bisecting the Cascade 

Mountains, and that range from montane conifer forest 

communities to high desert communities, and from riparian 

communities to oak savannah communities; Red-root 

yampah (Perideridia erythrorhiza), Astragalus 

californicus, Carex comosa

--

Yainax Butte

Considered an important place in the traditional 

beliefs of the Klamath Tribes; may be eligible 

for inclusion to the National Register of Historic 

Properties as a Traditional Cultural Property

--

Unusual variation of bitterbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 

plant community; blue-leaved penstemon (Penstemon 

glaucinus)

--
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

249 | Page

E 

itical Environmental Concern within the Medford District in the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP plan 

Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

249 | Page

E 

itical Environmental Concern within the Medford District in the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP plan 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

250 | P a g e

Table F-3. Special Management Needs for Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Medford District in the 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. 

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Relevant and 

Important 

Value Category

Public 

Motorized 

Access 

Designation*

Leasable 

Mineral Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable 

Mineral Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Baker Cypress 43

Cultural, scenic, 

fish and wildlife, 

natural 

processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Thin Baker’s cypress stand and 

adjacent mixed-conifer stands, 

pile burn, and broadcast burn to 

stimulate Baker’s cypress 

regeneration

N/A

Bobby Creek 

RNA 1,914

Fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Brewer Spruce 

RNA 1,704 Natural processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Cobleigh Road 1,096 Cultural, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Manage vegetation to improve 

and maintain habitat for 

Gentner’s fritillary

Open with 

stipulations: monitor 

important values and 

fence or implement 

other protection 

measures if needed

Dakubetede 1,781 Cultural, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to maintain 

natural communities and habitat 

for Gentner’s fritillary and other 

rare plants

N/A

Deer Creek 4,090

Fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Ensure protection of cave system 

microclimate and water quality 

during vegetation management 

treatments

N/A

East Fork 

Whiskey Creek 

RNA

3,135 Natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Eight Dollar 

Mountain 1,250 Natural processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to improve and 

maintain habitat for rare plants

N/A

French Flat 652 Natural 

processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to improve and 

maintain habitat for Cook’s 

lomatium

N/A

Grayback 

Glades RNA 1,018 Natural processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

251 | P a g e

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Relevant and 

Important 

Value Category

Public 

Motorized 

Access 

Designation*

Leasable 

Mineral Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable 

Mineral Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Hole-In-TheRock 63 Scenic, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Maintain no-harvest buffer 

around arch to protect from 

damage and to maintain scenic 

value

Current Condition

Holton Creek 

RNA 421 Natural processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Iron Creek 285

Fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal N/A N/A

King Mountain 

Rock Garden 67 Natural processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to maintain 

natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A

Lost Lake RNA 386 Natural 

processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

No timber harvest Closed

Moon Prairie 27 Natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Use uneven-aged management to 

improve forest structure and fire 

resiliency while retaining legacy 

trees

Current Condition

North Fork 

Silver Creek 

RNA

499 Natural 

processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Old Baldy RNA 115 Natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

No timber harvest Closed

Pickett Creek 78 Natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to improve and 

maintain habitat for Gentner’s 

fritillary

N/A

Pipe Fork RNA 516 Natural 

processes

Closed Open–No Surface

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Poverty Flat 29 Natural 

processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Conduct prescribed burns or 

other treatments to maintain 

vernal pool habitat

Closed: maintain 

existing fences

Reeves Creek 118 Natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to improve and 

maintain habitat for Cook’s 

lomatium

N/A
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

252 | P a g e

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Relevant and 

Important 

Value Category

Public 

Motorized 

Access 

Designation*

Leasable 

Mineral Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable 

Mineral Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Rough and 

Ready 1,189†‡ Natural processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to maintain 

natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A

Round Top 

Butte RNA 606 Natural processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Manage vegetation to maintain 

natural communities

Closed: maintain 

existing fences

Sterling Mine 

Ditch 143 Cultural, natural processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to maintain 

natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A

Table Rocks 2,101

Cultural, scenic, 

fish and wildlife, 

natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain 

and enhance rare plant habitat, 

oak woodlands, and other 

vegetation communities

Closed

Waldo-Takilma 1,757†

Historical, 

cultural, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to maintain 

natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A

Woodcock Bog 

RNA 264 Natural processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire 

resiliency and to maintain 

natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A

* Public motorized access designations include either closed or limited designations. In ACECs designated as closed for public motorized access, all types of public motorized 

travel will be prohibited anywhere within the area. In ACECs designated as limited for public motorized access, public motorized travel activities will be restricted to existing 

routes and trails. Subsequent implementation-level travel management planning will refine limited designations to identify specific routes and trails appropriate for public 

motorized travel, and will apply restrictions to times/seasons of use and types of vehicles. 

† The Rough and Ready and Waldo-Takilma ACECs include acres on both the Coos Bay and Medford Districts. 

‡ Acres within the Rough and Ready ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands within the West 

Fork Illinois River suitable ‘scenic’ Wild and Scenic River segment. Due to priority given to the protective designation of lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands 

and National Conservation Lands, the BLM manages these overlapping lands first for the protection management needs of the suitable Wild and Scenic River segment and second 

for the special management needs of the ACEC designation. 
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

253 | P a g e

Table F-4. Specific Relevant and Important Values of Designated ACECs within the Medford District within the Southwestern 

Oregon ROD/RMP boundary. 

ACEC Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Baker Cypress -- -- Most northern Baker cypress (Hesperocyparis bakeri) stand in North America --

Bobby Creek 

RNA --

Northern spotted 

owl critical habitat

Intact Port-Orford-cedar stands; Represents Oregon Natural Areas Plan cells for western 

hemlock and tanoak-bigleaf maple-canyon live oak communities; late-successional 

forest; paired-watershed study catchments; long-term vegetation monitoring site

--

Brewer Spruce 

RNA --

Northern spotted 

owl critical habitat

Unique conifer assemblage with Brewer spruce, Port-Orford-cedar, and Alaska yellow 

cedar (rare inland). ONAP cells for mid/high-elevation marsh/pond and white fir forest 

with Brewer spruce; long-term vegetation monitoring site.

--

Cobleigh Road Prehistoric cultural sites --

Oak woodland, oak savannah, and chaparral, supporting Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria 

gentneri). Gentner’s fritillary recovery management area. --

Dakubetede -- --

Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri); western-most stands of western juniper, rare 

water birch (Betula occidentalis), intact native grasslands; Gentner’s fritillary recovery 

management area.

--

Deer Creek --

Cool water refugia 

for juvenile coho 

salmon

Limestone cave system supporting bats and rare invertebrates, including a new species 

of spider (Trogloraptor marchingtoni) --

East Fork 

Whiskey Creek 

RNA

-- --

Rogue River stonecrop (Sedum moranii); represents ONAP cells for late-successional 

tanoak-Douglas-fir communities, stands of knobcone pine --

Eight Dollar 

Mountain --

Coronis fritillary 

butterfly (Speyeria 

coronis coronis)

Serpentine fens and Jeffrey pine savannahs and associated rare plants, including 

Howell’s mariposa lily (Calochortus howelli), Oregon willow-herb (Epilobium 

oreganum), Waldo gentian (Gentiana setigera), western bog violet (Viola primulifolia

ssp. occidentalis)

--

French Flat

Historic mining values, 

including Logan Cut 

(National Register of 

Historic Places)

Coronis fritillary 

butterfly 

Jeffrey pine savannahs and California oatgrass-tufted hairgrass grasslands and 

associated rare plants, including Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium cookii), Howell’s adder’s 

tongue (Erythronium howellii), slender meadow foam (Limnanthes gracilis ssp. 

gracilis); Cook’s lomatium critical habitat

--

Grayback Glades 

RNA -- --

Represents ONAP cells for high elevation white fir forest and Siskiyou alder glades; 

large Port-Orford-cedar trees, mostly uninfested by Port-Orford-cedar root rot --

Hole-in-theRock -- --Unique geological feature, a natural basalt arch, created by natural weathering and 

erosional processes --

Holton Creek 

RNA -- --

Represents ONAP cells for low-elevation late-successional white fir-Douglas-fir forest; 

long-term vegetation monitoring site --

Iron Creek -- -- Late-successional dry Douglas-fir-sugar pine-ponderosa pine forest --

King Mountain 

Rock Garden High scenic value -- High-elevation serpentine community --

Lost Lake RNA -- --

Represents ONAP cell for a mid-montane lake surrounded by mixed-conifer forest. 

Example of a landslide-dammed lake; long-term vegetation monitoring plots --
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

254 | P a g e

ACEC Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Moon Prairie -- --

Late-successional, multi-layered stand of Douglas-fir and white fir with Pacific yew, 

ponderosa pine and sugar pine --

North Fork 

Silver Creek 

RNA

-- --

Represents ONAP cells for Port-Orford-cedar-western hemlock and white fir forests; 

includes serpentine fens. Long-term vegetation monitoring plots. Wildfire burned area 

reference site (1987 and 2002).

--

Old Baldy RNA -- --

Represents ONAP cells for chinquapin/manzanita chaparral and high-elevation white 

fir-Shasta red fir forest; long-term vegetation monitoring site --

Pickett Creek -- --

Large populations of Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri); Gentner’s fritillary 

recovery management area --

Pipe Fork RNA -- --

Represents ONAP cells for Port-Orford-cedar-white fir and Port-Orford-cedar-tanoak 

communities --

Poverty Flat -- --

Rare Rogue River grassland and vernal pool community supporting Bellinger’s meadow 

foam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. bellingeriana)

--

Reeves Creek -- --

Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium cookii), slender meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracilis ssp. 

gracilis); Cook’s lomatium recovery management area --

Rough and 

Ready -- --

Ultramafic alluvial deposits and serpentine soil support unique plant community and 

rare plants including Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium cookii), large-flowered rush lily 

(Hastingsia bracteosa var. bracteosa), Howell’s mariposa lily (Calochortus howellii), 

Howell’s adder-tongue (Erythronium howellii), slender meadowfoam (Limnanthes 

gracilis ssp. gracilis); Cook’s lomatium critical habitat

--

Round Top 

Butte RNA -- --

Represents ONAP cells for seasonally flooded bottomland prairie, dry grasslands, and 

Oregon white oak savannah; long-term vegetation monitoring site; designated National 

Natural Landmark

--

Sterling Mine 

Ditch

Historic ditch used for 

hydraulic gold mining

(National Register of 

Historic Places)

-- --

Table Rocks 

ACEC

Native American refuge 

and ceremonial site.

Vernal pool fairy 

shrimp 

Example of remnants of an andesite lava flow, vernal pools, oak woodlands, and upland 

grass-lands; rare plants include dwarf woolly meadowfoam (Limnanthes pumila ssp. 

pumila), Austin’s plagiobothrys (Plagiobothrys austiniae), Greene’s popcornflower 

(Plagiobothrys greenei), southern Oregon buttercup (Ranunculus austrooreganus)

--

Waldo-Takilma

Intact historic mining 

sites (National Register 

of Historic Places)

--

Serpentine plant communities supporting rare plants, Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium 

cookii), Howell’s mariposa lily (Calochortus howellii), clustered lady’s-slipper 

(Cypripedium fasciculatum), Howell’s adder-tongue (Erythronium howellii), slender 

meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracilis ssp. gracilis); Cook’s lomatium critical habitat

--

Woodcock Bog 

RNA -- --

Serpentine fens and Jeffrey pine savannah supporting rare plants Oregon willow-herb 

(Epilobium oreganum), Waldo gentian (Gentiana setigera), large-flowered rush-lily 

(Hastingsia bracteosa var. bracteosa), western bog violet (Viola primulifolia ssp. 

occidentalis); long-term vegetation monitoring site

--
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

255 | Page

outh River

E 

itical Environmental Concern within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District in the Southwestern 

an boundary. 

Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

255 | Page

outh River

E 

itical Environmental Concern within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District in the Southwestern 

an boundary. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

256 | P a g e

Table F-5. Special Management Needs for Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the South River Field Office 

of the Roseburg District in the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. 

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Relevant and 

Important Value 

Category

Public Motorized 

Access 

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry

Vegetation 

Management

Bear Gulch RNA 351 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Beatty Creek RNA 1,235 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Bushnell-Irwin Rocks RNA 1,089 Scenic, fish and 

wildlife, natural Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Callahan Meadows RNA 82 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

North Myrtle Creek RNA 453 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Tater Hill RNA 304 Natural processes, 

natural hazard Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

* Public motorized access designations include either closed or limited designations. In ACECs designated as closed for public motorized access, all types of public motorized 

travel will be prohibited anywhere within the area. In ACECs designated as limited for public motorized access, public motorized travel activities will be restricted to existing 

routes and trails. Subsequent implementation-level travel management planning will refine limited designations to identify specific routes and trails appropriate for public 

motorized travel, and will apply restrictions to times/seasons of use and types of vehicles.

Table F-6. Specific Relevant and Important Values of Designated ACECs within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg 

District within the Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP boundary. 

ACEC Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, 

Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Bear Gulch RNA -- --

Douglas-fir/canyon live oak woodland with poison oak and dwarf Oregon 

grape; and Douglas-fir/canyon live oak forest --

Beatty Creek RNA -- --

Jeffrey pine community on serpentine; Wayside aster (Eucephalus vialis), 

California sword fern (Polystichum californicum)

--

Bushnell-Irwin Rocks RNA Scenic Northern spotted owl

Oregon white oak savanna; Oregon white oak/Douglas-fir/poison oak 

woodland; Thompson’s mistmaiden (Romanzoffia thompsonii), California 

sword fern

--

Callahan Meadows -- --

Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus oreganus), serpentine meadow, Umpqua 

mariposa lily (Calochortus umpquaensis)

--

North Myrtle Creek RNA -- --

Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine forest; white fir/dwarf Oregon grape; Douglasfir/bigleaf maple forest --

Tater Hill RNA -- -- Western hemlock/oceanspray community Active 

landslide
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

257 | P a g e

References 

Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council (ONHAC). 2012. Oregon Natural Areas Plan (ONAP). Oregon Biodiversity 

Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Portland, Portland State University, Portland, OR. 198 pp. 

http://orbic.pdx.edu/documents/2010NAP.pdf. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

258 | P a g e
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

259 | Page

Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

This appendix provides the lists of Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive 

Recreation Management Areas designated under the approved RMP for the Klamath Falls Field 

Office of the Lakeview District, Medford District, and the South River Field Office of the 

Roseburg District. 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are administrative units where the existing or 

proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their 

unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for 

recreation. The BLM manages SRMAs to protect and enhance a targeted set of activities, 

experiences, benefits, and desired recreation setting characteristics. Within SRMAs, recreation 

and visitor services management is recognized as the predominant land use plan focus, where 

specific recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are managed and protected 

on a long-term basis. 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) are administrative units that require 

specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, demand, or recreation and 

visitor services program investments. The BLM manages ERMAs to support and sustain the 

principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. 

Management of ERMAs is commensurate with the management of other resources and resource 

uses. 

Recreation Management Zones (RMZs) are subdivisions of SRMAs or ERMAs identified in the 

Recreation Management Area (RMA) Frameworks that further delineate specific recreation 

opportunities or to ensure recreation and visitor services are managed commensurate with the 

management of other resources and resource uses. 

As part of this RMP, the BLM has designated portions of the landscape as either SRMAs or 

ERMAs. Within each of these designated areas, the BLM has established recreation and visitor 

service objectives and identified supporting management actions and allowable uses. The RMA 

Frameworks are available online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/index.php. 

The BLM will update these RMA Frameworks consistent with land use planning regulations that 

allow for changes to an approved RMP through plan maintenance. The BLM may maintain RMP 

decisions as necessary to reflect minor changes in data, consistent with 43 CFR 1610.5–4. Plan 

maintenance is limited to further refining, documenting, or clarifying a previously approved 

decision. Plan maintenance will not expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change 

the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan. Plan maintenance does not require 

formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making 

new RMP decisions. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

260 | P a g e

Klamath Falls 

The Recreation Management Area Frameworks for the Klamath Falls Field Office of the 

Lakeview District contain descriptions of the recreation values, types of visitors, outcome 

objectives, Recreation Setting Characteristics, applicable management actions, and allowable use 

restrictions for the following SRMAs and ERMAs (Table G-1).

Table G-1. Recreation Management Areas within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the 

Lakeview District. 

Name Type Acres

Bryant Mountain ERMA 9,094

Gerber ERMA 39,909

Gerber Recreation Area SRMA 272

Hogback Mountain SRMA 2,284

Klamath River Campground SRMA 23

Klamath River WSR ERMA 2,634

Lower Klamath Hills ERMA 1,596

Miller Creek Camp SRMA 2

Pacific Crest Trail Corridor SRMA 659

Potholes Camp SRMA 8

Spring Island River Access SRMA 2

Stan H Spring SRMA 2

Stukel Mountain ERMA 9,622

Surveyor Campground SRMA 27

Surveyor Mountain ERMA 17,376

Swan Lake Rim ERMA 9,106

Topsy Recreation Site SRMA 14

Willow Valley Reservoir Boat Ramp SRMA 12
Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

261 | Page

E 

Management Areas within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District.

Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

261 | Page

E 

Management Areas within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

262 | P a g e

Medford 

The Recreation Management Area Frameworks for the Medford District contain descriptions of 

the recreation values, types of visitors, outcome objectives, Recreation Setting Characteristics, 

applicable management actions, and allowable use restrictions for the following SRMAs and 

ERMAs (Table G-2.).

Table G-2. Recreation Management Areas within the Medford District. 

Name Type Acres

Anderson-Little Apple ERMA 7,482

Anderson Addition ERMA 10,076

Baker Cypress Trail ERMA 3

Bald-Wagon ERMA 3,124

Beacon Hill Trail ERMA 4,629

Bell Forest ERMA 3,800

Bolt Mountain Trail ERMA 392

Buck-Berry Rock ERMA 6,504

Buck Prairie/Hyatt ERMA 9,927

Buckhorn Mountain ERMA 8,206

Bunny Meadows ERMA 8

Burma Pond Campground and Trailhead SRMA 9

Cathedral Hills Trail System SRMA 546

Cow Creek Backcountry Byway ERMA 41

Deer Creek Education/Interpretive Area SRMA 41

East Applegate Ridge Trail ERMA 44

Eight Dollar Mountain ERMA 2,134

Elderberry Flat Campground SRMA 23

Enchanted Forest and Felton Trails ERMA 38

Galice Hellgate Backcountry Byway ERMA 256

Gold Nugget Waysides SRMA 49

Grants Pass Peak Non-motorized Trails ERMA 11,923

Grave Creek to Marial Backcountry Byway ERMA 348

Grayback Mountain Trail ERMA 77

Green Top Mountain ERMA 5,316

Grizzly Peak Trail SRMA 2,951

Hidden Creek Trail ERMA 7

Hyatt Lake Campground SRMA 52

Illinois Forks Park ERMA 77

Jack Ash Trail and Connector Trail ERMA 203

Jackson Creek ERMA 507

Jacksonville Woodlands Trails ERMA 103

Kenney Meadows Recreation Site SRMA 20

Kerby ERMA 654

Kerby Peak Trail ERMA 36
Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

263 | P a g e

Name Type Acres

King Mountain Trail SRMA 6

Lake Selmac Trails SRMA 443

Left Right Center Foots ERMA 7,651

Lodgepole SRMA < 1

Logan Cut ERMA 526

London Peak Trail ERMA 14

Medco Railroad Trail ERMA 106

Mount Bolivar Trailhead SRMA <1

Mountain of the Rogue SRMA 5,069

Mungers Butte ERMA 11,873

Northwest Hills ERMA 2,341

Pacific Crest Trail 1 and 2 SRMA 6,161

Provolt Seed Orchard SRMA 294

Quartz Creek OHV Area SRMA 8,344

Rattlesnake ERMA 56

Rock Creek Trails ERMA 5,706

Rockydale ERMA 185

Rogue Greenway ERMA 370

Rogue Timber ERMA 7,902

Rogue Wild and Scenic River SRMA 11,395

Rough and Ready Trail ERMA 2

Roundtop Mountain SRMA 13,168

Section 29 ERMA 202

Silver Creek ERMA 57

Skull Creek Campground SRMA 7

Sterling Mine Ditch Trail SRMA 1,280

Table Mountain Snow Play Area SRMA 9

Table Rocks SRMA 2,101

Thompson-Cantrall ERMA 23,317

Tucker Flat Campground SRMA 12

Wagner Creek Trail ERMA 2

Wellington Mine Trail ERMA 45

West Fork Evans Creek ERMA 3,042

Whiskey Creek Overlook SRMA < 1

Wild Rogue Canyon ERMA 50,451

Woodrat ERMA 3,876

Woodrat Mtn. Gliding Sites SRMA 7
264 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map GINSERT MAP HERE 

-2. Recreation Management Areas within the Medford District. 

264 Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map GINSERT MAP HERE 

-2. Recreation Management Areas within the Medford District. 
Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

265 | P a g e

Roseburg – South River 

The Recreation Management Area Frameworks for the South River Field Office of the Roseburg 

District contain descriptions of the recreation values, types of visitors, outcome objectives, 

Recreation Setting Characteristics, applicable management actions, and allowable use 

restrictions for the following SRMAs and ERMAs (Table G-3).

Table G-3. Recreation Management Areas within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg 

District. 

Name Type Acres

China Ditch ERMA 61

Cow Creek Backcountry Byway ERMA 88

Cow Creek Backcountry Byway Kiosk SRMA 1

Cow Creek Recreation Gold Panning Area SRMA 4

Island Creek Day-Use Area SRMA 28

Red Top Pond ERMA 12
266 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map GINSERT MAP HERE 

-3. Recreation Management Areas within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District.

266 Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map GINSERT MAP HERE 

-3. Recreation Management Areas within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District.
267 | P a g e

Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

This appendix outlines the decision-making process that the BLM will use to develop the initial 

transportation network, provides the basis for future management decisions, and sets guidelines 

for making transportation network adjustments through the life of this RMP. The BLM has 

developed these management guidelines consistent with BLM Manual H-8342 – Travel and 

Transportation Handbook (USDI BLM 2012). The BLM will apply these guidelines consistently 

across the decision area for the broad-level land use plan designations, with specific guidelines at 

the district level for designations that contain travel management opportunities (i.e., Class I, II, 

III, and IV motorized, mechanized, pedestrian, and equestrian travel). 

Implementation-Level Travel Management Planning 

Implementation-level travel management planning is the process of establishing a final travel 

network that includes route-specific designations within the broader land use planning level 

designations for public motorized access. The BLM has deferred implementation-level travel 

management planning. The land use planning level designations of areas for public motorized 

access do not apply to non-motorized uses (e.g., hiking, biking, horseback riding). In the 

designations of specific travel routes for public motorized access through implementation-level 

travel management planning, the BLM will consider the needs for a variety of road and trail 

systems tailored to a variety of users including non-motorized recreational uses. 

Implementation-Level Travel Management Planning Guidance 

Through the land use planning process, the BLM designated areas as limited52or closed for 

public motorized access (Map H-1 to Map H-3). 53 Criteria for limited and closed are 

designations are established in 43 CFR 8340.0–5 (f, g, h). The designations for public motorized 

access are defined as: 

 Limited– Areas where the BLM has restricted public motorized travel activities in order 

to meet recreational and resource management objectives54

 Closed– Areas that the BLM has closed to all public motorized vehicle activities to 

protect resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce visitor conflicts 

 

52 Designation of areas as limited, and as displayed in maps in Maps H-1 through H-3, does not indicate legal public 

access is secured for individual travel routes within the decision area. The BLM will address legal public access on 

specific travel routes through implementation-level travel management planning.

53 The designations in the approved RMP of areas as limited or closed for public motorized access are transportation 

land use plan decisions and not implementation decisions. Land use plan decisions guide future land management 

actions and provide guidance for subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Designations of areas as limited

or closed for public motorized access will guide use within these areas until the BLM completes implementationlevel travel management planning. (USDI BLM H-8342 Travel and Transportation Handbook 2012). 

54 Restrictions may include the number or types of vehicles, the time or season of use, permitted or licensed use 

only, or limiting use to existing or designated roads and trails. 
268 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map INSERT MAP HERE 

H-1. Public motorized access area designations within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview Dist

268 Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map INSERT MAP HERE 

H-1. Public motorized access area designations within the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview Dist
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

269 | Page

 

orized access area designations within the Medford District.

Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

269 | Page

 

orized access area designations within the Medford District.
270 

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map HINSERT MAP HERE 

-3. Public motorized access area designations within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg Distric

270 Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map HINSERT MAP HERE 

-3. Public motorized access area designations within the South River Field Office of the Roseburg Distric
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

271 | P a g e

The designations defined above require an additional level of effort and planning prior to 

implementation. These types of decisions require site-specific planning and 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). 

Implementation-level travel management planning will delineate route-specific decisions to 

support RMP management objectives and management direction, and the designation criteria in 

43 CFR 8342.1. In addition: 

 Public-land roads or trails determined to cause considerable adverse effects or to continue 

a nuisance or threat to public safety for relocation or closure and rehabilitation after 

appropriate coordination with applicable agencies and partners. 

 Routes that are duplicative, parallel, or redundant will be considered for closure and 

parallel roads will be eliminated where travelling to the same destination when the 

destination can be accessed from the same direction and topography and user experience. 

 All routes will undergo a route evaluation to determine its purpose and need and the 

potential resource or user conflicts from motorized travel. Where resource or user 

conflicts outweigh the purpose and need for the route, the route will be considered for 

closure or considered for relocation outside of sensitive habitat. 

 Routes that do not have a purpose and need will be considered for closure. 

 Over snow vehicles designed for use over snow and that run on tracks or skis will be 

limited to designated routes or considered for seasonal closures on routes in sensitive 

areas. 

 Routes not required for public access or recreation with a current administrative/agency 

purpose or need will be evaluated for administrative access only. 

 Prioritize restoration of routes not designated in a Travel Management Plan. 

 Use seed mixes or transplant techniques that will maintain or enhance habitat when 

rehabilitating linear disturbances. 

 Temporary closures will be considered in accordance with 43 CFR 8364 (Closures and 

Restrictions); 43 CFR 8351 (Designated National Areas); 43 CFR 6302 (Use of 

Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); 43 CFR 8341 (Conditions of Use). 

Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities are enacted at the 

discretion of the authorized officer to resolve management conflicts and protect persons, 

property, and public lands and resources. Where an authorized officer determines that 

off-highway vehicles are causing or will cause considerable adverse effects upon soil, 

vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or 

endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources, the 

affected areas shall be immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse 

effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent 

recurrence. (43 CFR 8341.2). A closure or restriction order shall be considered only after 

other management strategies and alternatives have been explored. The duration of 

temporary closure or restriction orders shall be limited to 24 months or less; however, 

certain situations may require longer closures or iterative temporary closures. This may 

include closure of routes or areas. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

272 | P a g e

When developing implementation-level travel management plans, the BLM will consider the 

following when determining the compatibility of different types of public travel opportunities: 

 Other resource values and uses 

 Primary travelers 

 Emerging uses such as growing recreational-use types 

 Setting characteristics that are to be maintained, including recreation setting 

characteristics and VRM settings 

 Primary means of travel allowed to accomplish the objectives and to maintain the setting 

characteristics 

 Social conflicts between different travel types 

 Social conflicts between public land visitors and adjacent property owners 

 Number and types of access points 

 Existing right-of-ways and future right-of-way requests 

 Existing geographic identify and public knowledge of the area 

 Identifiable boundaries of the Travel Management Area based on topography, major 

roads, or other easily discernible elements 

The implementation-level travel management planning process includes development of a public 

outreach strategy. Consultation with interested user groups, Federal, State, county and local 

agencies, local landowners, and other parties will be done in a manner that provides an 

opportunity for the public to express itself and have its views given consideration. A public 

outreach strategy to engage fully all interested stakeholders will be incorporated into future 

travel management plans. 

Implementation-level travel management plans will include or address the following: 

 Criteria to select or reject specific transportation linear features in the final travel 

management network; to add new roads, primitive roads or trails; and to specify 

limitations. The criteria must include those identified in 43 CFR 8342.1. 

 A map of roads, primitive roads, and trails for all travel modes and uses, including 

motorized, non-motorized, and mechanized travel. 

 Definitions and additional limitations for specific roads, primitive roads, and trails 

 Guidelines for managing and maintaining the travel management system. This includes, 

at a minimum, the development of route-specific management objectives for roads, 

primitive roads, and trail management objectives; a sign plan and education/public 

information plan; an enforcement plan, and a process requiring the application of 

engineering best management practices. 

 Indicators to guide plan maintenance, amendments, or revisions related to the travel 

management network. 

 Needed easements and rights-of-way to maintain the existing road, primitive road, and 

trail network providing public land access. 

 Provisions for new route construction or adaptation or relocation of existing routes. 

 A plan for decommissioning and rehabilitating closed or unauthorized routes. 

 A monitoring plan. 

 Classification of all roads, primitive roads, and trails, designated for travel in an 

implementation-level travel management plan as assets in the Facility Asset Management 
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

273 | P a g e

System. All roads, primitive roads, and trails will also be identified as such in the Ground 

Transportation Linear Feature geospatial database. 

Existing Motorized and Non-Motorized Trails 

The BLM is currently working on an inventory of all user-created motorized and non-motorized 

routes within the decision area. The BLM will use this inventory as a baseline to guide future 

route designations through implementation-level travel management planning within the areas 

designated as limited or closed to public motorized access.

Recreation routes (authorized and unauthorized) have been created in response to demand for 

trail-based recreation. Table H-1 displays the current authorized trails within the decision area. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

274 | P a g e

Table H-1. Current authorized motorized and non-motorized trails within the decision area. 

District/Field Office Recreation Trail Miles

Klamath Falls

Gerber-Miller Creek Potholes Trail 13.0

Keno Spencer Snowmobile Trail 6.0

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 1.0

Pederson Snowmobile Trail 5.0

Surveyor Peak Snowmobile Trail 3.0

Wood River Wetland Trail 1.0

Subtotal 29.0

Medford

Armstrong Gulch Trail 1.0

Baker Cypress < 1.0

Beacon Hill 1.0

Bolt Mountain 3.0

Buck Prairie Cross Country Trails 17.0

Cathedral Hills Trail System 11.0

Eight Dollar Mountain Boardwalk/Trail 0.3

Enchanted Mountain/Felton 5.0

Grayback Mountain Trails 6.5

Grizzly Peak 5.0

Hidden Creek 1.0

Jacksonville Woodlands 2.5

Jeffrey Pine Loop 1.0

Kelsey Peak 3.0

Kerby Peak 4.0

King Mountain 1.0

Lake Selmac 3.0

Layton Ditch 2.0

London Peak Accessible 0.3

Lower London Peak 2.0

Lower Table Rock 2.0

Mountain of the Rogue Trail System 8.0

Mule Creek 3.0

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 22.4

Rainie Falls 2.0

Rogue River National Recreation Trail 23.0

Rough and Ready 0.5

Sterling Mine Ditch Trail 21.0

Tunnel Ridge 1.0

Upper Table Rock 2.0

Wagner Creek 0.5

Wolf Gap 4.0

Subtotal 159.5

Roseburg

China Ditch Trail 0.4

Subtotal 0.4

Grand Total 188.9
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

275 | P a g e

The BLM still requires additional data and information on site-specific travel routes to be able to 

complete implementation-level travel management planning across the entire decision area. 

Route identification and comprehensive route inventories have been and are continuing to be 

collected to have this complete information available for implementation-level travel 

management planning.

Schedule for Implementation-Level Travel Planning 

Consistent with current BLM policy, “travel management plans should be completed within five 

years of the signing of the ROD” (USDI BLM 2012, p. 55). Within the constraints of available 

planning resources, the BLM will be undertaking travel management planning as soon as 

practicable. Consistent with the terms and conditions in the incidental take statements 

accompanying the biological opinions on the Proposed RMP, in areas with listed fish or their 

designated critical habitat, the BLM will initiate travel management planning within five years of 

the effective date of the ROD and will complete travel management planning within ten years of 

the effective date of the ROD. 

Districts will be responsible for identifying timelines to complete travel planning efforts. These 

timelines will identify areas in order of priority for completion, and will be updated regularly in 

all relevant planning areas to accelerate the accomplishment of data collection, route evaluation 

and selection, and on the ground implementation efforts including signing, monitoring, and 

rehabilitation. Prioritization of areas for completion of implementation-level travel management 

planning will follow the criteria included in this appendix. 

Criteria to Prioritize Implementation-Level Travel Planning 

The BLM will prioritize implementation-level travel management planning by reviewing lands 

within the decision area at the scale of areas designated for public motorized access or Travel 

Management Areas. The BLM will prioritize the order for completion of implementation-level 

travel management planning by prioritizing those areas meeting most of the following criteria 

first: 

 Areas where damage to soil watershed, vegetation, air, or other resources of the public 

lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability is occurring 

 Areas where harassment to wildlife or substantial disruption to wildlife habitats are 

occurring - prioritize areas where harassment to threatened and endangered species and 

their habitats are occurring 

 Areas where conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreational uses are 

occurring 

 Areas where route, type of use, or season of use designations are necessary to support 

management objectives or management direction for the RMP-designated land use 

allocations 

 Areas that have secured legal public access 

 Areas also identified as Special Recreation Management Areas where a strong linear 

asset component is identified (e.g., mountain biking, hiking, equestrian, OHV) 

 Areas with completed route inventories 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

276 | P a g e

Areas not meeting any of these criteria will be scheduled to be completed last. Where multiple 

areas meet an equal number of criteria for prioritization listed above, BLM districts will apply 

local knowledge of public concerns, interests, or controversies to prioritize areas to respond to 

local stakeholders and interested publics. 

Plan Maintenance and Changes to Route Designations 

The RMP includes indicators that will guide plan maintenance, amendments, or revisions (see 

Appendix A), including those related to designations for public motorized access or the 

approved road and trail systems. Future conditions may require the designation or construction of 

new routes or closure of routes to better address resources and resource use conflicts. The BLM 

will be able to modify actual route designations within the limited category through 

implementation-level travel management planning without necessitating an RMP amendment; 

compliance with NEPA will still be required. 

The BLM will accomplish implementation-level travel management planning through plan 

maintenance. The BLM will collaborate with affected and interested parties in evaluating 

changes to the existing and designated road and trail network in limited area designations and 

changes to the broader Recreation Management Area designations that emphasize motorized 

OHV recreation. In conducting such evaluations, the BLM will consider the following: 

 Routes suitable for various categories of OHVs and opportunities for shared trail use 

 Needs for parking, trailheads, informational and directional signs, mapping and route 

profiles, and development of brochures or other materials for public dissemination 

 Opportunities to tie into existing or planned route networks 

 Measures needed to meet other resource objectives in the RMP 

Management of Areas Designated for Public Motorized 

Access 

Until implementation-level travel management planning is complete, the BLM will manage 

routes and trails in accordance with their designation of closed or limited to existing routes for 

public motorized travel activities, as described for each district. 

Klamath Falls Field Office Public Motorized Access Designations 

Table H-2. Klamath Falls Field Office public motorized access designations. 

Designation Acres

Open -

Limited to Existing Routes 201,170

Limited to Designated Routes 0

Closed 13,859
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

277 | P a g e

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

 The BLM will manage limited areas in accordance with all applicable Federal and State 

motorized vehicle regulations.

 The BLM will limit motor vehicle use to administrative, commercial, and passenger 

vehicle traffic where not specifically signed or gated. 

 Until road and trail designations are complete, all public motorized travel activities will 

be limited in the interim to the existing road and trail network unless closed or restricted 

under a previous planning effort or due to special circumstances as defined below: 

o The BLM may close or limit routes under seasonal or administrative restrictions. 

These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, 

special requirements for wildlife species, protection of cultural resources, or for 

public safety. 

 Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet from the 

centerline of the road or up to 15 feet from the centerline of a trail. 

 Limitations apply to all Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), 

and Class III (motorcycles) public motorized vehicles and to all activity types (e.g., 

recreational and commercial) unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

Seasonal restrictions: 

 The Eastside seasonal OHV closure is in effect from November 1 to April 15 and applies 

to all BLM-administered lands within deer winter range cooperative wildlife areas, 

including the majority of Stukel and Bryant Mountain and portions of the Gerber Block 

as mapped. 

 The Pokegama wildlife area seasonal OHV closure is in effect from November 20 to 

April 1. 

 For designated snowmobile trails, wheeled vehicles are prohibited once grooming of 

trails begins for winter season. 

 he OHV use may be limited in other areas on a seasonal basis due to special conditions 

such as temporary fire restrictions, special wildlife requirements, etc. 

Closed Area Management Guidelines: All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering 

closed areas unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: 

 The principal venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and scoping 

during future implementation-level travel management planning efforts, special projects, 

and local partnerships. 

 The BLM will send press releases as needed informing the public of OHV opportunities 

and restrictions. The BLM will post signs where appropriate. 

 Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures shall be 

available to the public at the main office illustrating designations, describing specific 

restrictions, and defining opportunities. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

278 | P a g e

 The BLM will continue to participate with other land managers in the cooperative 

management of the Pokegama wildlife area and deer winter range areas. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM will accomplish final route 

designations through implementation-level travel management planning. The BLM’s geodatabase will provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. The BLM will continue to conduct on-the-ground inventories if roads and 

trails cannot be identified using remote-sensing techniques. The BLM will evaluate proposed 

designations through public scoping and a NEPA analysis. The BLM will consider changes to 

the designated system during the transportation management planning process. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and 

maintain roads and trails in accordance with the standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 – Trails 

(USDI BLM 1987) and other professional sources.
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

279 | P a g e

Medford District Public Motorized Access Designations 

Table H-3. Medford District public motorized access designations. 

Designation Acres

Open -

Limited to Existing Routes 696,939

Limited to Designated Routes -

Closed 114,118

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Medford District.

Limited to Existing Area Management Guidelines: 

 The BLM will manage limited areas in accordance with all applicable Federal and State 

motorized vehicle regulations.

 Paved roads are limited to licensed, street-legal vehicles only. 

 Road Maintenance Level 1 and 2 routes55 are open to Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class 

II (four-wheel drive vehicles), and Class III (motorcycles) vehicles. Trails less than 50 

inches in width are restricted to all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles. 

 Roads on private property that do not have a secured public right-of-way are not 

necessarily open to public or recreational vehicle traffic, even if they are a “continuation” 

of the BLM road system or a road shown on the preliminary maps. 

 Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be limited in 

the interim to the existing road and trail network unless closed or restricted under a 

previous planning effort or due to special circumstances: 

o The BLM may close or limit routes under seasonal or administrative restrictions. 

These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, 

special requirements for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for 

public safety. 

 In the Butte Falls Resource Area, the Jackson Access and Cooperative Travel 

Management Area closure (32,822 acres) is in effect from mid-October through April 30. 

Only those roads shown in green on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife maps or 

posted with green reflectors are open to motorized vehicles during the period of the 

restriction. 

 Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet from the 

centerline of the road or up to 15 feet from the centerline of a trail. 

 

55 Level 1 – This level is assigned to roads where minimum maintenance is required to protect adjacent lands and resource 

values. Emphasis is given to maintaining drainage and runoff patterns as needed to protect adjacent lands. Grading, brushing, or 

slide removal is not performed unless roadbed drainage is being adversely affected, causing erosion. Closure and traffic 

restrictive devices are maintained as needed. 

Level 2 – This level is assigned to roads that are passable by high clearance vehicles. Drainage structures are to be inspected 

within a 3-year period and maintained as needed. Grading is conducted as necessary to correct drainage problems. Brushing is 

conducted as needed to allow access. These are typically low standard, low volume; single lane, natural and aggregate surfaced, 

and are functionally classified as a resource road.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

280 | P a g e

 Limitations apply to all Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), 

and Class III (motorcycles) public motorized vehicles and to all activity types (e.g., 

recreational and commercial) unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

 Non-motorized travel (e.g., horseback riding, hiking, and mountain biking) is allowed on 

all access routes. 

Closed Area Management Guidelines: All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering 

closed areas unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: 

 The principal venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and scoping 

during future implementation-level travel management planning efforts, special projects, 

and local partnership. 

 The BLM will send press releases as needed informing the public of motorized travel 

opportunities and restrictions. The BLM will post signs where appropriate. 

 Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures shall be 

available to the public at the main office illustrating designations, describing specific 

restrictions, and defining opportunities. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM will accomplish final route 

designations through implementation-level travel management planning. The BLM’s geodatabase will provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. The BLM will continue to conduct on-the-ground inventories if roads and 

trails cannot be identified using remote-sensing techniques. The BLM will evaluate proposed 

designations through public scoping and a NEPA analysis. The BLM will consider changes to 

the designated system during the transportation management planning process. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and 

maintain roads and trails in accordance with the standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 – Trails 

(USDI BLM 1987) and other professional sources. 

Hellgate Recreation Area Travel Management Area 

Acres: 5,500 BLM-Administered Land 

Designation: Limited to designated roads and trails 

Niche: The Hellgate Recreation Area is located within Josephine County, Oregon and covers 

approximately 8,000 acres in southwestern Oregon Approximately 70 percent (5,500 acres) is 

managed by the BLM Medford District Office Grants Pass Resource Area. 

The Hellgate Recreation Area, the 1⁄4 mile corridor of the first 27 miles of the Rogue National 

Wild and Scenic River from the mouth of the Applegate River to Grave Creek, is classified as a 

recreational river area. A recreational river is defined by Congress as a river that is readily 
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

281 | P a g e

accessible by road or railroad, may have some development on its shoreline, and may have been 

impounded or diverted in the past. Management of this recreational river area will give primary 

emphasis to protecting the values that make it outstandingly remarkable, while providing a 

diversity of river-related recreational opportunities in a developed setting. 

Management Guidelines:

 The five (5) existing trails that will be improved and/or expanded are: Whitehorse Nature 

Trail, Buckhorn Mountain, Hellgate, Umpqua Joe, and Robert Dean (Hellgate Bridge to 

Ash Gulch, Centennial Gulch to Argo). 

 The two (2) new trails that will be developed are: Robert Dean (Ash Gulch to Centennial, 

Argo to Grave Creek) and Rainbow. 

 No off-highway vehicle trails will be developed. Public use of the trail system within the 

Hellgate Recreation Area, existing and proposed, will be restricted to hikers only (USDI 

1972). 

 The ten (10) boat ramps that will be maintained and/or improved are: Whitehorse County 

Park, Ferry Hole County Park, Griffin County Park, Robertson Bridge County Park (see 

Map 2-2 in Appendix A), Hog Creek, Indian Mary County Park, Ennis Riffle County 

Park, Galice County Park, Almeda County Park, and Grave Creek . 

 The two (2) undeveloped boat access sites that will be improved are: Rand and Argo. No 

new boat ramps will be developed. 

 The two (2) existing fishing access sites that will be maintained are: Rainbow and 

Carpenters Island. 

 A Universally Accessible fishing access site will be considered . 

 Five (5) designated vehicle access areas on gravel bars will be maintained. They are: 

Griffin Lane Complex, Rocky Bar, Chair, Rand, and Argo. Vehicles are prohibited off 

existing roads within the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River corridor, except for 

parking at designated gravel bars (Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 110, 1992, 24271-

24272). 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: The principal venue for public 

collaboration in the Hellgate Recreation Area corridor is through local partnership relationships, 

including the general public, outfitter and guides and other interest groups. Maps are available to 

the public at the Medford District Office and Grants Pass Field Office. The trails, boat ramps, 

fishing access sites and gravel bars are marked on the ground with regulatory and directional 

signage. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM has public access designations 

through the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River: Hellgate Recreation Area Environmental 

Impact Statement (BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/030+1792). The BLM will use adaptive management 

to adjust the system for user needs, and protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values and 

resource protection. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and 

maintain roads and trails in accordance with the design features identified in the standards in 

BLM Manual H-9114-1 – Trails (USDI BLM 1987) and other professional sources. Trail 

maintenance will be a priority within this travel management area to ensure a quality trail 

experience for trail users and to conserve natural resource values. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

282 | P a g e

Roseburg District Public Motorized Access Designations 

Table H-4. Roseburg District public motorized access designations. 

Designation Acres

Open -

Limited to Existing Routes 415,548

Limited to Designated Routes -

Closed 10,258

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Roseburg District.

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

 The BLM will manage limited areas in accordance with all applicable Federal and State 

motorized vehicle regulations.

 The BLM will limit motorized vehicle use to administrative, commercial, and passenger 

vehicle traffic where not specifically signed or gated. 

 Until road and trail designations are complete, all public motorized travel activities will 

be limited in the interim to the existing road and trail network unless closed or restricted 

under a previous planning effort or due to special circumstances as defined below. 

o The BLM may close or limit routes under seasonal or administrative restrictions. 

These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, 

special requirements for wildlife species, protection of cultural resources, or for 

public safety. 

 Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet from the 

centerline of the road or up to 15 feet from the centerline of a trail. 

 Limitations apply to all Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), 

and Class III (motorcycles) public motorized vehicles and to all activity types (e.g., 

recreational and commercial) unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

Closed Area Management Guidelines: All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering 

closed areas unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach:

 The principal venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and scoping 

during future implementation-level travel management planning efforts, special projects, 

and local partnership. 

 The BLM will send press releases as needed informing the public of motorized travel 

opportunities and restrictions. The BLM will post signs where appropriate. 

 Upon completion of the implementation-level transportation management plan, maps and 

brochures shall be available to the public at the Roseburg District office illustrating 

designations, describing specific restrictions, and defining opportunities. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM will accomplish final route 

designations through implementation-level travel management planning. The BLM’s geodatabase will provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and non-
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

283 | P a g e

motorized activities. The BLM will continue to conduct on-the-ground inventories if roads and 

trails cannot be identified using remote-sensing techniques. The BLM will evaluate proposed 

designations through public scoping and a NEPA analysis. The BLM will consider changes to 

the designated system during the transportation management planning process. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and 

maintain roads and trails in accordance with the standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 – Trails 

(USDI BLM 1987) and other professional sources. 

References 

USDI BLM. 1987. BLM Manual Handbook H-9114-1 – Trails. Available at BLM district offices. 

---. 2012. BLM Manual Handbook H-8342-1 – Travel and Transportation Management. 146 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/west_mojave_plan_updates.Par.33567.File.dat/Travel%20and%20

Transportation%20Management%20Handbook.pdf.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

284 | P a g e
285 | P a g e

Appendix I – Livestock Grazing 

This appendix summarizes the information for allotments available for livestock grazing in the 

Klamath Falls Field Office and the Medford District (Map I-1). Table I-1 and Table I-2 contain 

detailed information about these livestock grazing allotments including acres derived from the 

BLM allotment and pasture boundary theme in the BLM spatial database. See the management 

objectives and management direction for the allotments the BLM has made unavailable to 

livestock grazing. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

286 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map I-1. Allotments available for livestock grazing.

Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

284 | Page286 | Page
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

287 | P a g e

Table I-1. Available Klamath Falls Field Office grazing allotments. 

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

Chase 

Mountain 00101 9,283 195 - 5/15-8/13 C 2001

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 1,681, 

Horses 100

Critical deer winter range habitat 

occurs within the allotment. 

Allotment contains a portion of the 

HMA.

Edge 

Creek 00102 5,975 207 - 5/1-9/1 I 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

DeferredRotation

Range Improvement Potential, 

common allotment, exclosures or 

other areas closed to grazing, 

portion proposed for closure.

Buck 

Mountain*

00103 7,416 204 - 5/15-9/1 I 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 1,643 None

Buck Lake 00104 12,019 280 -

6/15-

10/15 C 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 2,129

Range Improvement Potential, 

common allotment, exclosures or 

other areas closed to grazing.

Johnson 

Prairie 00105 119 12 - 5/1-10/1 C 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly None

Dixie* 00107 4,439 320 100 5/1-8/15 I 2002

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

Yearly

Deer 928, 

Elk 100, 

Horses 50

Range Improvement Potential, 

exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing. Allotment contains portion 

of the HMA. Continue monitoring 

grazing and make adjustments to 

improve rangeland health.

Dry Lake 00140 101 10 - 5/1-6/30 C 2001

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 10 None

Chicken 

Hills 00141 3,520 80 - 5/15-9/15 C 2001

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 931 None

Long Lake 00142 367 18 - 6/16-9/30 C 2000 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly None
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

288 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

Grubb 

Springs 00147 3,564 130 - 5/1-9/30 C 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 650 None

Adams 00800 40 6 - 4/15-7/15 C 2005

Not Meeting 

Standards, 

Grazing is a 

factor

Yearly

Continue monitoring grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health.

Haught 00801 401 27 - 5/1-7/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 7 None

Stock 

Drive 00802 40 2 - 5/1-6/30 C 2006 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

J Spring 00803 241 7 - 5/1-6/30 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 6 Antelope 2 None

Bar CL 00804 481 20 22 5/1-5/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 10 None

SE 80 00805 80 8 - 5/1-10/31 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 1 None

Two Mile 00806 659 56 - 5/1-9/30 C 2006

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 16 

Elk 16 None

Barnwell 00807 1,635 75 - 5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 80 Range Improvement Potential

Lee 00808 40 10 - 6/1-8/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly None

Brown 00809 81 30 - 6/1-8/30 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 1 None

Brenda 00810 120 18 - 5/16-6/30 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 24 Elk 24 None

Cheyne 00811 809 51 - 5/1-6/15 C 2004 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 40 None

StukelCoffin 00812 730 55 - 5/1-7/1 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 14, Elk 5 None

Cunningham 00814 839 108 - 5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 14 None

StukelDehlinger 

C.

00815 1,684 240 - 4/15-8/8 I 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 31, Elk 11 None
Appendix I – Livestock Grazing 

289 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

StukelDehlinger 

H.

00816 388 30 - 5/10-8/10 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 8 None

Drew 00817 766 72 - 5/1-6/30 C 2005 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 34, Elk 14 None

Duncan 00818 202 15 - 5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 4 None

Dupont 00819 78 7 - 4/15-6/1 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly None

North 

Horsefly 00821 1,287 68 - 5/1-6/15 C 2007 Meeting All Standards Yearly Deer 18 None

StukelO’Neill 00822 3,405 210 - 5/1-7/15 I 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 59, Elk 20

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

North 

Horsefly 00823 569 60 - 6/16-8/1 C 2007 Meeting All Standards Yearly Deer 17 None

Jeld-Wen 00824 313 36 - 6/1-7/15 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 7 None

Naylox 00825 757 76 - 5/1-6/30 C 2005 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 14 None

Haskins 00826 567 80 - 5/1-7/15 C 2004 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 11 None

StukelHigh 00827 348 17 - 5/1-6/15 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 5 None

Stukel-Hill 00828 975 60 - 5/1-6/15 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 18, Elk 7 None

Horton 00829 758 26 - 4/21-6/30 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 36 Range Improvement Potential

Hungry 

Hollow 00830 281 40/H - 6/1-8/30 C 2005 Meeting All Standards Yearly Deer 5 Proposed for conversion from horse to livestock

Warlow 00831 560 50 - 5/1-9/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 8, Elk 3

None

Jesperson 00832 1,559 158 - 5/1-7/1 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 30, Elk 30 None

Johnson 00833 25 6 - 5/1-6/30 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly None

Kellison 00834 352 19 - 5/1-6/13 C 2004

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 6 None
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

290 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

Ketcham 00835 281 20 - 5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 16 Range Improvement Potential

Harpold 

Chaining 00836 851 96 - 5/1-5/30 C 2007

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

Yearly Deer 101

Range Improvement Potential; 

continue monitoring grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

BryantHorton 00837 1,211 130 - 6/1-7/9 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 24, Elk 8 None

Windy 

Ridge 00838 602 52 - 5/1-5/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 11 Range Improvement Potential

BryantLoveness 00839 3,307 490 - 5/1-6/30 CNot 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 161 Elk 21 Range Improvement Potential

BryantLyon 00840 569 38 - 5/1-9/30 CNot 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 11 None

Marshall 00841 351 14 - 4/21-5/30 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 17 None

Short Lake 00842 428 40 - 5/1-6/30 C 2005

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

Yearly Deer 42

Range Improvement Potential; 

continue monitoring grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

McAuliffe 00843 87 10 - 4/16-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 1 None

Paddock 00844 399 31 - 5/1-6/30 M 2003 Meeting All 

Standards

DeferredRotationDeer 8, 

Antelope 3 None

Klamath 

Hills 00845 198 55 - 4/1-5/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 10 None

OK 00846 1,290 105 35 5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 24 Range Improvement Potential

Swede 

Cabin 00847 2,018 108 - 5/1-6/15 I 2007 Meeting All Standards Yearly Deer 36 Range Improvement Potential

Pope 00848 446 48 - 5/1-7/31 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 19 None

Rajnus 

Bros. 00849 239 16 - 5/1-6/17 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 10 None

Wilkinson 00850 398 18 - 5/1-6/5 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 6 None

Harpold 

Ridge 00851 1,049 108 - 4/21-6/30 M 2006 Meeting All Standards Yearly Deer 49 None

Rodgers 00852 2,449 235 - 5/1-7/1 I 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 48, Elk 17

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing
Appendix I – Livestock Grazing 

291 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

7C 00853 646 104 - 5/1-6/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 13 None

Jump 00854 200 20 - 5/1-5/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 4 None

BryantSmith 00855 1,217 109 - 5/15-8/31 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 22, Elk 7 None

BryantStastny 00856 444 70 - 5/10-9/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 8, Elk 3

None

BryantTaylor 00857 765 74 - 4/15-9/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 14, Elk 4 None

Swan Lake 

Rim 00858 6,524 300 - 5/1-6/30 M 2006 Meeting All Standards

RestRotationDeer 121, 

Elk 116 Common allotment

Cunard 00859 468 60/H - 5/1-7/31 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotation Deer 7 Proposed for conversion from 

horse to livestock

McCartie 00860 556 83 - 5/1-5/30 C 2004 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotation Deer 25 None

Yainax 

Butte 00861 2,920 120 - 7/1-9/30 M 2005 Meeting AllStandards

DeferredRotation Deer 119 Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Klamath 

Forest 

Estates

00862 2,743 47 - 5/1-5/31 M 2005 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 47 None

Wirth 00863 1,361 100 -

4/15-

10/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 25 None

Rajnus & 

Son 00864 1,460 110 - 5/1-6/30 C 2007

Not Meeting 

Standards 

Grazing is 

not a factor

Yearly Deer 28 None

Mills 

Creek 00865 283 40 - 5/1-6/14 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 5 Range Improvement Potential

Bear 

Valley 00876 5,054 415 - 7/1-8/9 I 2000/2003 Meeting All Standards

DeferredRotation

Deer 94, 

Antelope 

34

Common allotment, exclosures or 

other areas closed to grazing

Bumpheads 00877 9,385 420 265 4/21-6/30 I 2003

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

DeferredRotation

Deer 173, 

Antelope 

63

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Campbell 00878 1,371 47/H 13 5/1-10/26 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly

Deer 28, 

Antelope 

10

Proposed for conversion from 

horse to livestock
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

292 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

DeVaul 00879 378 12 15 5/1-8/30 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 5, Antelope 2 None

Goodlow 00881 349 32 52 5/1-8/31 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 6, Antelope 2 None

Horsefly 00882 26,906 2,656 2,075

4/15-6/30, 

10/1-

11/15

I 1999/2003 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotation/

High 

IntensityShort 

Duration

Deer 495, 

Elk 30, 

Antelope 

181

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing, common allotment

Horton 00883 1,005 58 211 4/21-5/20 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 41, Antelope 6 None

Pankey 

Basin 00884 309 43 38 5/15-8/31 C 2003

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

Yearly Deer 5, 

Antelope 2

Range Improvement Potential, 

exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Dry Prairie 00885 8,026 642 358 5/1-9/30 I 1999/2003 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotation

Deer 149, 

Antelope 

55

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing, common allotment, 

proposed range improvement

Horse 

Camp Rim 00886 8,822 445 281 5/1-7/31 I 2003 Meeting All Standards

RestRotation

Deer 172, 

Antelope 

63

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Pitchlog 00887 9,376 434 796 5/10-6/30 I 1999/2003 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotation/

High 

IntensityShort 

Duration

Deer 174, 

Elk 37, 

Antelope 

64

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Rock 

Creek 00888 2,522 216 639 5/1-5/31 I 2003 Meeting All Standards

RestRotation

Deer 130, 

Antelope 

19

None

Timber 

Hill 00889 2,542 270 134 6/21-7/31 I 1999/2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly

Deer 55, 

Antelope 

20

None

Willow 

Valley 00890 19,925 1,225 506 4/15-6/30 I 2000/2003

Not Meeting 

Standards, 

Grazing is a 

factor

RestRotation

Deer 960, 

Antelope 

141

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing, common allotment.
Appendix I – Livestock Grazing 

293 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

Williams 00892 1,854 75 - 5/1-5/31 M 2004 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly

Deer 34, 

Antelope 

12

None

Fields 00893 26 6 - 4/21-5/20 C 2005 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 4, Antelope 1 None

Voight 00894 112 8 - 5/1-6/15 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 2 None

Harpold 

Canyon 00895 1,085 76 - 5/1-9/30 C 2006 Meeting All Standards Yearly Deer 20 None

McFall 00896 577 60 - 5/1-6/30 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 11 Common allotment

Bly 

Mountain 01800 120 9 - 6/1-8/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly None

* All or a portion of the allotment is located within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument 

† Active Use is livestock AUMs, unless specified as H for domestic horse use. 

‡ Selective Management Categories: Improve (I)-managed to resolve a high level of resource conflicts and concerns and receive the highest priority for funding and management 

actions; Maintain (M)-managed to maintain satisfactory resource conditions and will be actively managed to ensure that resource values do not decline; Custodial (C)-managed 

custodially to protect resource conditions and values. 

§ In allotments where grazing was a factor to nonattainment of a RHA standard, within 1 year of the assessment, a change to livestock grazing was implemented to eliminate 

livestock grazing as a contributing factor. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

294 | P a g e

Table I-2. Available Medford District grazing allotments 

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use‡

Selective 

Management 

Category§

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland Health 

Assessment Findingǀǀ

Grazing 

System Other Information

Heppsie 

Mountain 00126 4,105 294 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2007 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly

Combined with South Heppsie 

Mountain Allotment (10125, 800 

acres). Continue to collect 

utilization data to establish 

combined stocking level.

Lost Creek 10001 9,962 382 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2001 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly Common Allotment

Flat Creek 10002 12,066 328 -

Sp, Su, 

F

C 2000 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Longbranch 10004 324 22 - Sp C 2002 Meeting All Standards Yearly Portion Proposed for Closure

Meadows 10007 1,563 92 - Sp, Su I 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

NeilTarbell 10008 518 56 - Sp, Su C 2015 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

North Sams

Valley 10009 120 8 - Su C 2002 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Lick Creek 10015 201 15 - Sp, Su C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Brownsboro

Park 10016 382 68 - Sp, Su I 2002 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Kanutchan 

Fields 10017 2,427 177 - Sp, Su I 2002 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Sugarloaf 10019 1,570 15 - Sp, Su C 2002 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Section 9 10021 404 25 - Sp, Su C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Section 7 10022 374 11 - Sp, Su C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Bull Run 10023 40 5 - Sp, Su C 2011 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Big Butte 10024 21,802 1,663 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2000 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor

DeferredRotation Common Allotment

Reese Creek 10027 40 7 - Sp, Su C 1999 Meeting All Standards Yearly Common Allotment

Derby Road

Sawmill 10029 524 45 - Sp, Su C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Summit 

Prairie 10031 30,579 1,165 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2000 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor

DeferredRotation Common Allotment

Vestal 

Butte 10035 2,243 120 - Sp, Su I 2015 Meeting all Standards Yearly None

Bear 

Mountain 10037 1,006 81 - Sp, Su I 2015 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Crowfoot 10038 7,400 365 - Sp, Su I 2015 Meeting All Standards Yearly None
Appendix I – Livestock Grazing 

295 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use‡

Selective 

Management 

Category§

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland Health 

Assessment Findingǀǀ

Grazing 

System Other Information

Crowfoot 

Creek 10039 516 70 - Sp, Su C 2008 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Cobleigh 

Road 10040 89 14 - Sp, Su C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Moser 

Mountain 10041 40 3 - Sp C 2011 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Devon 

South 10043 412 33 - Sp, Su C 2008 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Salt Creek 10044 463 85 - Sp, Su I 2002 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Cove 

Creek 10112 1,290 88 - Sp, Su I 2011 Not Meeting Standards,Grazing is a factor Yearly

Continue to monitor grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health.

Buckpoint 10114 3,845 150 - Su C 2008 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly Permit bought-out/retired February 2015.

Howard 

Prairie 10116 24 61 - F, W M 2012 Not Meeting Standards,Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Grizzly 10119 5,153 378 225 Sp, Su, 

F

I 1999 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly Common Allotment, Continue to monitor to set stocking level.

Lake Creek 

Spring 10121 4,250 447 - Sp, Su I 2009 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Lake Creek 

Summer 10122 4,442 550 - Su, F I 2009 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Deer CreekReno Lease 10124 4,062 314 -Sp, Su, 

F

C 2009 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Hunger Flat 10129 1,089 220 Not 

Completed Not Completed Yearly Currently Vacant Allotment

Antelope 

Road 10132 403 19 - Sp, Su C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Brownsboro 10133 80 8 - Sp, Su C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly

Continue to monitor grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

Yankee 

Reservoir 10134 121 15 - Sp C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is a factor Yearly

Continue to monitor grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health.

Canal 10136 442 58 - Sp C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is a factor Yearly

Continue to monitor grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

Cove 

Ranch 10143 80 20 -

Sp, Su, 

F

C 2009 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

296 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use‡

Selective 

Management 

Category§

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland Health 

Assessment Findingǀǀ

Grazing 

System Other Information

North Cove 

Creek 10148 284 20 - Su, F C 2009 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Deadwood* 20106 7,967 788 - Su I 2008 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is a factor Yearly Common Allotment

Poole Hill 20113 1,731 50 - F C 2007 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Conde 

Creek 20117 5,491 592 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2009 Not Meeting Standards, 

grazing is a factor Yearly

Common Allotment, continue to 

monitor livestock grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

Lower Big 

Applegate 20206 11,909 258 - Sp, Su I 2012 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor. Yearly

Continue to monitor livestock 

grazing and make adjustments to 

improve rangeland health

Foots Creek 20219 115 12 - Sp, Su C 2009 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

* A portion of the allotment is located within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. 

† Active Use is livestock AUMs. 

‡ Season of use categories for Medford W= winter (Nov–Jan), Sp=spring (Feb–Apr), Su=summer (May–Aug), F=fall (Sept–Oct) 

§ Selective Management Categories: Improve (I)-managed to resolve a high level of resource conflicts and concerns and receive the highest priority for funding and management 

actions; Maintain (M)-managed to maintain satisfactory resource conditions and will be actively managed to ensure that resource values do not decline; Custodial (C)-managed 

custodially to protect resource conditions and values. 

ǀǀ In allotments where grazing was a factor to nonattainment of a RHA standard, within 1 year of the assessment, a change to livestock grazing was implemented to eliminate 

livestock grazing as a contributing factor. 
297 | P a g e

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

This section provides the main acronyms and abbreviations used in the document. 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ASQ allowable sale quantity 

AUM animal unit month 

bf board foot or board feet 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

CBWR Coos Bay Wagon Road 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DBH diameter at breast height 

DPS distinct population segment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FTEM Fuels Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring 

FR Federal Register 

FS U.S. Forest Service 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GIS geographic information system 

HLB Harvest Land Base 

HMA herd management area 

HUC hydrologic unit code (e.g., HUC-10 watershed) 

LITA Low Intensity Timber Area 

LSR Late-Successional Reserve 

Mbf thousand board feet 

MMbf million board feet 

MITA Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

O&C Act Oregon and California Lands Act 

OAR Oregon Administrative Rules 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

ODF Oregon Department of Forestry 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

QMD quadratic mean diameter 

RD relative density 

RMA recreation management area 

R&I relevant and important (values) 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

298 | P a g e

RMP resource management plan 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD record of decision 

ROW right-of-way 

SDI Stand Density Index 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TMP travel management plan 

TPA trees per acre 

TPCC Timber Productivity Capability Classification 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDC United States Department of Commerce 

USDI United States Department of Interior 

USC United States Code 

UTA Uneven-aged Timber Area 

VRM visual resource management 

WSR Wild and Scenic River 
299 | P a g e

Glossary 

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. 

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 10-year age class of 60 includes ages 56–

65. 

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 re-designated 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 non-attainment 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.

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 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

300 | P a g e

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 
Glossary 

301 | P a g e

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 cut 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 cover – A measure of the percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection of the 

tree crowns. 

Coarse woody debris – See down woody material.

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. 

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. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

302 | 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 

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. 

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 A-shape 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. 

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. 

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). 
Glossary 

303 | P a g e

Decommissioning (of roads) – See road closure.

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. 

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. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

304 | P a g e

Down woody material/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. 

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. 

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. 

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 suppression – Fire management actions taken to extinguish a fire or confine fire spread. 
Glossary 

305 | P a g e

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 

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. 

Fuel loads – The amount of combustible material present per unit area. 

Full decommissioning (of roads) – See road closure.

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. 

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 variableretention harvest. 

Ground-based yarding – The movement of cut trees or logs from the area where they are cut 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.’

Hand pile – Piling of fuels by hand. 

Harvesting – The process of cutting and removing of merchantable trees from a forested area. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

306 | P a g e

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 cut 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, single-tree 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. 
Glossary 

307 | P a g e

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. 

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. 

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 actions consistent with 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. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

308 | P a g e

Mass wasting – The downslope movement of earth materials caused by gravity. This is an allinclusive 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

National Landscape Conservation System (National Conservation Lands) – 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 retaining the cut 

trees within the stand or moving them to other stands or to streams for non-commercial purposes.

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. 
Glossary 

309 | P a g e

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 instream 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, 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 crosscountry 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.

Peak flow – The highest amount of stream or river flow occurring in a year, or from a single 

storm event. 

Perennial stream – A stream that typically has running water on a year-round basis. Their base 

level is at, or below, the water table. 

Pile burning – Activity fuels, once piled by machine or by hand, are burned in place. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

310 | P a g e

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. 

Pre-commercial thinning – 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. 

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: 

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. 
Glossary 

311 | P a g e

Regeneration – (n.) Tree seedlings or saplings existing in a stand. (v.) The process of reestablishing 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. 

 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 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

312 | P a g e

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. 
Glossary 

313 | P a g e

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. 

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, two-aged, and uneven-aged).

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 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 organic-matter 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 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

314 | P a g e

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 

 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, highseverity 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. 

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. 
Glossary 

315 | P a g e

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 pre-commercial 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. 

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. 

Travel Management Area – Delineated areas where travel management requires particular 

focus. These areas may be designated as open, closed, or limited to motorized use. See public 

motorized access designation. 

Tree-tipping – Mechanically tipping or pulling over trees with root wads attached, generally 

into or near a stream, to simulate natural wood recruitment.
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

316 | P a g e

Turbidity – The cloudiness exhibited by water carrying sediment; the degree to which 

suspended sediment interferes with light passage through water. 

Uncharacteristic wildfire – fire processes occurring outside of their biophysical baseline 

conditions (i.e., outside of historical natural fire regimes) and often at such high intensity and 

severity that important ecosystem components or processes are altered or destroyed over 

substantial portions of the burned area.

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. 

Variable-retention regeneration harvest or variable retention harvest – 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 
Glossary 

317 | P a g e

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. 

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. 
Southwestern Oregon ROD/RMP 

318 | P a g e

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. 

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. 

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.