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 Northwestern and Coastal 

Oregon Resource Management Plan (RMP). The ROD approves the Northwestern and Coastal 

Oregon RMP, which provides direction for management of resources on approximately 1.3 

million acres of BLM-administered lands in the Coos Bay District, Eugene District, Salem 

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

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

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

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

River 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 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Approved Resource 

Management Plan 

Coos Bay, Eugene, Salem Districts, and Swiftwater 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.............................................................................................................................................................. 3

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 ............................................................................................................................................................... 9

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 ................................................................................................................. 16

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 .........................................................................................................................................................25

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 ............................................................................................................................................28

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 .............................................................................................................32

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 ......................................................................................................... 33

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

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

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

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 35

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION........................................................................................................................ 35
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

ii | P a g e

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

NEW INFORMATION.............................................................................................................................................. 39

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS........................................................................................................................................ 55

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 75

RESOURCE PROGRAMS .......................................................................................................................................... 76

APPENDIX A – GUIDANCE FOR USE OF THE RMP ................................................................................................ 103

APPENDIX B – MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................................................... 115

APPENDIX C – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................................................................................. 139

APPENDIX D – LANDS AND REALTY .................................................................................................................... 181

APPENDIX E – ENERGY AND MINERALS .............................................................................................................. 215

APPENDIX F – AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ........................................................................ 223

APPENDIX G – RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS ........................................................................................... 251

APPENDIX H – PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS ....................................................................................................... 263

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 287

GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 289

Table of Figures 

Figure 1. Percent of Riparian Reserve within each subwatershed class for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon 

ROD/RMP planning area. ....................................................................................................................................50

Figure 2. Range and management zones for the marbled murrelet. ..........................................................................53

Figure 3. Range of the North Oregon Coast distinct population segment of the Oregon red tree vole north of 

Highway 20. ........................................................................................................................................................54

Table of Tables 

Table 1. Land use allocation acres within the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP. ............................................43

Table 2. Snag creation levels within the Harvest Land Base. ......................................................................................61

Table 3. Snag creation levels within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve. ........................................67

Table 4. Down woody material retention levels when implementing fuels reduction or prescribed fire treatments 

within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve. ..............................................................................67

Table 5. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature. ................................................................................................. 70

Table 6. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class I subwatersheds..................................................71

Table 7. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class II subwatersheds.................................................72

Table 8. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class III subwatersheds................................................74

Table 9. Cultural use allocations with desired outcomes and management actions ..................................................77

Table 10. Allotments unavailable for livestock grazing, Coos Bay District. ................................................................. 84

Table B-1. Decade 1 modeled acres by treatment type by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation. ................................. 132

Table B-2. Decade 2 modeled acres by treatment type by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation. ................................. 133

Table B-3. Marbled murrelet survey reporting. .........................................................................................................136

Table B-4. Marbled murrelet occupied site. ..............................................................................................................136

Table B-5. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat modified or removed without surveys. ..............................................137

Table B-6. Survey reporting for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole. ...................................................137
Tables of Contents 

iii | P a g e

Table C-1. Best management practices for roads and landings. ...............................................................................143

Table C-2. Best management practices for timber harvest activities. .......................................................................158

Table C-3. Soil cover based on erosion hazard ratings. .............................................................................................161

Table C-4. Best management practices for planting, pre-commercial thinning, and fertilization. ...........................162

Table C-5. Best management practices for fire and fuels management. ..................................................................162

Table C-6. Water bar spacing by gradient and erosion class. ...................................................................................167

Table C-7. Best management practices for surface source water for drinking water protection. .............................168

Table C-8. Best management practices for recreation management. .......................................................................170

Table C-9. Best management practices for salable mineral material disposal. .........................................................174

Table C-10. Best management practices for spill prevention and abatement. .........................................................175

Table C-11. Best management practices for instream restoration activities. ...........................................................178

Table D-1. Withdrawal tables legend. .......................................................................................................................186

Table D-2. Withdrawals in the Coos Bay District. ......................................................................................................187

Table D-3. Withdrawals in the Eugene District. .........................................................................................................194

Table D-4. Withdrawals in the Roseburg District. .....................................................................................................198

Table D-5. Withdrawals in the Salem District. ...........................................................................................................202

Table D-6. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Coos Bay District. .................................................................................206

Table D-7. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Eugene District. ....................................................................................207

Table D-8. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Roseburg District. .................................................................................208

Table D-9. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Salem District. ......................................................................................209

Table D-10. Communication sites in the Coos Bay District. .......................................................................................212

Table D-11. Communication sites in the Eugene District. ..........................................................................................212

Table D-12. Communication sites in the Roseburg District. ......................................................................................213

Table D-13. Communication sites in the Salem District. ............................................................................................213

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

District in the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. ..................................................225

Table H-1. Current authorized motorized and non-motorized trails within the decision area. ................................. 271

Table H-2. Coos Bay District public motorized access designations ..........................................................................273

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

Table H-4. Roseburg District public motorized access designations. .........................................................................281

Table H-5. Salem District public motorized access designations. ..............................................................................283

Table of Maps 

Map 1. Planning area for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP (north half). ..................................................44

Map 1. Planning area for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP (south half). ..................................................45

Map 2. Land use allocations and sub-allocations within the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP (north half). ..48

Map 2. Land use allocations and sub-allocations within the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP (south half). ..49

Map 3. Three-tier subwatershed class map within the Eugene and Salem Districts within the Northwestern and 

Coastal Oregon RMP. ..........................................................................................................................................51

Map D-1. Right-of-way avoidance areas and right-of-way exclusion areas (north half). .........................................182

Map D-1. Right-of-way avoidance areas and right-of-way exclusion areas (south half). .........................................183

Map E-1. Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal (north half). ................................................................. 216

Map E-1. Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal (south half). ................................................................. 217

Map F-1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Coos Bay District in the Northwestern and Coastal 

Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. ....................................................................................................................224

Map F-2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Eugene District in the Northwestern and Coastal 

Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. ....................................................................................................................230

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

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. .........................................................................237
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

iv | P a g e

Map F-4. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Salem District in the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon 

ROD/RMP plan boundary. ................................................................................................................................239

Map G-1. Recreation Management Areas within the Coos Bay District. ...................................................................253

Map G-2. Recreation Management Areas within the Eugene District. .....................................................................256

Map G-3. Recreation Management Areas within the Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg District. ..................258

Map G-4. Recreation Management Areas within the Salem District. .......................................................................261

Map H-1. Public motorized access area designations within the Coos Bay District. .................................................264

Map H-2. Public motorized access area designations within the Eugene District. ....................................................265

Map H-3. Public motorized access area designations within the Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg District. . 266

Map H-4. Public motorized access area designations within the Salem District. ......................................................267
1 | P a g e

Record of Decision 

Summary 

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

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan (RMP). This ROD and RMP 

provide overall direction for management of all resources on BLM-administered lands in the 

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

Roseburg District and revises the 1995 RMPs for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Roseburg, and Salem 

Districts.1The land use allocations, management objectives, and management direction in the 

attached Northwestern and Coastal 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, 

 

1

 The BLM is in the process of consolidating the Eugene District and Salem District into the Northwest Oregon 

District as a single administrative and operational unit with one District Manager. This consolidation does not alter 

the decision area as considered in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS or the boundaries of the approved RMP. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

2 | P a g e

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. 

Planning Process 

This ROD and RMP provide overall direction for management of all resources on BLMadministered lands in the Coos Bay District, Eugene District, Salem District, and the Swiftwater 

Field Office of the Roseburg District and revises the 1995 RMPs for the Coos Bay, Eugene, 

Roseburg, and Salem Districts (USDI BLM 1995 a, b, c, d). 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 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 

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

Roseburg District. 

Planning Area 

The planning area for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP includes approximately 1.3 

million acres of BLM-administered lands in western Oregon managed by the BLM’s Coos Bay 

District, Eugene District, Salem District, and the Swiftwater 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 Southwestern 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 BLMadministered lands in the West Eugene Wetlands in the Eugene District, because those lands 

have their own independent RMP. 
Record of Decision 

3 | P a g e

Decision 

The BLM hereby approves the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP for the Coos Bay 

District, Eugene District, Salem District, and the Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg 

District. The attached Northwestern and Coastal 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 Northwestern and Coastal 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, 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

4 | P a g e

Reserve allocated for current and future occupied marbled murrelet sites and current and future 

occupied red tree vole habitat areas, as described below, or the portions of the Late-Successional 

Reserve allocated for structurally-complex forest. 

The widths and management direction for the Riparian Reserve 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.2 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 stands3to the LateSuccessional Reserve for occupied sites identified after March 26, 20154

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). In addition, 

this decision requires the future allocation of red tree vole “habitat areas”5to the LateSuccessional Reserve for occupied sites identified as a result of BLM red tree vole surveys 

within the range of the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the red tree vole 

north of Highway 20. 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 

 

2

 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 (Appendix A). 

3

 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. 

4

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. 

5 Red tree vole “habitat areas” are described in the management direction for the approved RMP.
Record of Decision 

5 | P a g e

will provide annual reporting of BLM survey results for marbled murrelets and red tree voles 

(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.6 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 (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))7accounting 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 

 

6

 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 

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. 

7

 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

6 | P a g e

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

for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Roseburg, and Salem Districts.8 

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

 The Coos Bay sustained-yield unit is 12 million board feet (MMbf); 

 The Eugene sustained-yield unit is 53 MMbf; 

 The Roseburg sustained-yield unit is 32 MMbf;9and 

 The Salem sustained-yield unit is 65 MMbf. 

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 that the ASQ, or volume of timber that the BLM actually 

can offer for sale from 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 Coos Bay, 

Eugene, and Salem sustained-yield units may each vary by as much as 20 percent from the total 

of the volume figures listed above summed over the entire decade. Over a decade of 

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

sustained-yield unit may vary by as much as 30 percent from the volume figure 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 Salem 

sustained-yield unit, the BLM will offer for sale between 39 MMbf and 91 MMbf annually, and 

between 520 MMbf and 780 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 

 

8

 The BLM is in the process of consolidating the Eugene District and Salem District into the Northwest Oregon 

District as a single administrative and operational unit with one District Manager. This consolidation does not alter 

the boundaries of the Eugene and Salem sustained-yield units. 

9

 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, 

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

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

South River 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 Southwestern 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

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 

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 increased for the Salem and Eugene sustained-yield units and has 

decreased for the Coos Bay 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

8 | P a g e

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. 

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.10

 

10 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 2012). 
Record of Decision 

9 | P a g e

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 2005a) 

 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 

(Coos Bay and Roseburg Districts; USDI BLM 2004) 

 Seed Orchard Records of Decision for Integrated Pest Management (Eugene and 

Salem Districts; USDI BLM 2005b, 2005c) 

 North Bank Habitat Management Area and Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

Record of Decision (Roseburg District; USDI BLM 2001) 

 North Umpqua River Management Plan (Roseburg District; USDA FS, USDI BLM, 

and Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department 1992) 

 Molalla River-Table Rock Recreation Area Management Plan (Salem District; USDI 

BLM 2011) 

 Quartzville Creek National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (Salem District; 

USDI BLM 1992) 

 Salmon National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (Salem District; USDA 

FS and USDI BLM 1993a) 

 Sandy Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Management Plan (Salem 

District; USDI BLM 1993b) 

 Table Rock Wilderness Management Plan (Salem District; USDI BLM 1987) 

 Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area Management Plan (Salem District; USDI 

BLM 1983) 

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 West Eugene Wetlands Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan (Eugene District; USDI BLM 2015a). The BLM-administered lands under the 

West Eugene Wetlands RMP 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

10 | P a g e

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 NEPA documents prior to the 

effective date of this ROD, but has not yet signed a project-specific decision. 

3. Projects for which the BLM has not begun preparation of NEPA 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, and the granting of rights-of-way. Also for this discussion, a projectspecific 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. 

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. 
Record of Decision 

11 | P a g e

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 harvest11 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 

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 five 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 inconsistency with the approved RMP that is likely to occur in these projects is the 

lower amount of green tree retention in regeneration harvests in areas that were General Forest 

Management Area under the 1995 RMPs but are allocated to Low Intensity Timber Area in this 

 

11 The construction of roads or landings does not constitute regeneration harvest. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

12 | P a g e

ROD. There are only 14,918 acres that were 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 Southwestern 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 Southwestern Oregon ROD. 

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 

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 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 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 30 

acres across the decision area of the Northwestern and Coastal 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 

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. 
Record of Decision 

13 | P a g e

Projects Begun After the ROD/RMP 

Projects for which the BLM begins preparation of NEPA 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal 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.12 These 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 or predicted red tree vole 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 and 

red tree vole “habitat areas” 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 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, 

occupied red tree vole 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, occupied red tree vole 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 Salmon Huckleberry 

 

12 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

Additions–Salmon River is entirely allocated to the land use allocation of 

Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands because of the 

overlapping designated 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 removed the land use allocations for five parcels totaling 488 acres in the Coos 

Bay District, because Coos County has authority for surface management of these parcels 

(16 U.S.C. 405). 

 The BLM has disposed of parcels totaling 94 acres in the Salem 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 acquired parcels totaling 86 acres in the Coos Bay District and has 

assigned these acres to land use allocations consistent with the purpose for which they 

were acquired. 

 The BLM has acquired parcels totaling 399 acres in the Salem District and has assigned 

these acres to land use allocations consistent with the purpose for which they were 

acquired. 

 The BLM has corrected an omission of the existing Molalla Rifle Club Lease Extensive 

Recreation Management Area, a 40-acre county lease recreation site in the Salem 

District. 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

16 | P a g e

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. 

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., Uneven-aged Timber Area, Eastside Management Area). 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). 
Record of Decision 

17 | P a g e

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 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

18 | P a g e

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 

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 
Record of Decision 

19 | P a g e

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 

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). 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

20 | P a g e

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 

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. 
Record of Decision 

21 | P a g e

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

Tribe. 

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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

22 | P a g e

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 

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,13 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 

 

13 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

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 

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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

24 | P a g e

the effects of barred owls is an essential component of contributing to the conservation and 

recovery of the northern spotted owl. 

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 FWS 2016, p. 

426).
Record of Decision 

25 | P a g e

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 

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). 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

26 | P a g e

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, 

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 
Record of Decision 

27 | P a g e

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 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

28 | P a g e

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 

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 
Record of Decision 

29 | P a g e

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. 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

30 | P a g e

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. 

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 take14 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 

 

14 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

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 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

32 | P a g e

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. 

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 
Record of Decision 

33 | P a g e

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 projectspecific 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

34 | P a g e

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 

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. 
Record of Decision 

35 | P a g e

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 

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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

36 | P a g e

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 

2015b) 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. 

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 
Record of Decision 

37 | P a g e

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 

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: 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

38 | P a g e

 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 

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 RPMs #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 
Record of Decision 

39 | P a g e

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 and the withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the fisher as threatened under 

the ESA. 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. 

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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

40 | P a g e

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. 

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 

80(4): 691–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.1046. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70168559. 

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 1993a. Salmon National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. Mt. Hood National Forest, 

Gresham, OR, and Salem District, Salem, OR. http://www.rivers.gov/documents/plans/salmon-oregon-plan.pdf. 

---. 1993b. Sandy Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Management Plan. Salem District, Salem, OR. On file at the 

BLM Salem District office. 

---. 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. 

USDA FS, USDI BLM, and Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. 1992. North Umpqua River Management Plan. 

Roseburg District, Roseburg, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/files/NoUmpRvr.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. 1983. Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area Management Plan. Salem District, Salem, OR. On file at the BLM 

Salem District office. 

---. 1987. Table Rock Wilderness Management Plan. Salem District, Salem, OR. On file at the BLM Salem District office. 

---. 1992. Quartzville Creek National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. Salem District, Salem, OR. On file at the BLM 

Salem District office. 

---. 1995a. Coos Bay District Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan. Portland, OR. 

---. 1995b. Eugene District Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan. Portland, OR. 

---. 1995c. Roseburg District Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan. Portland, OR. 

---. 1995d. Salem District Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan. Portland, OR. 

---. 2001. North Bank Habitat Management Area/ACEC Record of Decision, Habitat Management Plan, and Monitoring Plan. 

Roseburg, OR. 73 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/files/NBnkACEC.pdf. 

---. 2004. Final - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon. SEIS. 

Portland, OR. 

---. 2005a. Record of Decision Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan 

Amendments. http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/WindPEISROD.pdf. 

---. 2005b. Record of Decision: Integrated Pest Management Program, BLM Travis Tyrell Seed Orchard, Lorane, Lane County, 

OR. BLM Eugene District, Springfield, OR. 56 pp. 

---. 2005c. Record of Decision: Integrated Pest Management Program, BLM Walter H. Horning Tree Seed Orchard, BLM Salem 

District, Salem, OR. 

---. 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. 

---. 2011. Molalla River-Table Rock Recreation Area Management Plan. Salem District, Salem, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/plans/molalla/files/molalla_plan_complete.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. 

---. 2015a. West Eugene Wetlands Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Eugene District, Eugene, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/eugene/plans/files/wew-rod.pdf. 

---. 2015b. 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 
Record of Decision 

41 | P a g e

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. 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal 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 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon 

Resource Management Plan. 

__________________________________________ ___________ 

Patricia M. Burke Date 

Coos Bay District Manager 

__________________________________________ ___________ 

David O. Howell Date 

Acting Eugene District Manager 

__________________________________________ ___________ 

Barbara Machado Date 

Acting Roseburg District Manager 

__________________________________________ ___________ 

Kim M. Titus Date 

Salem District Manager 

Concurrence

__________________________________________ ___________ 

Ron Dunton Date 

Acting State Director, Oregon/Washington 

Bureau of Land Management 

Approval 

I approve the attached Northwestern and Coastal 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 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan includes land use allocations 

(Table 1), management objectives, and management direction for the planning area including the 

Coos Bay District, Eugene District, Salem District, and Swiftwater 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, and public 

motorized access guidelines. 

Table 1. Land use allocation acres within the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP. 

Land Use Allocation Acres Sub-allocation Acres

Congressionally Reserved Lands and 

National Conservation Lands 32,534

Designated and Suitable Wild 

and Scenic Rivers 20,290

Designated Wilderness and 

Wilderness Study Areas 6,365

Other 5,879

District-Designated Reserves 79,439

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern* 26,647

Lands Managed for their 

Wilderness Characteristics 4,314

Other 48,479

Harvest Land Base 247,045 Low Intensity Timber Area 61,132

Moderate Intensity Timber Area 185,913

Late-Successional Reserve 576,714

Riparian Reserve 329,936

Totals 1,265,669

* Acreage does not include Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that overlap the Harvest Land Base. 
44

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map 

NORTH

INSERT MAP HERE 

1. Planning area for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP (north half). 

46 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS Table of Contents 

...................................................................................................................................... 55

CONGRESSIONALLY RESERVED LANDS AND NATIONAL CONSERVATION LANDS .................................................................... 55DISTRICT-DESIGNATED RESERVES............................................................................................................................. 56

District-Designated Reserve – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................57District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability Classification........................................................57District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics .........................................58

HARVEST LAND BASE ............................................................................................................................................ 59

Harvest Land Base – Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA) .......................................................................................62Harvest Land Base – Moderate Intensity Timber Area (MITA) ...........................................................................63

LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE ................................................................................................................................. 64RIPARIAN RESERVE ............................................................................................................................................... 68

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 75RESOURCE PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................ 76

AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 76CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................................................... 76FIRE, FUELS, AND WILDFIRE RESPONSE...................................................................................................................... 77FISHERIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 78FOREST MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 79HYDROLOGY........................................................................................................................................................ 79INVASIVE SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................. 80LANDS, REALTY, AND ROADS .................................................................................................................................. 80LIVESTOCK GRAZING ............................................................................................................................................. 83MINERALS .......................................................................................................................................................... 84PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 86RARE PLANTS AND FUNGI....................................................................................................................................... 86RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES ......................................................................................................................... 88

Recreation and Visitor Services – Significant Caves............................................................................................89

SOIL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................................. 89SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................... 90

Sustainable Energy – Biomass Energy Development ..........................................................................................91Sustainable Energy – Wind Energy Development ...............................................................................................91Sustainable Energy – Geothermal Energy Development.....................................................................................92Sustainable Energy – Sustainable Energy Transmission Corridors......................................................................92

TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 93VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 93WILDLIFE............................................................................................................................................................ 95

Wildlife – Bald and Golden Eagles ......................................................................................................................96Wildlife – Bats .....................................................................................................................................................96Wildlife – Deer or Elk Management Areas (Salem District) ................................................................................96Wildlife – Fisher...................................................................................................................................................97Wildlife – Gray Wolf............................................................................................................................................97Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet ...............................................................................................................................97Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl.......................................................................................................................100Wildlife – North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Red Tree Vole ..........................................101Wildlife – Pacific Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Western Snowy Plover ........................................102
Resource Management Plan 

45 | Page

E

for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP (south half). 

Resource Management Plan 

47 | Page

allocatThis approved RMP includes management objectives and management direction for land use Management Objectives and Direction 

ions 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 

Management objectives are descriptions of desired outcomes for noted. direction described for resource programs apply across land use allocations, unless otherwise heading for the corresponding land use allocation. The management objectives and management 

BLM-administered lands and 

the management direction is achieving the management objectives of the RMP (effectiveness monitoring, the BLM will assess whether implementing actions in accordance with implementation actions to conduct or how to design specific implementation actions. Through 

objectives are not rules, restrictions, or requirements by which the BLM determines which eventually result from implementation of actions consistent with the RMP. As such, management resources in an RMP; the resource conditions that the BLM envisions or desires would 

Appendix B).

of the RMP (

will assess whether the BLM is implementing actions in accordance with management direction 

for the BLM-administered lands and resources. Through implementation monitoring, the BLM restrictions or requirements may be placed on those future actions to achieve the objectives set Management direction identifies where future actions may or may not be allowed and what 

Appendix B).

In Mapping of Land Use Allocations 

this approved RMP, the Harvest Land Base has two, mapped sub-allocations (Map 2), which 

have some differing management objectives and management direction. For these subapply, as well as the management objectives allocations, the management objectives and management direction of the broader allocation and management direction specific to that subArea and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. In allocation. That is, the Harvest Land Base includes two sub-allocations: Low Intensity Timber each of these sub-allocations, the management 

individual sub-allocation apply. objectives and management direction described below for both the Harvest Land Base and the 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

46 | P a g e

Table of Contents 

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 55

CONGRESSIONALLY RESERVED LANDS AND NATIONAL CONSERVATION LANDS .................................................................... 55

DISTRICT-DESIGNATED RESERVES............................................................................................................................. 56

District-Designated Reserve – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................57

District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability Classification........................................................57

District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics .........................................58

HARVEST LAND BASE ............................................................................................................................................ 59

Harvest Land Base – Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA) .......................................................................................62

Harvest Land Base – Moderate Intensity Timber Area (MITA) ...........................................................................63

LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE ................................................................................................................................. 64

RIPARIAN RESERVE ............................................................................................................................................... 68

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 75

RESOURCE PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................ 76

AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 76

CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................................................... 76

FIRE, FUELS, AND WILDFIRE RESPONSE...................................................................................................................... 77

FISHERIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 78

FOREST MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 79

HYDROLOGY........................................................................................................................................................ 79

INVASIVE SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................. 80

LANDS, REALTY, AND ROADS .................................................................................................................................. 80

LIVESTOCK GRAZING ............................................................................................................................................. 83

MINERALS .......................................................................................................................................................... 84

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 86

RARE PLANTS AND FUNGI....................................................................................................................................... 86

RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES ......................................................................................................................... 88

Recreation and Visitor Services – Significant Caves ............................................................................................89

SOIL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................................. 89

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................... 90

Sustainable Energy – Biomass Energy Development ..........................................................................................91

Sustainable Energy – Wind Energy Development ...............................................................................................91

Sustainable Energy – Geothermal Energy Development.....................................................................................92

Sustainable Energy – Sustainable Energy Transmission Corridors ......................................................................92

TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 93

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 93

WILDLIFE............................................................................................................................................................ 95

Wildlife – Bald and Golden Eagles ......................................................................................................................96

Wildlife – Bats .....................................................................................................................................................96

Wildlife – Deer or Elk Management Areas (Salem District) ................................................................................96

Wildlife – Fisher ...................................................................................................................................................97

Wildlife – Gray Wolf ............................................................................................................................................97

Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet ...............................................................................................................................97

Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl .......................................................................................................................100

Wildlife – North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Red Tree Vole ..........................................101

Wildlife – Pacific Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Western Snowy Plover ........................................102
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 has two, mapped sub-allocations (Map 2), which 

have some differing management objectives and management direction. For these suballocations, the management objectives and management direction of the broader allocation 

apply, as well as the management objectives and management direction specific to that suballocation. That is, the Harvest Land Base includes two sub-allocations: Low Intensity Timber 

Area and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. In each of these sub-allocations, the management 

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

individual sub-allocation apply. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP

INSERT MAP HERE 

NORTH

Map 2. Land use allocations and sub-allocations within the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP (north half). 

48 | Page
Resource Management Plan 

Insert Map Here 

SOUTH

Map 2. Land use allocations and sub-allocations within the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP (south half). 

49 | Page
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

50 | P a g e

In addition, the Riparian Reserve has the same management objectives across the Riparian 

Reserve, but the management direction varies among three classes of subwatersheds (Figure 1). 

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 Northwestern and 

Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP planning area. 
Resource Management Plan 

51 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map 3. Three-tier subwatershed class map within the Eugene and Salem Districts within the 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP.
52 | 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 and red tree 

vole “habitat areas” to the Late-Successional Reserve, as described in the Record of Decision. 

This approved RMP requires the future allocation of marbled murrelet occupied stands15 to the 

Late-Successional Reserve for occupied sites identified16 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). In addition, this approved 

RMP requires the future allocation of red tree vole “habitat areas”17 to the Late-Successional 

Reserve for occupied sites identified as a result of BLM red tree vole surveys within the range of 

the North Oregon Coast distinct population segment of the Oregon red tree vole north of 

Highway 20 (Figure 3). 

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. 

 

15 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. 

16 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. 

17 Red tree vole “habitat areas” are described in the management direction below. 
Resource Management Plan 

53 | Page

INSERT FIGURE HERE 

Figure 2. Range and management zones for the marbled murrelet. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

54 | Page

INSERT FIGURE HERE 

Figure 3. Range of the North Oregon Coast distinct population segment of the Oregon red tree 

vole north of Highway 20.
Resource Management Plan 

55 | 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.18

 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).

 

18 Wild and Scenic River corridors include all of the river classifications – Wild, Scenic, and Recreational. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

56 | 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. 

 Conserve and develop the scenic, natural, and historic values of the Yaquina Head 

Outstanding Natural Area, and allow the continued use of the area for the purposes for which 

it was designated. 

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,19

communication sites, quarries, buildings, and maintenance yards,20 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 (Eugene and Salem Districts; USDI BLM 2005a, 2005b).

 

19 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. 

20 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 

57 | P a g e

District-Designated Reserve – Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern21

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 

 

21 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

58 | 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 

Characteristics22

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.

 

22 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 

59 | 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. 

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. 

 Conduct regeneration harvest23 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 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. 

 

23 Construction of roads or landings does not constitute regeneration harvest. For the purpose of management 

direction for the Harvest Land Base, regeneration harvest does not include timber salvage, which has separate 

management direction. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

60 | P a g e

o Reset stand development in overly dense stands that would not respond well to 

commercial thinning. 

 Conduct commercial thinning for any of the following reasons: 

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity. 

o Adjust stand composition or dominance. 

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation. 

o Improve stand merchantability and value. 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity. 

o Create growing space for the creation or augmentation of Bureau Special Status plant 

populations. 

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration. 

 Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning 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 openings24 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. 

 During commercial harvest,25 except timber salvage, and except for safety, operational, or 

fuels reduction reasons, retain existing—

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). 

 

24 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. 

25 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 

61 | P a g e

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 2 within 1 year of 

completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If insufficient trees are available in the 

pre-harvest stand in the size class specified, use trees from the 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 2. Snag creation levels within the Harvest Land Base. 

District/

Field Office Province

Number of Snags/Acre Created

Within 1 Year of Yarding the Timber

in the Timber Sale

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Coos Bay All 1 - 1

Eugene OR Coast Range 1 - 1

Western Cascades 1 - 1

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 3 - 3

Western Cascades 3 3 6

Klamath - - -

Salem OR Coast Range 1 - 1

Western Cascades 1 - 1

 Employ site preparation methods such as mechanical treatments (e.g., machine piling), 

manual treatments (e.g., brushing), and prescribed burns to prepare newly harvested and 

inadequately stocked areas for the regeneration of desirable tree species. 

 Manually apply supplemental nutrients where necessary to enhance vigor and growth of 

desired vegetation. Do not use aerial application methods. 

 If not suitable for commercial removal, 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

62 | P a g e

 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

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.

Harvest Land Base – Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA) 

Management Objectives 

 See Harvest Land Base – Moderate Intensity Management Area management objectives. 

Management Direction

 See Harvest Land Base management direction.

 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.

 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.
Resource Management Plan 

63 | P a g e

 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. 

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.

 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. 

 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

64 | P a g e

Late-Successional Reserve 

Management Objectives 

 Maintain26 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. 

 In stands that are currently northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat, maintain nestingroosting habitat function, regardless of northern spotted owl occupancy. 

 Protect27 stands of older, structurally-complex conifer forest. Such stands are a subset of, and 

represent the highest value, northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat. 

 

26 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. 

27 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 
Resource Management Plan 

65 | P a g e

 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 

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. 

 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

66 | P a g e

 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 management28 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 openings29 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. 

 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 3 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 

 

28 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. 

29 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 

67 | P a g e

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 3. Snag creation levels within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve. 

District/

Field Office Province Snags/Acre

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Coos Bay All 5 5 10

Eugene OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 6 7 13

Western Cascades 6 25 31

Klamath 1 1 2

Salem OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

 When conducting fuels reduction or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material 

at levels specified in Table 4 post-treatment. Meet down wood levels as an average at the 

scale of the treatment area following the treatment; down wood levels need not be attained on 

every acre. 

Table 4. Down woody material retention levels when implementing fuels reduction or prescribed 

fire treatments within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve. 

District/Field Office Province Down Wood Percent Cover*

Coos Bay All 6%

Eugene OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath 2%

Salem OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

* Percent cover of down wood > 4” diameter. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

68 | P a g e

Riparian Reserve 

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 

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 or move cut trees for placement in streams 

for fish habitat restoration, 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 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 to 
Resource Management Plan 

69 | P a g e

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 site-specific 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. 

 Implement sudden oak death (SOD) eradication activities that do not exceed (at the HUC 10 

watershed scale)—

o The removal of > 30 percent canopy cover over a contiguous 0.5 mile stream length or 

removal of > 50 percent canopy cover over a contiguous 0.25 mile stream length for 

small perennial streams (active channel width < 27 feet) where a 4,600-foot separation of 

non-treatment between sequential contiguous treatments would be maintained; 

o The removal of > 50 percent canopy cover over a contiguous 0.5 mile stream length for 

medium-large perennial streams (active channel width > 27 feet) where a 4,600-foot 

separation of non-treatment between sequential contiguous treatments would be 

maintained; and 

o A limit of 3 miles of treatment for any 5-year period and 3 percent of the total Federal 

perennial stream miles. 

Implement SOD eradication activities that exceed these limitations only consistent with 

existing ESA consultation documents that address SOD eradication activities in the decision 

area. 

 Cut or tip individual live trees and move for fish habitat restoration. 

 Cut or tip individual live trees directly into the stream channel for fish habitat restoration. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

70 | P a g e

 Tree tipping: When conducting commercial thinning30 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 

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 5. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature. 

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance*

Fish-bearing streams and perennial 

streams

One site-potential tree height distance from the ordinary high 

water line or from the outer edge of the channel migration zone 

for low-gradient alluvial shifting channels, whichever is greatest, 

on each side of a stream

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Class I and II subwatersheds: One site-potential tree height 

distance from the ordinary high water line on each side of a 

stream

Class III subwatersheds: 50 feet from the ordinary high water 

line on each side of a stream

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as 

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails

The extent of the unstable area; where there is a stable area 

between such an unstable area and a stream, and the unstable 

area has the potential to deliver material such as sediment and 

logs to the stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the stream 

to include the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area

Lakes, natural ponds 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 

 

30 In the context of management direction for the Riparian Reserve, commercial thinning means stand thinning in 

which any of the cut trees are removed from the stand for timber volume. Commercial thinning in this context does 

not include individual tree 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. 
Resource Management Plan 

71 | P a g e

Table 6. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class I subwatersheds. 

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree 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 3 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—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree cutting or tipping for restoration or to meet the tree-tipping management 

direction associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Middle Zone (50–120 feet)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable 

wood in the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Remove cut or tipped trees only as needed for safety or operational reasons, or to meet the treetipping management direction described above.
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

72 | 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 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 3 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 7. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class II subwatersheds 

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree 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. 
Resource Management Plan 

73 | P a g e

When conducting commercial thinning, 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 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—

 SOD treatments; and

 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 3 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

74 | P a g e

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. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class III subwatersheds 

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree 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 3 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—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree cutting or tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management 

direction associated with outer zone commercial thinning.
Resource Management Plan 

75 | 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

76 | 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 9.
Resource Management Plan 

77 | P a g e

Table 9. 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

78 | 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 Interface31

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. 

 

31 The Wildland Urban Interface includes wildland developed areas. 
Resource Management Plan 

79 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

80 | 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. 

 Prevent the introduction and spread of sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) infections. 

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).

 Apply state-of-the art, integrated pest management prescriptions for the treatment of all 

identified sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) infection sites. 

Lands, Realty, and Roads 

Management Objectives 

 Make land tenure adjustments to facilitate the management of resources and enhance public 

resource values. 

 Provide legal access to BLM-administered lands and facilities to support resource 

management programs. 

 Provide needed rights-of-way, permits, leases, and easements over BLM-administered lands 

in a manner that is consistent with Federal and State laws. 

 Protect lands that have important resource values or substantial levels of investment by 

withdrawing them, where necessary, from the implementation of nondiscretionary public 

land and mineral laws. 
Resource Management Plan 

81 | P a g e

 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. 

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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

82 | P a g e

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. 

 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-10

through Table D-13). 
Resource Management Plan 

83 | P a g e

 Expand existing communication sites and develop new sites. Prioritize the use of existing 

sites and facilities for accommodating the need for additional capacity. 

 Construct new permanent or temporary roads, which may include major culverts and bridges, 

where needed to meet resource management objectives, to established BLM engineering 

design standards. Apply road location, design, and construction BMPs as needed (Appendix 

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 (Coos Bay District) 

 Lands within the grazing allotments identified on Table 10 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.32 The BLM may authorize grazing through 

 

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

establish grazing districts, or additions thereto and/or to modify the boundaries thereof of vacant, inappropriate and 

unreserved lands from any part of the public domain . . . which in his opinion are chiefly valuable for grazing and 

raising forage crops[.] . . .” The Act also provides for classification of lands for particular uses.
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

84 | P a g e

management agreements, nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits 

consistent with the grazing regulations. 

Table 10. Allotments unavailable for livestock grazing, Coos Bay District. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land

(Acres)

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs)

Bullock 20006 6 12

Kellogg 20007 2 6

Middle Creek 20001 5 5

New River 30001 530 97

Totals 543 120

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 

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. 
Resource Management Plan 

85 | P a g e

 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 Resources33

 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. 

 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. 

 

33 The Sustainable Energy section addresses Geothermal Resources. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

86 | P a g e

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. 

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, 
Resource Management Plan 

87 | P a g e

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. 

 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

88 | P a g e

 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. 

 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. 
Resource Management Plan 

89 | P a g e

Recreation and Visitor Services – Significant Caves34

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. 

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 

 

34 The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 describes significant caves. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

90 | P a g e

amelioration to reduce the total detrimental soil disturbance to < 20 percent of the harvest 

unit area. Detrimental soil disturbance can occur from erosion, loss of organic matter, severe 

heating to seeds or microbes, soil displacement, or compaction. 

 Avoid road construction and timber harvest on unstable slopes where there is a high 

probability to cause a shallow, rapidly moving landslide that would likely damage 

infrastructure (e.g., BLM or privately owned roads, State highways, or residences) or 

threaten public safety. 

 Do not till soils where tillage will cause soils to become unstable due to increasing the soil 

moisture content. 

Sustainable Energy

Management Objectives 

 Develop sustainable energy resources to the maximum extent 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. 
Resource Management Plan 

91 | P a g e

o Design facilities used for sustainable energy harvesting, conversion, and transmission to 

discourage the perching or nesting by birds. 

o Integrate facilities used for sustainable energy harvesting, conversion and transmission 

with the surrounding landscape including minimizing the profile of ancillary structures, 

burial of cables, prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting. 

o Provide secondary containment for all on-site hazardous materials and waste storage, 

including fuel. 

Sustainable Energy – Biomass Energy Development 

Management Objectives 

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives.

Management Direction 

 Offer slash in excess of soil stabilization needs as biomass energy feedstock. 

Sustainable Energy – Wind Energy Development 

Management Objectives 

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives

Management Direction 

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other 

resource uses. Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

o Lock turbine tower access doors to limit public access. 

o Locate turbines away from landscape features known to attract raptors. 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

92 | P a g e

o Light only a portion of the turbines within a wind project; fix all pilot warning lights to 

fire synchronously. 

o Do not add any wildlife habitat enhancements or improvements (e.g., ponds, guzzlers, 

rock piles, brush piles, bird nest boxes, nesting platforms, wildlife food plots) that would 

attract small mammals to wind energy facilities. 

o Use only shielded, separated, or insulated electrical conductors that minimize 

electrocution risk to avian wildlife. 

Sustainable Energy – Geothermal Energy Development 

Management Objectives 

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives.

Management Direction 

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other 

resource uses. Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

o Minimize impacts to livestock operations from geothermal energy drilling and 

development. 

o Incorporate certified weed-free mulch into the reclamation of the land disturbed during 

the development of geothermal resources. 

o Raise above-ground piping on-site for sufficient wildlife passage. 

o Isolate any liquid that is at elevated temperatures or contains contaminants that are toxic 

or harmful to fur or feathers from wildlife access with fencing, netting or complete 

enclosure. 

Sustainable Energy – Sustainable Energy Transmission Corridors 

Management Objectives 

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives.

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 

93 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

94 | 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 

95 | 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. 

 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.

 Prior to implementing actions that could result in habitat modification or species disturbance 

in habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly, Oregon silverspot butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot 

butterfly, streaked horned lark, Lower Columbia River distinct population segment of 

Columbian white-tailed deer, or western snowy plover, conduct surveys to determine species 

presence. 

 Manage Fender’s blue butterfly, Oregon silverspot butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, 

streaked horned lark, Lower Columbia River distinct population segment of Columbian 

white-tailed deer, and western snowy plover 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 Fender’s blue butterfly, Oregon silverspot 

butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, streaked horned lark, Lower Columbia River 

distinct population segment of Columbian white-tailed deer, or western snowy plover, except 

when done in accordance with an approved recovery plan, conservation agreement, species 

management plan, survey and monitoring protocol, or critical habitat rule, and when the 

action is necessary for the conservation of the species. 

 Manage designated critical habitat for the western snowy plover consistent with recovery 

plans, conservation agreements, designated critical habitat, and species-specific and projectspecific conservation measures developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Do not 

approve, fund, or implement actions that would adversely affect the designated critical 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

96 | P a g e

habitat of the western snowy plover, except when done in accordance with an approved 

recovery plan, conservation agreement, species management plan, survey and monitoring 

protocol, or critical habitat rule, and when the action is necessary for the conservation of the 

species. 

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 (Salem District) 

 Restrict motor vehicle use within designated deer or elk management areas between 

November 1 and April 15. Allow administrative use of roads, as needed, on a year-round 

basis. 
Resource Management Plan 

97 | P a g e

 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. 

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 except when taking actions that are necessary to treat or protect stands from sudden 

oak death. Take actions necessary to treat or protect stands from sudden oak death, including 

actions that may adversely affect denning fisher. For actions other than those necessary to 

treat or protect stands from sudden oak death, 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. 

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.

Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet 

 Except as stated under Option 3, below, and except when needed to protect human safety 

and property, prohibit activities that disrupt35 marbled murrelet nesting at occupied sites 

 

35 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

98 | P a g e

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. 

 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.

36 The 

analysis area consists of the proposed project and lands within 726 feet37 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 

stand38 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

 

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. 

36 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.

37 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. 

38 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. 
Resource Management Plan 

99 | P a g e

o Construction of linear and nonlinear rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding

corridors, or other facilities

 As needed to protect the overall health of the occupied stand, the following 

activities would be implemented as long as the stand continues to support 

nesting: 

o Wildfire suppression

o Fuels reduction

o Insect and disease control

o Other activities to improve the health of the stand or adjacent stands

Option 2. Exclude nesting structure from the project area39 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, 

except when taking actions that are necessary to treat or protect stands from sudden 

oak death. Take actions necessary to treat or protect stands from sudden oak death, 

including actions that may adversely affect nesting marbled murrelets. 

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.

 

39 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

100 | P a g e

Option 4. Protect nesting structure within the project area by doing all of the 

following: 

 If the nesting structure is within 20 miles of the coast—

o Between April 1 and August 5, stand modification would not occur; 

o Between August 6 and September 15, stand modification activities would 

not begin until 2 hours after sunrise and would conclude 2 hours before 

sunset. 

 Design projects in accordance with Late-Successional Reserve management 

direction. 

 Do not remove or damage nesting structure. 

 Design habitat modifications that occur within one site-potential tree height of 

nesting structure to protect and improve future habitat conditions. Examples 

include—

o Protecting the roots of trees with nesting structure; 

o Removing suppressed trees; 

o Removing trees that might damage nesting structure during wind storms; 

or 

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. 
Resource Management Plan 

101 | P a g e

Wildlife – North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the 

Red Tree Vole 

 Survey proposed projects within the range of the North Oregon Coast distinct population 

segment of the Oregon red tree vole north of Highway 20 (shown in Figure 3) that could 

degrade or remove habitat using a protocol with a defined methodology that includes 

detection probabilities. Habitat that requires surveys prior to modification includes stands 

containing Douglas-fir, grand fir, Sitka spruce, or western hemlock and meet the following: 

o Stands with a QMD ≥ 16” based on the Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Version 

3.0 (Huff et al. 2012, p. 9) and 

o Either (a) conifer-dominated stands that are ≥ 80 years old or (b) conifer-dominated stands 

that have ≥ 60 percent canopy cover and have ≥ 2 superdominant conifer trees40 per acre 

on average across the stand 

 The following types of projects are exempt from the above direction to survey for red tree 

voles prior to project implementation: 

o Projects in stands < 80 years old 

o Culvert replacements on roads that are in use and part of the road system; culvert removals 

if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned 

o Riparian and stream improvement projects where the work is riparian planting, obtaining 

material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream 

improvement work is the placement of large wood, channel and flood plain reconstruction, 

or removal of channel diversions 

o Portions of hazardous fuels treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a 

hazardous fuels treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to 

survey requirements except for projects in stands < 80 years old 

 If surveys north of Highway 20 indicate red tree voles from the North Oregon Coast Distinct 

Population Segment occupy that habitat, establish a “habitat area” for each cluster of nests 

that are not isolated from one another by more than 330 feet and include at least one active 

nest. 

o Establish “habitat areas” at least 10 acres in size and include 1.0 acre per nest if there are 

more than 10 red tree vole nests (e.g., establish a 15-acre habitat area for a cluster with 15 

red tree vole nests). 

o Within “habitat areas,” do not remove or modify nest trees. 

o Within “habitat areas,” do not create barriers or strong filters to red tree vole movement 

through the canopy by—

 Maintaining at least 75 percent canopy cover within “habitat areas”;

 Retaining all nest trees (including active and inactive nest trees); and 

 Retaining trees with crowns directly interlocking the crowns of nest trees. 

Allow routine maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities in “habitat areas”

(including the felling of hazard trees) that does not meet the above criteria. 

 South of Highway 20 within the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment, establish 

and manage “habitat areas” as described above for known sites of red tree voles in the LateSuccessional Reserve and Riparian Reserve. 

 

40 Superdominant conifer trees typically have crowns that extend above the general stand canopy and have large 

branches in the upper canopy of the dominant trees in the stand. Superdominant trees may be remnant trees from an 

earlier cohort, or they may be trees from the dominant cohort that were more open grown and have become much 

larger than the rest of the trees in the stand. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

102 | P a g e

Wildlife – Pacific Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Western 

Snowy Plover 

 Do not authorize or construct additional discretionary roads and trails within designated 

critical habitat or within western snowy plover habitat. 

 Restore snowy plover nesting habitat. 

 Restrict the timing and location of beach access or activities to avoid disruption of normal 

snowy plover nesting and nesting behaviors. 

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. 

Huff, R., K. Van Norman, C. Hughes, R. Davis, and K. Mellen-Mclean. 2012. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Version 

3.0. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington, and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. 52 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/spRedTreeVole-v3-0-2012-11.pdf. 

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. 

---. 1998. BLM Handbook H-8270-1 – General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/coop_agencies/paleontology_library.Par.7

8212.File.dat/h8270-1.pdf. 

---. 2005a. Record of Decision: Integrated Pest Management Program, BLM Travis Tyrell Seed Orchard, Lorane, Lane County, 

OR. BLM Eugene District, Springfield, OR. 56 pp. 

---. 2005b. Record of Decision: Integrated Pest Management Program, BLM Walter H. Horning Tree Seed Orchard, BLM Salem 

District, Salem, OR. 

---. 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. 
103 | 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,41 or completing a specific land exchange. This approved RMP does not 

include any implementation decisions. 

 

41 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

104 | 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 2012a). 
Appendix A – Guidance for use of the Resource Management Plan 

105 | 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 take42 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. 

 

42 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). 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

106 | 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 

107 | P a g e

Management of Northern Spotted Owl Known Sites Associated 

with the Harvest Land Base43

Across the total planning area in 2013, an estimated 175 known sites occurred in the Harvest 

Land Base under the approved RMP. In addition, the Harvest Land Base under the approved 

RMP will 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 will 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 will44 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 currently45 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 

 

43 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. 

44 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 will or will not take are solely 

explanations of how the BLM will use the approved RMP and do not constitute additional requirements beyond the 

management direction described in this RMP. 

45 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

108 | 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 

109 | 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 reoccupied 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, 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

110 | 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 

111 | 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, 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

112 | 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 BLM 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 

113 | 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 and 

red tree vole “habitat areas” to the Late-Successional Reserve, as described earlier in this section. 

The future identification of marbled murrelet occupied stands and red tree vole “habitat areas” 

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 LateSuccessional 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 and red tree voles (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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

114 | 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. 
115 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

116 | 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 

117 | 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. 

The BLM will conduct monitoring of employment effects on low-income populations in Coos 

and Curry Counties.46 The Proposed RMP/Final EIS identified that the approved RMP will have 

 

46 This monitoring component is not effectiveness monitoring in the same sense as the other components described 

in this section, in that it will not be directly evaluating whether the RMP is effectively meeting its objectives. 

Instead, this monitoring will evaluate whether the employment effects in Coos and Curry Counties identified in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS are occurring as analyzed and will identify any potential mitigation measures that would 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

118 | P a g e

disproportionately negative employment effects on low-income populations in Coos and Curry 

counties. Although the BLM will monitor the level and type of timber harvest, payments to 

counties, and changes in resource conditions, these measurements will not tell the BLM how 

low-income populations are being affected. The BLM will conduct monitoring, that will identify 

and track appropriate indicators of social and economic conditions. The BLM will conduct 

primary research, such as focus groups or interviews with community residents, leaders, and 

others, to supplement and interpret the secondary data. The results of the monitoring will allow 

the BLM and its partners to identify environmental justice impacts that have not been mitigated 

through the RMP as implemented or by other means, pointing the way toward potential 

mitigation actions. 

Implementation Monitoring 

The implementation monitoring plan for the 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., Coos Bay District or Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg 

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 will 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 

 

be revealed by the monitoring of effects, such as changes to the intensity or extent of management actions under 

specific resource programs. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

119 | P a g e

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, would 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

120 | 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 3)?

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 4) 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. 

Riparian Reserve 

M3. 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. 

M4. 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. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

121 | P a g e

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 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. 

M6. 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. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

M7. 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 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. 

M8. Monitoring Question: Has the amount of down woody material described in the 

management direction (Table 4) 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

122 | P a g e

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

Harvest Land Base 

M9. Monitoring Question: Has the ASQ 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. 

M10. Monitoring Question: Have the number of snags been created in the appropriate size 

classes as described in the management direction (Table 2)?

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. 

M11. 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 – Moderate Intensity Timber Area and Low 

Intensity Timber Area 

M12. 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. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

123 | P a g e

M13. 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 

M14. 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 

M15. 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. 

Rare Plants and Fungi 

M16. 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. 

M17. 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

124 | P a g e

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Including American Indian 

Traditional Uses 

M18. 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. 

M19. 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. 

M20. 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. 

M21: 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. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

125 | P a g e

Energy and Minerals 

M22. 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 

M23. 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.

M24. 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.

M25. 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.

M26. 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

126 | P a g e

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

Hazardous Materials 

M27. 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. 

M28. 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. 

Invasive Species – Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease (Phytophthora 

lateralis) 

M29. Monitoring Question: Are General Direction requirements from the Record of Decision 

and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest 

Oregon, Coos Bay, Medford, and Roseburg Districts (USDI BLM 2004) for maintaining and 

reducing the risk of Phytophthora lateralis infections being implemented? 

Monitoring Scope: Describe the general activities accomplished for maintaining and reducing the 

risk of Phytophthora lateralis infections, which may include modifying Port-Orford-cedar bough 

collection permits to include prevention practices, applying adaptive management, community 

outreach, and eradication activities. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

M30. Monitoring Question: Are project-specific management actions applied as required in 

the Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of PortOrford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Coos Bay, Medford, and Roseburg Districts (USDI BLM 

2004) when a need is indicated by using the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key on page 32 of the PortOrford-cedar ROD/RMP Amendment? 

Monitoring Scope: Describe where Port-Orford-cedar root disease management actions have 

been incorporated into project-specific implementation monitoring programs. Port-Orford-cedar 

root disease management actions could include seasonal restrictions, using uninfested water, unit 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

127 | P a g e

scheduling, designating access routes, and public education through signage in site-specific 

project design and implementation. 

Monitoring Interval: Annual. 

Lands, Realty, Access, and Transportation 

M31. 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. 

Recreation 

M32. 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 5-year period 100 percent of the areas will be monitored. 

Soils 

M33. 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

128 | P a g e

Visual Resource Management 

M34. 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. 

Wilderness Characteristics 

M35. 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. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

M36. 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. 

M37. 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. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

129 | P a g e

Monitoring Interval: Annual; change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 

Wildlife 

M38. 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. 

M39. 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 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

130 | P a g e

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. 

M40. Monitoring Question: Have BLM actions avoided adverse effects to Fender’s blue 

butterfly, Oregon silverspot butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, streaked horned lark, 

Lower Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Columbian white-tailed deer, or western 

snowy plover, except when done in accordance with an approved recovery plan, conservation 

agreement, species management plan, survey and monitoring protocol, or critical habitat rule, 

and when the action is necessary for the conservation of the species? 

Monitoring Scope: Evaluate at least 20 percent of actions that ‘may affect’ Fender’s blue 

butterfly, Oregon silverspot butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, streaked horned lark, 

Lower Columbia River distinct population segment of Columbian white-tailed deer, or western 

snowy plover.

Monitoring Interval: Annual – change interval to once every 3 years if 3 consecutive years of 

monitoring show 100 percent compliance. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

131 | 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 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

132 | P a g e

Harvest Land Base 

R6. 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-1 and Table B-2 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-1. Decade one modeled acres by treatment type by Harvest Land Base sub-allocation. 

Decade 1

Treatment Type‡

Coos Bay Eugene Roseburg Salem Grand

Total

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

Commercial Thinning* 840 430 1,270 3,000 420 3,420 3,330 4,270 7,600 6,310 910 7,220 19,510

Selection Harvest* - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Regeneration Harvest* 2,620 510 3,130 9,460 980 10,440 1,780 2,420 4,200 11,120 1,100 12,230 30,000

Timber Salvage Harvest* - - - - - - 190 - 190 - - - 190

Reforestation†3,320 650 3,970 12,580 1,300 13,890 2,460 3,030 5,490 13,350 1,320 14,670 38,020

Manual Cutting 4,450 870 5,320 8,510 880 9,400 1,530 1,890 3,420 11,790 1,170 12,960 31,100

Mulching - - - - - - 1,340 1,650 2,980 - - - 2,980

Tubing 1,810 350 2,160 9,460 980 10,440 1,360 1,670 3,030 5,560 550 6,110 21,740

Shading - - - 950 100 1,040 - - - - - - 1,040

Trapping - - - - - - - - - 1,670 170 1,830 1,830

Scalping - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pre-commercial Thinning 3,110 810 3,920 10,900 1,200 12,100 1,980 2,880 4,860 12,870 1,150 14,010 34,890

Pruning 260 50 310 1,890 200 2,090 120 150 260 560 60 610 3,270

Stand Conversion 100 20 120 - - - - - - - - - 120

* 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 

133 | P a g e

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

Decade 2

Treatment Type‡

Coos Bay Eugene Roseburg Salem Grand

Total

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

MITA

(Acres)

LITA

(Acres)

Total

(Acres)

Commercial Thinning* 2,350 520 2,870 11,300 1,100 12,400 1,520 4,950 6,460 13,590 1,590 15,180 36,910

Selection Harvest* - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Regeneration Harvest* 1,680 500 2,180 4,450 770 5,220 2,170 3,010 5,180 8,750 980 9,730 22,310

Timber Salvage Harvest* - - - - - - 80 580 660 - - - 660

Reforestation†2,140 630 2,770 5,920 1,020 6,940 2,810 4,490 7,300 10,500 1,170 11,680 28,690

Manual Cutting 2,860 850 3,710 4,010 690 4,700 1,750 2,800 4,550 9,280 1,040 10,310 23,270

Mulching - - - - - - 1,530 2,440 3,970 - - - 3,970

Tubing 1,160 340 1,510 4,450 770 5,220 1,550 2,480 4,030 4,380 490 4,870 15,630

Shading - - - 450 80 520 - - - - - - 520

Trapping - - - - - - - - - 1,310 150 1,460 1,460

Scalping - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pre-commercial Thinning 1,680 500 2,180 4,450 770 5,220 2,250 3,590 5,840 8,750 980 9,730 22,970

Pruning 170 50 220 890 150 1,040 140 220 350 440 50 490 2,100

Stand Conversion 70 20 90 - - - - - - - - - 90

* 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 

R7. 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 

R8. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of biomass utilization projects. Reporting 

will be annual. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

R9. 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

134 | 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. 

R10. 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. 

R11. 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. 

R12. 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.

R13. 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 

R14. 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. 

Invasive Species 

R15. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of acres of manual, mechanical, cultural, 

chemical, and biological treatments used to manage invasive species infestations. Reporting will

be annual. 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

135 | P a g e

R16. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of acres of invasive species inventories. 

Reporting will be annual. 

R17. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of acres of inventory, manual, 

mechanical, cultural, and chemical treatments used to manage sudden oak death (Phytophthora 

ramorum) infections. Reporting will be annual. 

Socioeconomics 

R18. 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. 

R19. Program Reporting Item: Report receipts from timber sales, special forest products, 

recreation, and permits. Reporting will be annual. 

R20. Program Reporting Item: Report appropriations; number of full time and temporary 

employees; and major new facility developments or improvements. Reporting will be annual. 

Recreation 

R21. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of service-oriented and outreach 

programs, including interpretation and education provided to visitors. Reporting will be annual. 

R22. 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. 

R23. 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 

R24. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of permits for harvest and collection of 

special forest products. Reporting will be annual. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

136 | P a g e

Soils 

R25. 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 

R26. 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-3). Reporting will be annual. 

Table B-3. 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

R27. 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-4). 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-4. 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

R28. 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., 
Appendix B – Monitoring Plan 

137 | P a g 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-5). Reporting will be annual. 

Table B-5. 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

R29. Program Reporting Item: Report the survey effort for the red tree vole north of 

Highway 20 within the North Oregon Coast DPS and the outcomes of that survey effort. For 

each survey polygon, report: acres of survey, year surveys were conducted, age of stand at time 

of survey, protocol used for the survey, number of active or inactive red tree vole sites 

discovered, and the total acreage of habitat areas established associated with the discoveries. For 

consistency, an example table format is presented below (Table B-6). Reporting will be annual. 

Table B-6. Survey reporting for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole. 

Survey 

Polygon 

(Name)

Survey 

Area 

(Acres)

Survey 

Date 

(Years)

Stand 

Age 

(Years)

Protocol 

Used

Red Tree Vole Discoveries

Active 

Sites 

(Number)

Inactive 

Sites 

(Number)

None 

(Number)

Total 

Habitat 

Area 

(Acres)

Sample 

Project 000 20XX 000 Citation 000 000 000 000

R30. Program Reporting Item (Coos Bay District only): Report number, type, and acres (as 

appropriate) of restoration actions for the western snowy plover. Reporting will be annual. 

R31. Program Reporting Item (Salem District only): Report number and acres of deer and 

elk forage planting projects within deer and elk management areas. Reporting will be annual. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

138 | 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. 51 pp. 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. 100 

pp. 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. 191 pp. 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. 84 pp. 

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. 90 pp. 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report/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. 2004. Final - Supplemental EIS Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon. SEIS. Portland, OR. 

---. 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. 82 pp. 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report/NWFP%20-%20Strengthing%20the%20FederalTribal%20Relationship%20WEB.pdf. 
139 | 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.47 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 uses48 will 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 

 

47 The ODEQ has granted Designated Management Agency status to the BLM through a Memorandum of 

Understanding (ODEQ and USDI BLM 2011). 

48 Beneficial uses are defined in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS), Chapter 468B Water Quality, and Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR), Division 41. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

140 | P a g e

allocation or across the decision area), the BLM presents the measure as management direction.49

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 the 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 

 

49 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 

141 | 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-11 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 

OARs 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

142 | P a g e

• Fire and fuels management 

• Surface source water for drinking water 

• Recreation management 

• Minerals (salable) development 

• Spill prevention and abatement 

• Restoration activities 

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 

143 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

144 | 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 

145 | 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 (USDC 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

146 | 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 

147 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

148 | 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 

149 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

150 | 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 

151 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

152 | 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 

153 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

154 | 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 is 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 

155 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

156 | 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 

157 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

158 | 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 

159 | 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.50

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

 

50 Soil moisture is the ratio of the weight of the water in the soil to the weight of the solids, expressed as a 

percentage. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

160 | 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 91–92.

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 

161 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

162 | 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 fuels 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

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
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

163 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

F 03

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 04

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 05

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 06 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 07

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 08

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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

164 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Mechanical and Manual Fuels Treatments

F 09

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 10

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 11

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 12

Limit fire lines inside Riparian Reserve. 

Where hand constructed fire lines are 

necessary in Riparian Reserve, angle the 

approach, where feasible, rather than have 

it perpendicular to the Riparian Reserve.

Limit heavy equipment to slopes less than 

35 percent.

Locate fire lines to minimize directing 

water into waterbodies, wetlands, 

headwalls, or areas of instability.

Use erosion control techniques such as 

tilling, waterbarring, or debris placement 

on fire lines when there is potential for 

soil erosion and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands. Space 

waterbars as shown in Table 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
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

165 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

F 13

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

F 14

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 15

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 16

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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

166 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Emergency Stabilization or Rehabilitation

F 17

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 

167 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Post-Fire Road Repair

F 18

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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

168 | 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 

Program51

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 

Program52

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 

Program52

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 

Program52

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 

Program52

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)

 

51 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/swcountymap.htm
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

169 | 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 

Program52

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 

Program53

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)

 

52 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/swcountymap.htm
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

170 | 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 

171 | 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 (USDC 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

OAR 635-412-0035–ODFW, Fish Passage 

Criteria

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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

172 | 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 

173 | 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)
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

174 | P a g e

Salable Mineral Material Disposal 

Table C-9. 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
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

175 | P a g e

Spill Prevention and Abatement 

Table C-10. 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

176 | 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
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

177 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

178 | 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-11. 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
Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

179 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

180 | P a g e

References 

Gesford, A. L., and J. A. Anderson. 2006. Environmentally sensitive maintenance for dirt and gravel roads. Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation. 

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/EnvironmentallySensitiveMaintenance_DirtGravelRoads.pdf. 

Johansen, K., R. Copstead, and J. Moll. 1997. Relief culverts. Water/road interaction technology series. Research Report 9777 

1812-SDTDC. USDA FS, San Dimas Technology and Development Program, Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road/. 

ODEQ. 2015. Oregon Administrative rules. Water Pollution, Division 41. Water quality standards, beneficial uses, policies and 

criteria for Oregon. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_041.html. 

ODEQ and USDI BLM. 2011. Memorandum of understanding between United States Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, and State of Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality to meet State and Federal water quality rules and 

regulations. Agreement Number BLM-OR932-1013 and DEQ Agreement # 040-11/I, Subject Function Code 1786, 7240 

(P), April 2011. 12 pp. 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. 12 pp. 

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. 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. 
181 | 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 
182 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map NORTH INSERT MAP HERE 

D-1. Right-of-way avoidance areas and right-of-way exclusion areas (north half). 

184 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

In accordance with the FLPMA and other laws, Executive Orders, and Departmental and Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria 

BLM

acquisition of lands or interests in lands. The lists 

policy, the BLM will consider the following factors in evaluating opportunities for disposal or 

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 



conditions, or lifestyles Significance of decision in stabilizing or enhancing business, social, and economic 

 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 

plansFacilitates implementation of other aspects of the approved resource management 

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 

habitat 

Secures Threatened or Endangered or Bureau Sensitive plant and animal species 

 Protects riparian areas and wetlands  Contributes to biodiversity  Protects high-quality scenery 



values Enhances the opportunity for new or emerging public land uses or public resource 



management intensity that are viable under economic program efficiency standards Facilitates management practices, uses, scales of operation, or degrees of 



Register of Historic Places where non-Federal sites exist for the proposed use Protects significant cultural resources and sites eligible for inclusion on the National 
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

183 | Page

E 

ay avoidance areas and right-of-way exclusion areas (south half). 

Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

185 | Page

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: 



economic development, such as industrial, residential, or agricultural development Suitability for purposes including but not limited to community expansion or 

 Lands of limited public resource value 

Federal agencies or State and local governments Lands that are difficult for the BLM to manage and unsuitable for transfer to other 



values where the public values to be acquired outweigh the values to be exchanged Lands that aid in aggregating or repositioning other public lands or public land resource 

O&C Land Exchange Criteria

evaluating the feasibility of an O&C land exchange: 321. The BLM will consider the following forest management and related factors when An O&C land exchange is an exchange within the O&C area as delineated in Public Law 105-



allocations will be considered favorably Land exchanges that maintain the existing balance between the various land use 



management capabilities of both non-FLand exchanges that enhance public resource values or improve land patterns and 

ederal and BLM-administered lands within the 

conflict planning area by consolidating ownership and reducing the potential for land use 



protection. exchanged for lands, which will be managed solely for a single use, such as species considered. The O&C lands designated for timber production will generally not be lands that require extensive post-acquisition management will not be favorably 

Offered lands that are primarily suitable for agriculture, business, and home sites, or 



the proponent, the proposed exchange will not be considered favorably. Generally, where cutting rights are reserved on existing and future timber stands by 

interests in lands as well. counties is prohibited by regulations in 43 CFR 2200. This restriction applies to timber and other The exchange of O&C and CBWR lands specifically for lands located outside of the 18 O&C 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

184 | 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 
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

185 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

186 | P a g e

Land Withdrawals 

Table D-1 through Table D-5 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. 
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

187 | 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 Coos Bay District. 

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 50856 PLO 7215

T. 19 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 1 40.43 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 28 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 27 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 29 2.26 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F Revoke patented parcel

T. 30 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 12 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 32 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 4 71.75 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 33 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 31 155.16 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 34 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 6 40.7 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 34 S., R. 14 W., Sec.33 162.05 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 34 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 34 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 34 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 1 7.92 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 4 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 5 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 34 34 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 39 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 23 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 41 S., R. 13 W., Sec. 6 2.56 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 41 S., R. 13 W., Sec. 7 0.32 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

Total Acres for OR 50856: 757.15

ORE 

016183C PLO 3869

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 31 81.29 Smith River Falls Recreation Site BLM B C - Developed Sites

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 33 3.5 Vincent Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 2 78.86 Loon Lake Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 4 60 Park Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 18 20 Big Tree Recreation Site BLM B R

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 9 80 Bear Creek Recreation Site BLM B R

T. 32 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 12 120 Sixes River Recreation Site BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 016183C: 443.65

OR 23558 SO 

12/31/1930 T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 1 51.51 Rec Wdl. No. 43 East Shore Recreation Site BLM B C - Developed Site

OR 

19291A PLO 3530 T. 27 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 17–20 590 Cherry Creek Natural Area BLM B

C - Protecting site, for research 

opportunities

OR 6398 PL 181

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 35 120 LaVerne County Park BLM/Coos Co. B C - Developed County Park

T. 27 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 35 160 Rock Prairie County Park BLM/Coos Co. B

C - Potential for County Park 

Development

T. 28 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 7 87.72 Judge Hamilton County Park BLM/Coos Co. B

C - Potential for County Park 

Development

T. 28 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 5 80 Middle Creek County Park BLM/Coos Co. B

C - Potential for County Park 

Development
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

188 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 28 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 11 80 Frona County Park BLM/Coos Co. B C - Developed County Park

Total Acres for OR 6398: 527.72

OR 21318 SO 

6/12/1907

T. 40 S., R. 13 W., Secs. 

11, 14 320.75 Potential National Park BLM B

R - Not developed; No planned 

development; No public support 

for establishment of park or 

monument.

OR 19231 EO 

11/24/1903 T. 22 S., R. 13 W., Sec. 14 71.1 Umpqua Jetty Maintenance COE B

R - COE indicated a desire to 

relinquish

OR 21901 EO 

8/23/1895 T. 22 S., R. 13 W., Sec. 13 130 Umpqua River Light Station USCG B

R - USCG indicated a desire to 

relinquish

OR 4011 EO 

7/14/1884

T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 2, 

3

5.1 Bar Watch Administrative Site USCG B C

OR 19227 EO 

7/14/1884 T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 2 2.43 Military Facility US Navy B C

OR 22094 EO 

6/14/1876 T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 4 21.58 Sub surface only/Cape Arago Lighthouse USCG R

ORE 

012693 PLO 5490 All Public Domain lands 50,329 Multiple Use Management BLM

Surface 

closed to Ag 

laws

C

OR 54142 PLO 7436

T. 25 S., R. 13 W., Secs. 4–

8, 18, 19 

See total 

acres 

below

North Spit Rec Area and ACEC BLM Closed to the 

mining laws C

T. 25 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 

12, 13, 23–26 North Spit Rec Area and ACEC BLM Closed to the mining laws C

Total Acres for OR 54142: 1,779.27

OR 24294 PL 95-450

T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 5, 

8, 17–19 15 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 27 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 19 8

Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

T. 28 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 

25, 26, 35 3.56 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 29 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 2 4

Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

T. 31 S., R. 16 W., Secs. 

24, 25, 34, 35 30 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 32 S., R. 16 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 10, 17, 21, 28-31 54 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 33 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 6, 

8, 21, 22, 33 38 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 34 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 30 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

189 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 34 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 31 31.83 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

T. 36 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 2, 

11, 15-17 32 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 

30, 31 12 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 38 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 1 16 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

T. 39 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 6, 

8, 16, 17 30 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 40 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 4, 

16, 22, 26 38 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

Total Acres for OR 24294: Not 

available

OR 711 PLO 4395

T. 28 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 25

See total 

acres 

below

Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 31 S., R. 16 W., Secs. 

24, 25, 34 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 31 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 35 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 32 S., R. 16 W., Secs. 

17, 21, 28–31 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 33 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 

21, 22, 33 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 34 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 4 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 36 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 2, 

11 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 38 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 1 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 

30, 31 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 39 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 6, 

8, 16, 17 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 40 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 4, 

22 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

Total Acres for OR 711: 222.56

OR 50874 PLO 7170 T. 29 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 

35, 36 70.9 Lost Lake BLM B C

OR 45401 PLO 6967 T. 30 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 10, 11, 15, 21, 28, 32, 33 963.38 New River ACEC BLM B C

OR 51194 PLO 7170 T. 31 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 7, 

8

111.48 Floras Lake BLM B C

OR 51891 PLO 7246 T. 32 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 6 44.48 Edson Creek Recreation Site BLM B C
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

190 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 24293 PL 91-504 T. 40 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 22 21 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

OR 22376 EO 7035 T. 40 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 35 21 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS B C

OR 25306 PLO 6287 Unsurveyed islands rocks 

reefs Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

OR 11517 EO 

5/6/1935

Unsurveyed islands rocks 

reefs 100 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge Addition USFWS B C

OR 19130 SO of 

4/30/1921

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/PSC 1 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 6, 

8, 12, 14 165.26 Water Power Potential/PSC 1 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19130: Not 

available

OR 19140 SO of 

6/1/1926

T. 27 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 31 115.35 Water Power Potential/PSC 147 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 35 236.72 Water Power Potential/PSC 147 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 5, 6 169.26 Water Power Potential/PSC 147 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 1 320 Water Power Potential/PSC 147 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19140: 841.33

OR 19144 SO of 

7/19/1926

T. 22 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 4*, 

7, 9, 17, 21 276.1 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 7–9 109.44 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 13 80 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19144: 465.54

OR 19152 SO of 

2/15/1928 T. 22 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 7 183.93 Water Power Potential/PSC 198 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 20365 EO of 

5/28/1912

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 26, 

28, 32, 34 245.22 Water Power Potential/PSR 273 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 20365 EO of 

5/28/1912

T. 21 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 2*, 

4* 320 Water Power Potential/PSR 273 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 19101 EO of 

8/7/1917

T. 20 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 17, 

19, 21, 27, 33 186.57 Water Power Potential/PSR 629, BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 21, 

25, 27, 31, 33, 35 1,508.32 Water Power Potential/PSR 629 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 21 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

9, 11 616.26 Water Power Potential/PSR 629 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19101: 2,311.15

OR 19011 SO of 

7/13/1917

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 21, 

25, 27, 31, 33, 35 1,362.74 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 20 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 17, 

19, 21, 27, 31, 33 1,586.55 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM R - unless viable for hydropower
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

191 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 21 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

9, 11 1,062.95 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 9 W., Secs.7, 

13, 15*, 17 282.52 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 5, 

21 20.03 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 7 W., Sec.19 47.45 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Secs.1, 

11*, 13, 35 37.38 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 7*, 

17*, 19* 200.21 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23S 7 W., Secs. 5, 7, 9, 

15, 19*, 21, 23, 27, 31, 33 887.79 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19011: Not 

available

OR 19102 EO of 

6/29/1917 T. 22 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 24 3

Protect water power and reservoir 

potential/PSR 630 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower.

OR 19105 EO of 

7/24/1917

T. 22 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 19 29.93 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 5, 

21 20.03 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 7, 

13, 15*, 17 282.52 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

7, 9, 15, 19*, 21, 23, 27, 

31, 33

887.79 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 11 29.38 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19105: Not 

available

OR 19106 EO of 

7/17/1917

T. 22 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 35 239.95 Water Power Potential/PSR 634 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 7*, 

17*, 19* 200.21 Water Power Potential/PSR 634 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 1, 

13 211.51 Water Power Potential/PSR 634 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19106: 651.67

OR 19109 EO of 

7/17/1917 T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/PSR 645, BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 19012 SO of 

7/13/1917 T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/WPD 12 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 19113 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 26S., 9 W., Secs. 17*, 

19*, 29*, 31* Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 15 182.8 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

192 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 9, 17 120 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 30 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 3, 

13 280 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19113: Not 

available

OR 19014 SO of 

12/12/1917

T. 26 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 

17*, 19*, 29*, 31* Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 15 187 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 9, 17 200 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 30 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 3, 

13 280 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19014: Not 

available

OR 19017 SO of 

1/12/1921

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Secs. 5*, 

7

†

, 17, 19, 21†, 29, 31, 33† 2,418.76 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 27 S., R. 12 W., Secs. 

11*, 13*, 23*, 25*, 27*, 35* 1,663.57 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 7 335.2 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 3, 

5, 9, 11, 15* 1,296.28 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 11 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5*, 7 883.12 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 12 W., Secs. 

1

†

, 3*, 11*, 13, 15*, 21* 1,516 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19017: 8,112.93

OR 19142 SO of 

12/4/1926

T. 22 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

15*, 21*, 22*, 26*, 27*, 34* Water Power Potential/PSC 157 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 2* 76.86 Water Power Potential/PSC 157 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 24 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 31* Water Power Potential/PSC 157 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19142: Not 

available

OR 19116 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 26 S., R. 9 W., Secs.10*, 

14* 640 Water Power Potential/PSR 662 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 32 S., R. 13 W., Secs. 

17, PB 37 387 Water Power Potential/PSR 662 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 32 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 

11, 12 160 Water Power Potential/PSR 662 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19116: Not 

available

EO of 

12/12/1910

T. 25 S., R. 12 W., Secs. 

29-33 400 Resource Protection/Coal Lands BLM Removal/Revocation
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

193 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 19180

USGS 

Order of 

7/15/1947

T. 26 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 8 80 Water Power Potential/PSC 382 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

ORE 

013683 PLO 4448 T. 29.5 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 32 4.3 Reclamation Project/Umpqua River COE B C

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act.
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

194 | P a g e

Table D-3. Withdrawals in the Eugene District. 

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

ORE 05555 BO of 

7/12/1957 T. 15 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 7 40 Air Navigation FAA A C

ORE 

013117 PLO 3610 T. 18 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 31 See total acres 

below Fall Creek Reservoir COE B C

T. 19 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 6 Fall Creek Reservoir COE B C

Total Acres for ORE 013117: 81.2

OR 19234 PLO 497 T. 17 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

27, 28 5.27 Fern Ridge Reservoir COE A C

OR 19240 PLO 727 T. 19 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 34 1.37 Lookout Point Reservoir COE A C

OR 711 PLO 4395 T. 16 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 33 1 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

OR 25306 PLO 6287 T. 16 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 33 1 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

ORE 

016183A PLO 3869

T. 16 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 19 See total acres 

below

Lake Creek, Whittaker Creek, Clay Creek, 

Haight Creek, Sharps Creek Recreation Sites BLM B C

T. 18 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 21 Lake Creek, Whittaker Creek, Clay Creek, 

Haight Creek, Sharps Creek Recreation Sites BLM B C

T. 19 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

19, 35

Lake Creek, Whittaker Creek, Clay Creek, 

Haight Creek, Sharps Creek Recreation Sites BLM B C

T. 22 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 15 Lake Creek, Whittaker Creek, Clay Creek, 

Haight Creek, Sharps Creek Recreation Sites BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 016183A: 440.12

ORE 

012093 PLO 5490

All public domain lands in 

and west of Range 8 East 

and all lands within the 

area, which become public 

domain lands in the future.

9,000.52 Reserved for multiple use management BLM

Surface 

closed to ag 

laws

E

OR 8754 PLO 5229 T. 15 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

29, 30, 31, 32 260 Shotgun Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

OR 46473 PLO 6963 T. 18 S., R. 12 W., Secs. 

3, 15 257.6 Florence Sand Dunes BLM B C

OR 48744 PLO 7081 T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3, 

9, 10, 11 292.25 Eagle Rock Section of McKenzie River BLM B C

OR 19133 SO of 

6/7/1922

T. 19 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

21, 25, 35

See total acres 

below

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSC 41 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 5 PSC 41 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19133: 550.49

OR 19148 SO of 

5/23/1957

T. 20 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 31 See total acres 

below

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSC 180 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

31*, 33, 35

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSC 180 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 15 PSC 180 BLM D C
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

195 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

Total Acres for OR 19148: 300.6

OR 19186 DO of 

7/25/1952

T. 16 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 23, 

24, 27 276.64 Protect water power and reservoir development potential/PSC 426 BLM D C

OR 19040 EO of 

7/2/1910

T. 16 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 

28*, 34*

See total acres 

below

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSR 95 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 2* PSR 95 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 4 PSR 95 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19040: 152.28

OR 19059 EO of 

7/10/1910

T. 16 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 31* See total acres 

below

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSR 285 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 4 Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSR 285 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19059: 163.56

OR 19113 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 15 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 7 See total acres 

below

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 16 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 19 Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

1*, 3*, 17†

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 18 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

3*, 31, 33

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 18 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

17*, 21, 27, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 7, 

9, 29, 31

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 9, 19, 21, 27, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 3, 

11, 13

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 9, 11

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 3 Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19113: 5,961.48

OR 19115 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 16 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 29, 

33*, 35*

See total acres 

below

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1* Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3*, 

5*, 9*

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

196 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 20 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 31 Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

31*, 33, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

3*, 7*, 31

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 22 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 5, 

15, 23

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19115: 1,103.6

OR 19116 EO of 

12/12/1917 T. 18 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 28 40 Protect water-power development potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

OR 19127 EO of 

2/19/1920

T. 22 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

1*, 5, 9, 15†, 23, 27, 35 1,249.16 Protect water-power development potential/PSR 661 BLM D C

OR 19127 EO of 

2/19/1920

T. 23 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 1, 

7

PSR 730 BLM D C

OR 19014 SO of 

12/12/1917

T. 15 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 7

See total acres 

below

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 16 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 29, 

33,* 35*

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 16 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 19 Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1* Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3,* 

5,* Sec. 9*

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

1*, 3*

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 18 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

31, 33

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 18 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

17*, 21, 27, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 7, 

9, 29, 31

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 1†, 

3

†

, 5, 9, 11*, 19, 21, 27, 

35

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 3, 

11, 13

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 31 Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

197 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 20 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 9, 11

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 3 Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

31†, 33, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

3*, 7, 31

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 22 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

1*, 5, 9, 15†, 23, 27, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 22 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 5, 

15, 23

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 1, 

7

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19014: 8,234.24

OR 19016 SO of 

12/24/1919 T. 23 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 1 80 Protect water power and reservoir development potential/WPD 16 BLM D C

OR 52939 PLO 7445

T. 20 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

30, 31, 32, 33, 34

See total acres 

below

Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 20 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 25, 

36

Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 21 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

19, 30, 31, 32

Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 21 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 11, 13, 14, 24

Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 21 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 1 Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 22 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 5 Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 52939: 178.95

OR 50856 PLO 7215 T. 18 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 2 36.52 Pacific Coastline Highway 101 BLM B C

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

198 | P a g e

Table D-4. Withdrawals in the Roseburg District.53

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

 

53 Table D-4 includes withdrawals for the entire Roseburg District, including withdrawals located in the South River Field Office. 
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

199 | 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
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

200 | 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 

201 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

202 | P a g e

Table D-5. Withdrawals in the Salem District. 

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 23947 PL 96-199 T. 10 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 

30 100 Yaquina Head BLM, USCG A C

OR 8920 PLO 5372 T. 8 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 33 80 Little Sink RNA BLM B C

OR 37275 PL 98-328

T. 7 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 12–

14;

See total acres 

below Table Rock Wilderness BLM A C

T. 7 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 7–

12, 15–22 Table Rock Wilderness BLM A C

Total Acres for OR 37275: 5,500

ORE 05555 BO of 

7/12/1957 T. 15 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 7 110.9 Air Navigation/ANS-58-1, Prairie Mtn. FAA B C

ORE 03060 PLO 989 T. 3 S., R. 5 E., Secs. 26–

28 600 Fish Hatchery and Eagle Creek USFWS B C

ORE 015487 PLO 3609 T. 4 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 13 320 Walter Horning Seed Orchard BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 3 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 32 35 Alder Glenn Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 14 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

25, 26 40 Alsea Falls Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 9 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7 80 Canyon Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 12 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 3 80 Dogwood Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 9 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 9 120 Elkhorn Valley Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 9 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 25 160 Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 3 N., R. 3 W., Sec. 21 20 Little Bend Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 7 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 4,

9

Mill Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 14 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 13 40 Missouri Bend Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 3 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 11 160 North Fork Eagle Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 4 N., R. 3 W., Sec. 7 30 Scaponia Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 11 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 19 80 Yellowbottom Recreation Site BLM B C

OR 6363 PLO 5136 T. 12 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 28 40 Mary’s Peak Administrative Site USFS B C

OR 50856 PLO 7215

T 3 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 30 See total acres 

below Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 4 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

19, 29 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 5 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 5, 

6, 20 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 8 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 3 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 9 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 4 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T .13 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 

28 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 14 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 35 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 50856: 1,007.2
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

203 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 18842

FPC Order 

of 

11/17/1924

T. 2 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 1 24 Electric Power Generator/Sandy River -

Marmot Dam Bull Run Project/PP 477 FERC C C

T. 2 S., R. 5 E., Secs. 1, 

15 24 Electric Power Generator/Sandy River -Marmot Dam Bull Run Project/PP 477 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 18842: 48

OR 19146 SO of 

2/26/1927

T. 7 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 1, 

5, 11–13, 15, 22–24

Potential Power Development/Molalla River 

PSC 170 BLM D R

OR 19147 SO of 

2/26/1927 T. 8 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 35 957 Potential Power Development/Siletz River/PSC 171 BLM D R

OR 19166 SO of 

1/3/1938

T. 5 N., R. 6 W., Sec. 6 10 Potential Power Development/Nehalem 

River/PSC 304 BLM D R

T. 5 N., R. 7 W., Sec. 10 40 Potential Power Development/Nehalem 

River/PSC 304 BLM D R

Total Acres for OR 19166: 50

OR 19183 DO of 

11/9/1950

T. 14 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

15, 19, 21, 29 240 Potential Power Development/Alsea River/PSC 413 BLM D R

T. 15 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 7 76 Potential Power Development/Alsea 

River/PSC 413 BLM D R

T. 15 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1 40 Potential Power Development/Alsea 

River/PSC 413 BLM D R

Total Acres for OR 19183: 356

OR 19038 EO of 

7/2/1910

T. 3 N., R. 8 W., Secs. 

10, 18 61 Potential Power Development/Nehalem River/PSR 89 BLM D R

OR 19074 EO of 

10/23/1914 T. 12 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 34 11 Potential Power Development/Santiam River/PSR 458 BLM D R

OR 19113, 

OR 19014

EO of 

12/12/1917, 

SO of 

12/12/1917

Various 6,149

Potential Power Development/Alsea, 

Nehalem, Scappoose and Trask Rivers/PSR 

659, WPD 14

BLM D R

OR 19115, 

OR 19014

EO of 

12/12/1917, 

SO of 

12/12/1917

Various 10,370 Potential Power Development/Clackamas 

River/PSR 661, WPD 14 BLM D R

OR 19118 EO of 

12/12/1917, Various 1,143

Potential Power Development/Eagle Creek, 

So. Yamhill, Molalla and N. Santiam Rivers/

PSR 664

BLM D R

OR 19127, 

OR 19014, 

OR 19016

EO 

2/19/1920, 

SO 

12/12/1917, 

SO of 

12/24/1919

Various 1,900

Potential Power Development/Clackamas, 

Nestucca, Sandy, Santiam Rivers/

PSR 730, WPD 14 and WPD 16

BLM D R
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

204 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 1572 PLO 4305 T. 14 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 25 132.5 Alsea Falls Recreation Site BLM B C

OR 3660 PLO 4537

T. 2 S., R. 7 E., Sec. 31 280 Wildwood Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 8 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 31 160 Salmon Falls Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 14 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 13 10 Missouri Bend Recreation Site BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 3660: 450

OR 19116 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 1 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 28 80 Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

T. 3 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 8, 

18 188 Protect Water Power and Reservoir Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

T. 1 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 26 160 Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

T. 3 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

24, 26, 28, 32 1,003 Protect Water Power and Reservoir Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

T. 1 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

21, 22, 28, 29, 30

Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19116: Not available

OR 19187 DO of 

1/21/1958

T. 12 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 

10, 17, 19, 20, 27, 30

See total acres 

below

Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSC 442 BLM D C

T. 12 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 19 Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSC 442 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19187: Not available

OR 44742 PL 100-557

T. 11 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 

23–26, 35, 36

See total acres 

below Quartzville Creek Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

T. 12 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 2, 

3, 9, 10 Quartzville Creek Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 44742: Not available

OR 59658 PLO 7685

T. 11 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 

25, 26, 35

See total acres 

below Quartzville Creek BLM B C

T. 12 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 2, 

3, 9, 10 Quartzville Creek BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 59658: Not available

OR 44744 PL 100-557 T. 03 S., R. 7 E., Sec. 1 Not available Salmon Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

OR 59546 PL 104-208

T. 3 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

6, 7, 18, 19, 30, 

See total acres 

below Oregon Islands Wilderness Additions BLM A C

T. 5 N., R. 11 W., Sec. 1 Oregon Islands Wilderness Additions BLM A C

Total Acres for OR 59546: 95

OR 44746 PL 100-557 T. 1 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 1 Not available Sandy Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

OR 53424 PL 104-333

T. 9 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 1 See total acres 

below Elkhorn Creek Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

T. 9 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 5, 

6, 7 Elkhorn Creek Wild and Scenic River BLM B C
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

205 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

Total Acres for OR 53424: Not available

OR 11517 PLO 6287 Various Not available Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

ORE 11235 PLO 2952 T. 12 S., R. 3 E. 860 Green Peter Reservoir COE C C

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

206 | P a g e

Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands 

Table D-6 through Table D-9 contains Land Tenure Zone 3 lands that are available for disposal. 

Table D-6. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Coos Bay District. 

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

19 S. 12 W. 1 Lots 1 and 2 40.48 PD

20 S. 09 W. 33 Lot 7 3.98 OC

20 S. 10 W. 31 Por. lot 10 5.98 PD 20 S. 11 W. 36 Por. lot 9

21 S. 11 W. 31 Lot 18 37.22 PD

21 S. 11 W. 32 Lots 16 and 23 59.01 PD

22 S. 08 W. 15 Lots 9 and 10 25.30 OC

22 S. 08 W. 21 Lots 7 and 14 2.42 OC

22 S. 13 W. 14 Lots 1 and 2 71.10 PD

25 S. 11 W. 30 Lot 5 39.92 PD

25 S. 13 W. 7 Lots 6, 8, 13 – 15 92.78 PD

25 S. 13 W. 18 Lot 7, E1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 56.15 PD

26 S. 08 W. 10 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

26 S. 11 W. 8 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

26 S. 12 W. 9 Por. SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 4 ACQ

26 S. 14 W. 3 Por. Lots 1 and 2, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 62.18 PD

26 S. 14 W. 28 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

28 S. 12 W. 19 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 CBWR

30 S. 12 W. 5 Lot 6 1.80 OC

30 S. 12 W. 6 Lots 3 and 4 1.14 PD

30 S. 13 W. 21 N1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 20 PD

32 S. 14 W. 7 N1⁄2SW1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 5 PD

32 S. 15 W. 4

NE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

W1/2SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, Lots 1 – 4

71.75 PD

39 S. 12 W. 8 W1⁄2NW1⁄4 80 PD

Grand Total 840.21 -
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

207 | P a g e

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

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

14S. 1E. 19 W1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 PD

14S. 1E. 26 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

14S. 1E. 33 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

14 S. 2 E. 6 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

14 S. 3 E. 19 Lot 1 37.02 PD

15 S. 2 W. 25 Por. SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 16.19 OC

16 S. 3 W. 30 Lot 3 15.28 PD

16 S. 5 W. 33 Lots 4, 7, and 8, and un-numbered lot 5.66 OC

16 S. 6 W. 7 Lot 6 3.76 OC

16 S. 2 E. 27 S1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC

16 S. 2 1⁄2 E. 1 All 32.81 PD

17 S. 1 W. 19 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

17 S. 1 W. 31 Lot 3, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 125.58 OC

17 S. 3 W. 15 Lot 6 0.85 OC

17 S. 6 W. 35 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

17 S. 11 W. 19 Lot 1 44.82 PD

18 S. 1 W. 5 Por. lot 8 0.84 OC

18 S. 1 W. 26 Lot 7 1.68 PD

18 S. 2 W. 1 Lots 1 - 4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 270.41 OC

18 S. 4 W. 33 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

18 S. 4 W. 35 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

18 S. 5 W. 15 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

18 S. 5 W. 23 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 OC

18 S. 7 W. 11 Por. NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 3 OC

18 S. 9 W. 7 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

18 S. 10 W. 11 Lot 9 6.24 PD

18 S. 11 W. 18 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

18 S. 12 W. 15 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

19 S. 3 W. 29 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

19 S. 3 W. 35 Lot 3 2.79 OC

19 S. 4 W. 29 Por. NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 0.36 OC

19 S. 4 W. 31 Lot 1, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 81.33 OC

19 S. 5 W. 1 S1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 OC

20 S. 4 W. 6 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.23 PD

20 S. 4 W. 25 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

21 S. 2 W. 7 Lot 1 41.37 OC

21 S. 1 W. 31 Lot 13 1.42 OC

21 S. 4 W. 1 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC

22 S. 1 W. 5 Por. lot 18 2.20 OC

22 S. 3 W. 7 Lots 1 and 2 91.46 OC

Grand Total 1,865.30 -
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

208 | P a g e

Table D-8. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Roseburg District.54

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 -

 

54 Table D-8 includes Land Tenure Zone 3 for the entire Roseburg District, including withdrawals located in the 

South River Field Office. 
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

209 | P a g e

Table D-9. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Salem District. 

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

3 N. 1 W. 9 Lot 8 1.24 Ot

3 N. 8 W. 10 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

3 N. 8 W. 11 Lot 2 0.01 PD

5 N. 6 W. 6 Lot 9 2.12 PD

5 N. 7 W. 10 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

7 N. 4 W. 6 Lot 7 0.03 PD

1 S. 3 W. 7 Lot 1 0.18 OC

1 S. 3 W. 8 Lot 1 0.05 PD

2 S. 2 E. 4 Lot 2 0.04 PD

2 S. 2 E. 9 Lot 7 0.11 Ot

2 S. 3 E. 23 Lots 8 and 12 6.25 OC

2 S. 3 E. 25 Lots 7 and 8 1.69 OC

2 S. 3 W. 13 N1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 OC

2 S. 3 W. 23 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC

2 S. 4 W. 31 Lot 1 1.30 OC

3 S. 2 E. 7 Lot 1 0.87 OC

3 S. 4 W. 33 Lot 4 0.11 OC

3 S. 9 W. 20 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

3 S. 9 W. 28 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

3 S. 9 W. 33 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

3 S. 10 W. 30 Lot 15 0.45 PD

4 S. 1 E. 21 Lot 1 0.49 OC

4 S. 2 E. 11 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 200 OC

4 S. 2 E. 15 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

4 S. 2 E. 33 Lot 1 0.1 OC

4 S. 3 E. 9 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC

4 S. 3 E. 19 Un-numbered lot in SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 47.31 OC

4 S. 3 E. 21 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 200 OC

4 S. 3 E. 29 E1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 OC

4 S. 3 E. 31 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 OC

4 S. 1 W. 22 Un-numbered lot 0.5 PD

4 S. 3 W. 2 Lot 1 0.25 PD

4 S. 3 W. 34 Lots 1 and 2 4.4 PD

4 S. 10 W. 28 Lot 3 0.53 PD

5 S. 3 W. 4 Lot 1 1.16 PD

5 S. 5 W. 13 Lot 3 0.05 OC

5 S. 5 W. 31 Lot 1 3.57 OC

5 S. 5 W. 34 Lot 1 0.93 PD

5 S. 5 W. 35 Lot 1 8 OC

6 S. 3 W. 2 Lot 2 0.2 PD

6 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 1 2 OC

6 S. 1 E. 13 E1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

210 | P a g e

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

6 S. 1 E. 25 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 80 OC

6 S. 9 W. 32 W1⁄2SE1⁄4 80 PD

6 S. 9 W. 34 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

6 S. 10 W. 35 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

7 S. 1 E. 1 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

7 S. 3 W. 29 Lot 3 5.42 OC

7 S. 6 W. 34 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

8 S. 1 E. 3 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4 200 OC

8 S. 1 E. 27 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

8 S. 1 E. 35 Lots 1 and 2, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2 400.22 OC

8 S. 4 W. 24 M&B 1.54 Ot

8 S. 4 W. 25 M&B 8 Ot

8 S. 10 W. 20 W1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 20 PD

8 S. 11 W. 3 Lot 8 4.73 PD

9 S. 1 W. 21 Lot 7, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 84.21 OC

9 S. 3 W. 21 Lot 3 0.08 Ot

9 S. 3 W. 24 Un-numbered lot 1.4 PD

9 S. 3 W. 32 Lot 2 4.6 PD

9 S. 4 W. 9 Lot 5 1.16 OC

9 S. 4 W. 14 Lot 9 0.17 PD

9 S. 9 W. 19 Por. lot 29 10 PD

9 S. 9 W. 33 Lot 17 20 PD

9 S. 9 W. 34 W1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 20 PD

9 S. 10 W. 26 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

9 S. 10 W. 36 Por. Lots 5 and 6 10 PD

9 S. 11 W. 1 Lot 6 1.46 PD

9 S. 11 W. 4 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

10 S. 2 W. 8 Lot 1 6.13 PD

10 S. 3 W. 24 Lot 6 0.9 PD

10 S. 4 W. 11 Lot 5 1.52 OC

10 S. 5 W. 19 Lots 1 – 4, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4 480 OC

10 S. 5 W. 23 Lot 4 0.79 OC

10 S. 6 W. 22 Lots 2 and 3 15.7 PD

10 S. 7 W. 18 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 160 PD

10 S. 10 W. 2 Lot 20 20 PD

11 S. 8 W. 6 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD

11 S. 9 W. 31 Lot 2 43.25 PD

11 S. 10 W. 12 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 160 PD

11 S. 10 W. 14 Lot 1 2.87 PD

11 S. 10 W. 23 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

11 S. 10 W. 24 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

11 S. 10 W. 25 Lot 1 37.22 PD

11 S. 10 W. 35 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

12 S. 4 E. 30 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

211 | P a g e

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

12 S. 4 E. 31 Lot 1, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 84.81 PD

12 S. 2 W. 13 Lot 6 7.04 Ot

12 S. 6 W. 35 Lot 3 0.2 Ot

12 S. 8 W. 6 Lot 7 40.18 PD

12 S. 8 W. 7 Lots 1 and 2 79.04 PD

12 S. 9 W. 29 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD

12 S. 9 W. 32 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 120 PD

12 S. 9 W. 34 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

12 S. 9 W. 35 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 PD

12 S. 10 W. 6 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

12 S. 10 W. 14 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

12 S. 11 W. 10 Lots 3 and 4 76.16 PD

12 S. 11 W. 17 Lot 5 38.84 PD

13 S. 3 E. 9 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

13 S. 2 E. 24 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE 1⁄4 120 PD

13 S. 2 W. 21 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

13 S. 4 W. 30 Lot 5 8.49 PD

13 S. 5 W. 29 Lot 1 0.84 OC

13 S. 9 W. 10 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD

13 S. 9 W. 13 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

13 S. 11 W. 3 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

13 S. 11 W. 28 Lot 9 7.6 PD

13 S. 11 W. 33 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

14 S. 5 W. 25 Lot 1 0.26 OC

14 S. 11 W. 3 Lots 1, 2, and 25 111.5 PD

14 S. 11 W. 4 Lots 29 and 30 84.3 PD

14 S. 11 W. 5 Lot 10 40.62 PD

14 S. 11 W. 6 Lot 16 40 PD

14 S. 11 W. 10 Lots 1, 11–13, and 17 210.21 PD

14 S. 11 W. 15 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

14 S. 12 W. 35 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

15 S. 5 W. 6 Lot 5 1.46 PD

Grand Total 5,596.86 -
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

212 | P a g e

Inventory of Communication Sites 

Table D-10 through Table D-13 contains information on existing communication sites. The 

RMP contains management direction related to management of communication sites. 

Table D-10. Communication sites in the Coos Bay District. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter 

Section

Roman Nose 19 S. 9 W. 23 NE1⁄4 and NW1⁄4

John’s Peak 23 S. 9 W. 27 SW1⁄4

Blue Ridge 26 S. 12 W. 35 SW1⁄4

Signal Tree 29 S. 9 W. 33 SW1⁄4

Anderson Mountain 29 S. 11 W. 21 SW1⁄4

Sugar Loaf 29 S. 12 W. 23 NE1⁄4

Bennett Butte 30 S. 13 W. 20 NW1⁄4

Edson Butte 31 S. 14 W. 23 NW1⁄4

Grizzly Mountain 37 S. 14 W. 4 SE1⁄4

Bosley Butte 39 S. 13 W. 10 SE1⁄4

Palmer Butte 40 S. 13 W. 10 SE1⁄4

Black Mound 40 S. 13 W. 20 SW1⁄4

Table D-11. Communication sites in the Eugene District. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter 

Section

Horse Rock 15 S. 2 W. 1 NW1⁄4

Mt. Tom 15 S. 2 W. 31 SW1⁄4

Buck Mountain 16 S. 2 W. 7 NW1⁄4

South McGowan 16 S. 2 W. 31 NW1⁄4

Amy Road 16 S. 7 W. 1 NW1⁄4 and SW1⁄4

Elk Mountain 16 S. 8 W. 26 NE1⁄4

Windy Peak 16 S. 8 W. 27 SW1⁄4

Black Canyon 17 S. 2 W. 7 SW1⁄4

Camp Creek Ridge 17 S. 2 W. 15 NE1⁄4

Badger Mountain 17 S. 7 W. 35 NE1⁄4

Vaughn Hill 18 S. 6 W. 5 SE1⁄4 and NE1⁄4

Brickerville 18 S. 10 W. 3 NW1⁄4

High Point 19 S. 6 W. 23 NW1⁄4

Eagle’s Rest 20 S. 1 W. 12 NE1⁄4

Cougar Mountain 20 S. 3 W. 1 NE1⁄4

Hawley Butte 21 S. 1 W. 29 NE1⁄4

Hobart Butte 22 S. 3 W. 1 NW1⁄4

Laurel Butte 22 S. 3 W. 23 SE1⁄4

Huckleberry 

Mountain 24 S. 1 W. 6 SW1⁄4
Appendix D – Lands and Realty 

213 | P a g e

Table D-12. Communication sites in the Roseburg District.55

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

Table D-13. Communication sites in the Salem District. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter 

Section

Lookout Point 1 S. 5 E. 13 SE1⁄4

Blind Cabin Ridge 1 S. 5 W. 31 NE1⁄4

Dixie Mountain 2 N. 2 W. 27 NE1⁄4

Brightwood 2 S. 6 E. 14 NW1⁄4

Trask Mountain 2 S. 6 W. 29 NW1⁄4

High Heaven 3 S. 5 W. 33 SE1⁄4

Bald Mountain 3 S. 6 W. 29 SW1⁄4

Goat Mountain 5 S. 4 E. 14 SW1⁄4

Prospect Hill 8 S. 4 W. 24 SE1⁄4

Mt. Horeb 9 S. 4 E. 17 NE1⁄4

Snow Peak 11 S. 2 E. 5 NW1⁄4

Yellowstone 

Mountain 11 S. 3 E. 32 NW1⁄4

Prairie Mtn. East 15 S. 7 W. 4 SE1⁄4

Prairie Mtn. 15 S. 7 W. 7 SW1⁄4

Prairie Mtn. West 15 S. 7 W. 7 SW1⁄4

 

55 Table D-12 includes communication sites for the entire Roseburg District, including withdrawals located in the 

South River Field Office. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

214 | P a g e
215 | 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. 
216 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map 

NORTH 

INSERT MAP HERE 

E-1. Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal (north half). 

216 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map 

NORTH 

INSERT MAP HERE 

E-1. Areas closed to salable mineral material disposal (north half). 
Appendix E – Energy and Minerals 

217 | Page

E 

d to salable mineral material disposal (south half). 

Appendix E – Energy and Minerals 

217 | Page

E 

d to salable mineral material disposal (south half). 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

218 | 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. 
Appendix E – Energy and Minerals 

219 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

220 | 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. 
Appendix E – Energy and Minerals 

221 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

222 | P a g e
223 | P a g e

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 Coos 

Bay District, Eugene District, the Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg District, and Salem 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

224 | Page

Coos Bay

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map F-1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Coos Bay District in the 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary. 
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

225 | P a g e

Table F-1. Special Management Needs for Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Coos Bay District in the 

Northwestern and Coastal 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

Brownson Ridge 398 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy

Low Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, withdrawal 

not necessary

Manage vegetation (including 

timber harvest) to promote 

late-successional structure in 

younger stands

Cherry Creek 

RNA 579 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Withdrawn in 1965 by PLO 3530 No timber harvest

China Wall 304 Historical, natural

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy

Low Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, withdrawal 

not necessary

Manage vegetation to restore 

and maintain meadow habitat.

Euphoria Ridge 241 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy

Low Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, withdrawal 

not necessary N/A

Hunter Creek Bog 721

Cultural, fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Manage vegetation to restore and maintain bog habitat

New River 1,135

Historical, 

cultural, fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to restore 

and maintain meadow and 

plover habitats

North Fork 

Chetco 431

Historical, 

cultural, fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy

Low Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation (including 

timber harvest) to promote 

late-successional structure in 

younger stands; conduct 

treatments to control sudden 

oak death disease

North Fork 

Coquille River 129 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy

Low Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, withdrawal 

not necessary No timber harvest

North Fork 

Hunter Creek 1,924

Historical, 

cultural, fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to restore 

and maintain meadow, oak 

woodland, shrub, and Jeffery 

pine habitats

North Spit 709

Cultural, fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Withdrawn in 2000

Manage vegetation to restore 

and maintain wetland and 

plover habitats

Rocky Peak 1,827 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Manage vegetation to restore and maintain meadow habitat
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

226 | 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

Roman Nose 52 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Low potential, withdrawal not necessary

Manage vegetation to restore 

and maintain meadow habitat

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

Tioga Creek 41 Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy

Low Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, withdrawal 

not necessary No timber harvest

Upper Rock 

Creek 364 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy

Low Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, withdrawal 

not necessary No timber harvest

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

Wasson Creek 1,959‡ Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

West Fork Illinois 

River RNA 1,284ǀǀ Natural processes Limited 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. The New River and North Spit ACECs and the North Spit Addition proposal in Coos 

Bay have previously had implementation-level travel management planning completed within their boundaries, which has designated specific roads and trails for appropriate 

public uses. 

† The Rough and Ready and Waldo-Takilma ACECs include acres on both the Coos Bay and Medford Districts. 

‡ Acres within the Wassen Creek ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics 

within the identified lands with wilderness characteristics unit known as Wassen Creek. Due to priority given to the preservation designation of lands allocated to the DistrictDesignated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics, the BLM manages these overlapping lands first for the preservation management needs of the identified 

lands with wilderness characteristics and second for the special management needs of the ACEC designation. 

§ 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. 

ǀǀ Acres within the West Fork Illinois River RNA 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 

227 | P a g e

Table F-2. Specific Relevant and Important Values of Designated ACECs within the Coos Bay District within the Northwestern and 

Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP boundary. 

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural 

Hazard

Brownson

Ridge --

Marbled murrelet and 

northern spotted owl

Well-developed Port-Orford-cedar stand with all age classes; potential to fill 

ONHP cell for Port-Orford-cedar/Douglas-fir forest with dry shrubs/forbs; rare 

fungi: Phaeocollybia attenuata, P. piceae, P. sipei and Sparassis crispa

--

Cherry 

Creek RNA --

Marbled murrelet and 

northern spotted owl

Mid 1700s birthdate with remnant 445-year-old Douglas-fir; fills (Western 

hemlock/oxalis; Western hemlock/rhododendron-Oregon grape) fills 3 ONHP 

cells; contains a rare plant (Diplophyllum plicatum) and rare fungi 

(Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva) 

--

China Wall

Remnant of historic Brewster Trail; 

two prehistoric sites, all eligible 

National Register of Historic Places

Northern spotted owl

Unique plants associated with bald meadows; these meadows accounted for 72% 

of the botanical diversity of the area; a total of 170 species of vascular plants are 

documented, including 10 species of trees, 20 species of shrub, 12 species of 

grasses, sedges and rushes, and 122 species of forbs; Spring Phacelia (Phacelia 

verna) is located in 2 of the 8 meadows

--

Euphoria 

Ridge --

Marbled murrelet and 

northern spotted owl

Old-growth western red cedar stand series rare in Coast Range at this elevation 

(potential ONHP Coast Range cell) --

Hunter 

Creek Bog -- -- Fills ONHP Coast Range Ecoregion Cell; botany – large, diverse serpentine bog --

New River Prehistoric sites

Western snowy plover, 

northwestern pond turtle, 

coho and chinook salmon, 

cutthroat and steelhead trout 

Fills two ONHP Coastal lowlands ecological cells; federally endangered western 

lily (Lilium occidentale) and 17 rare species:

Calypogeia sphagnicola , Limbella fryei, Heterodermia leucomelos, Niebla 

cephalota, Ramalina pollinaria , pink sandverbena (Abronia umbellata ssp. 

breviflorus), beach sagewort (Artemesia pyconocephala), dwarf brodiaea 

(Brodiaea terrestris), short-stemmed sedge (Carex brevicaulis), timwort 

(Cicendia quadrangularis), coastal cryptantha (Cryptantha leiocarpa), russet 

cotton-grass (Eriophorum chamissonis), many-leaved gilia (Gillia millifoliata), 

whorled marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle verticillata), silvery phacelia (Phacelia 

argentea), white beakrush (Rhynchospora alba), and humped bladderwort 

(Utricularia gibba)

--

North Fork 

Chetco

Undisturbed cultural site potentially 

eligible for addition to the National 

Register of Historic Places.

Anadromous fish habitat -

sea run cutthroat trout; 

marbled murrelet and 

northern spotted owl

Fill 2 ONHP Coast Range cells; riparian hardwood forest along a major river 4th

order stream segment on coastal stream with California laurel riparian forest in 

the Klamath Mountains Province

--

North Fork 

Coquille 

River

--

High-quality, extremely 

high-density coho salmon 

spawning; marbled murrelet 

and northern spotted owl

Old-growth riparian Douglas-fir/hardwood community on intact 4th order 

stream. --
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

228 | P a g e

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural 

Hazard

North Fork 

Hunter 

Creek

Historic cabin sites/trail; prehistoric 

sites.

Important spawning and 

rearing habitat for chinook 

salmon, steelhead, sea-run 

and resident cutthroat trout

Fills 4 ONHP cells. Undisturbed old-growth Port-Orford-cedar, and oak/grass 

savannah; Hairy manzanita (Arctostaphylos hispidula); remnant Jeffrey pine 

(Pinus jeffreyi) savannah

--

North Spit

Scenic coastal landscapes comprised 

of dunes, deflation plain wetlands 

and Sitka Spruce forest islands. 

Historic US Lifeguard Service sites 

and artifacts, and potential 

prehistoric site.

Western snowy plover, 

marbled murrelet, 

northwestern pond turtle, 

purple martin, Newcomb’s 

littorine snail

Numerous outstanding plant associations and wetlands. Special status plants: 

Bryoria pseudocapillaris, Byoria spiralifera , Point Reyes bird’s-beak 

(Cordylanthes maritimus ssp. palustris), Heterodermia leucomela, Niebla 

cephalota. Natural Heritage Marine and Estuarine Special Species Cell, Coast 

Range Special Species Cell 

--

Rocky Peak

Historic trail and lookout sites; 

panoramic views of coastline plains, 

foothills, and ocean

Habitat for northern spotted 

owl, fringed myotis, foothill 

yellow-legged frog, spotted 

tail-dropper; documented 

marbled murrelet

ONHP special species Siskiyou monardella (Monardella purpurea); rare 

meadow, knob-cone pine plant communities --

Roman 

Nose

Sweeping views of forest landscape 

from highest point in local region -- Rare example of Oregon Coast Range grassy bald system --

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

--

Tioga Creek --

High quality stream/riparian

conditions and spawning 

habitat for coho, steelhead, 

and cutthroat trout; northern 

spotted owl

400+ year old, old-growth riparian Douglas-fir/hardwood community on 4th

order stream with high value as reference site --

Upper Rock 

Creek --

Marbled murrelet and 

northern spotted owl

Large red cedar dominated forest with sedge dominated wetlands; Fills Western 

red cedar-western hemlock/skunk cabbage ONHP Coast Range Ecological cell --

WaldoTakilmaIntact 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

--

Wassen 

Creek

Scenic: Large block of undisturbed 

mid-age forest dissected by creek 

with several waterfalls, plunge 

pools, and small palustrine lake

Pure strain of native 

cutthroat trout; northern 

spotted owl site

Fills ONHP Coast Range Ecoregion Palustrine Wetlands pond at mid to high 

elevation and 2 ONHP Western Hemlock association cells --
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

229 | P a g e

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural 

Hazard

West Fork 

Illinois 

River

-- --

Represents ONAP cells for serpentine fens, western white pine forest, knobcone 

pine forest, and Jeffrey pine savannah and woodlands; supports rare plants, 

Howell’s mariposa lily (Calochortus howellii), Oregon willow-herb (Epilobium 

oreganum), Waldo gentian (Gentiana setigera), western bog violet (Viola 

primulifolia ssp. occidentalis)

--
230 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Eugene 

Map FINSERT MAP HERE 

-2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Eugene District in the Northwestern and Coastal O

230 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary.

| Page

Eugene 

Map FINSERT MAP HERE 

-2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Eugene District in the Northwestern and Coastal O

plan boundary.
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

231 | P a g e

Table F-3. Special Management Needs for Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Eugene District in the 

Northwestern and Coastal 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

Camas Swale 

RNA 315 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed N/A N/A

Cottage Grove 

Old Growth 76 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable No timber harvest

Cougar 

Mountain Yew 

Grove

9 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Dorena Prairie 10 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Previously withdrawn N/A

Esmond Lake 351 Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable

Manage young stands for latesuccessional forest; preclude harvest in 

existing late successional stands

Ferguson Creek 23 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Restoration management for prairie/oak/woodland

Fox Hollow 

RNA 161 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is

Garoutte 

Prairie 46 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Previously withdrawn N/A

Grandmother’s 

Grove 63 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable

Maintain, protect, or restore natural 

processes or systems; Forest 

management for maintenance and 

restoration of R&Is

Grassy 

Mountain 65 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management to maintain 

hydrological integrity of 

meadow/grassland

Heceta Sand 

Dunes 210 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Forest management for restoration management of dunes

Horse Rock 

Ridge RNA 377 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is

Jordan Creek 21 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Forest restoration management for pine/oak/woodland

Lake Creek 

Falls 54

Cultural, historical, 

fish and wildlife, 

natural processes, 

natural hazards

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable N/A

Lorane 

Ponderosa Pine 106 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

232 | 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

Low Elevation 

Headwaters of 

the McKenzie 

River

10,625 Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed

Recommend for withdrawal 

area originally identified as 

Marten Bald

Forest management for maintenance 

and restoration of R&Is

McGowan 

Meadow 71 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Manage for meadow habitat.

Mohawk RNA 289 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is.

Nails Creek 57 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is

Oak Basin 

Prairies 224 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management for maintenance 

and restoration of R&Is; enhance oak 

habitats

Upper Elk 

Meadows RNA 214 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is

Upper 

Willamette 

Valley Margin

5,973† Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is

Willamette 

Valley Prairie 

Oak and Pine 

Area

1,662

Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is

* 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 Willamette Valley Margin ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands 

within the McKenzie River Segment A suitable ‘recreational’ Wild and Scenic River segment. Due to priority given to the protective designations of lands allocated to the 

Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands, the BLM manages these overlapping lands first for the protective 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 

233 | P a g e

Table F-4. Specific Relevant and Important Values of Designated ACECs within the Eugene District within the Northwestern and 

Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP boundary. 

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Camas Swale 

RNA --

Provides habitat for wildlife species, but 

does not explicitly list distinct species

The site is an example of a dry-site, mature 

Douglas-fir forest in the Willamette Valley 

foothill, includes a small, xeric, meadow 

community; is included in the ONHP and is 

the best remaining example found for 

representing this plant community type in 

Oregon; it fills the natural heritage cell or 

element as: Douglas-fir/swordfern and 

Douglas-fir/Oregon grape forest

--

Cottage Grove 

Old Growth --

This site is within the City Creek spotted 

owl pair home range and contains suitable 

nesting/roosting/foraging habitat

Douglas-fir old-growth stand; multiple 

canopy layers represent the late-successional 

stage of mesic Douglas-fir community with 

some existing older trees representing ages 

of 500+ years old

--

Cougar 

Mountain Yew 

Grove

-- Good cavity nester habitat

Site represents one of the lowest elevation 

stands of Pacific Yew remaining in the 

Willamette Valley; trees contained in this 

site an unique grove of record yew trees (70–

500 years old) 

--

Dorena Prairie -- --

One of the few remaining representative 

examples of the less than 1% remaining 

native upland prairie plant community within 

the Willamette Valley

--

Esmond Lake

Esmond Lake is one of ten 

lakes in the Coast Range 

caused by landslides and can 

only be reached by foot, 

which has left the lake in an 

undisturbed state

Coho salmon and steelhead migrate 

through Esmond Lake and spawn in 

tributaries above the lake; this lake appears 

to contain one of the best coho rearing 

habitats in the Siuslaw Basin on BLMadministered lands

Esmond Lake has an uncommon geologic 

feature formed by a large deep-seated 

landslide; spawning counts indicate that coho 

numbers are increasing in Esmond Creek 

drainage; Fissidens fontanus was thought to 

be extinct in Oregon until being found in the 

lake, and remains extant since discovery

--

Ferguson Creek --

Bureau Special Status wildlife species may 

benefit from increasing oak woodland 

habitats; oak trees provide an important 

mast resource; the current oak habitat is not 

extensive enough to provide quality habitat

This unit contains one of the only remaining 

stands of mature oak trees in substantial 

numbers; however, it is at risk due to the 

encroachment of Douglas-fir forest resulting 

from fire suppression

--
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

234 | P a g e

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Fox Hollow 

RNA -- --

The site fills the natural area cell or element 

described in the ONHP as Douglasfir/swordfern and Douglas-fir/Oregon grape 

forest; mixed stand of Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine is found on the south slopes 

and ridge tops, with minor amounts of 

Oregon white oak and incense-cedar; site is 

the best remaining example that could be 

found for representing these plant community

types for Oregon

--

Garoutte Prairie -- --

Relic Willamette Valley prairie plant 

community currently occupying about 1% of 

its historic extent; invasive non-native plants 

are now displacing native plant species

--

Grandmother’s 

Grove -- --

Low elevation, unmanaged mature and late 

successional forest providing interior habitat 

and adjacent mid-seral stands contribute to 

these values; unique location above the 

valley floor

--

Grassy 

Mountain Highly visible grassy bald Provides wildlife habitat, but no species explicitly documented

Site fills natural heritage cell or element as 

Blue wildrye or red fescue grass bald 

communities; vernal seepage slopes on lowmid elevation rocky bald communities, with 

monkey flower, saxifrages and moss; one of 

the finest undisturbed representative 

examples of a grassy bald on the western 

margin of the Cascades

--

Heceta Sand 

Dunes ONA

Scenic dune system; the 

widest dune sheets along the 

Oregon Coast; the coastline 

by Florence (Heceta region) 

extended outward four times 

farther than areas to the 

south; this wider shelf 

provided abundant fine sand 

for eolian transport from the 

south through northward 

littoral drift

Area potentially supports Bureau Special 

Status wildlife species including: marbled 

murrelet, California brown pelican, whitetailed kite, American peregrine falcon, bald 

eagle, fringed myotis, Oregon plant bug, 

western bumble bee, horary elfin butterfly, 

insular blue butterfly

Seashore bluegrass association; red fescue 

association; shore pine/slough sedge 

association; shore pine/bearberry association; 

shore pine/hairy manzanita association; site 

is identified in the ONHP; several coastal 

endemic Bureau Special Status Species and 

the supporting plant communities are now 

rare along the coast

--
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

235 | P a g e

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Horse Rock 

Ridge RNA

Highly visible grassy bald 

and exemplary with views of 

the Cascade Mountains 

Provides wildlife habitat, but no species 

explicitly documented

The site fills a natural area cell or element in 

the Oregon Natural Areas Plan (ONHAC 

2010) and is one of the best remaining 

examples of West Cascades Ecoregion/shrub 

and Grassland type blue wildrye or Roemer’s 

fescue grass bald communities

--

Jordan Creek --

Stand contains northern spotted owl 

dispersal habitat; releasing the oak habitat 

could run counter to management strategies 

for the northern spotted owl

Willamette oak woodland; a declining oak 

habitat; represents just 10% of the original 

footprint observed pre-1850

--

Lake Creek 

Falls

Lake Creek Falls is the only 

waterfall of its size in the 

Siuslaw Field Office; 

Numerous cultural and 

historic points of interest

Species that potentially utilize the habitat or 

could be viewed from this ACEC: northern 

spotted owl, marbled murrelet, black swift, 

bald eagle, purple martin, Oregon red tree 

vole, Townsend’s big-earred bat, fisher, 

fringed myotis, Cascades axetail slug, 

Roth’s blind ground beetle, western bumble 

bee, Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly

Large natural waterfalls are uncommon on 

higher order streams and rivers like Lake 

Creek

Popular swimming area with 

dangerous rocks/logs often 

submerged. The algae that 

creates a slippery rock slide 

also creates a very unstable 

walking surface in the stream. 

Sharp, poorly visible, 

underwater boulders in pools 

present hazards to divers. 

Unstable logs tend to jam up in 

the pools following winter 

floods and present hazards to 

swimmers.

Lorane 

Ponderosa Pine -- --

Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine; This 

population of ponderosa pine is considered a 

separate and distinct population from other 

ponderosa pine populations within Oregon. 

Decline of Pinus ponderosa var. 

willamettensis stands both within the 

Willamette Valley and on Federal lands, less 

than 1% remain.

--

Low Elevation 

Headwaters of 

the McKenzie 

River

McKenzie River segment A 

(11 miles) suitable for 

inclusion in National Wild 

and Scenic System as a 

Recreational Segment

Bull trout, Upper Willamette spring 

chinook, cutthroat trout, northern spotted 

owl, tailed frog, Harlequin duck

Unique large continuous block of native 

forest; Minimally disturbed blocks of land 

under 2,000 feet on the east side of 

Willamette Valley

--

McGowan 

Meadow

Proposed Celebrating 

Wildflower Site --

Wet meadow with flora of both the Cascades 

and Willamette Valley ecoregions --
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

236 | P a g e

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Mohawk RNA --

Provides wildlife habitat, but no species 

explicitly documented; possible habitat for 

northern spotted owl

Fills a ONAP cell or element as: Douglasfir/western hemlock/Oregon grape and salal 

forest; old-growth Douglas-fir and western 

hemlock within low elevation Willamette 

Valley foothills; site contains small marsh

--

Nails Creek --

Northern spotted owl dispersal habitat; 

releasing the oak habitat could run counter 

to management strategies for the northern 

spotted owl

Willamette oak woodland; a declining oak 

habitat; represents just 10% of the original 

footprint observed pre-1850

--

Oak Basin 

Prairies --

Fender’s blue butterfly, Taylor’s 

checkerspot butterfly

Portions of a large upland prairie complex on 

the west side of the Coburg hills; Kincaid’s 

lupine (Lupinus sulphureous ssp. kincaidii), 

Hitchcock’s blue-eyed grass

--

Upper Elk 

Meadows RNA -- --

Four distinct plant communities: open, wet 

sedge meadow; wet red 

alder/willow/hawthorn thickets; open forest 

dominated by old-growth silver and grand 

fir; and closed forest dominated by oldgrowth Douglas-fir; has been selected as a 

part of an interagency network of sites to be 

retained and managed primarily for research 

and educational purposes

--

Upper 

Willamette 

Valley Margin

Proximity to large water 

bodies, McKenzie, 

Willamette, Row Rivers; 

Cottage Grove, Dorena, Fall 

Creek Reservoirs; adjacent 

to major travel corridors 

(Interstate 5, Highways 58 

and 126) and popular 

recreation destinations

Contribute to regional population viability 

and recovery, including a key raptor area 

and bald eagle habitat areas

Low-elevation, unmanaged mature and latesuccessional forest providing interior habitat 

and adjacent mid-seral stands; unique 

location above the valley floor

--

Willamette 

Valley Prairie 

Oak and Pine 

Area 

-- --

Some of the few remaining upland red fescue 

prairies and oak habitats in the Willamette 

Valley Province

--
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

237 | Page

Roseburg-Swiftwater 

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map F-3. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Swiftwater Field Office of the 

Roseburg District in the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary.
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

238 | P a g e

Table F-5. Special Management Needs for Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Swiftwater Field Office of 

the Roseburg District in the Northwestern and Coastal 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

Myrtle Island RNA 20 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

North Bank 6,523

Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes, 

cultural

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain oak and 

conifer woodlands according to the 

North Bank Habitat Management Area/ 

ACEC Record of Decision, Habitat 

Management Plan and Monitoring Plan 

(USDI BLM 2001)

Red Ponds RNA 141 Natural processes 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 Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg District 

within the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP boundary. 

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, 

Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Myrtle Island RNA -- --

Old-growth stand of California bay laurel and Douglas-fir (riparian hardwood 

forest along a major river) --

North Bank Important cultural 

site Columbian white-tailed deer Koehler’s rock cress (Arabis koehleri var. koehleri), Red-rooted yampah (Perideridia erythrorhiza), rough popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys hirtus)

--

Red Ponds RNA --

Northern spotted owl, western 

pond turtle

Low elevation permanent pond; dotted water-meal (Wolffia borealis), 

Phaeocollybia californica --
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

239 | Page

Salem 

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map F-4. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Salem District in the 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP plan boundary.
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

240 | P a g e

Table F-7. Special Management Needs for Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the Salem District in the 

Northwestern and Coastal 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

Crabtree 

Complex 

RNA/ONA

1,251

Scenic, fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for the 

LSR and RR, manage vegetation with limited 

silvicultural treatments of the Outstanding 

Natural Area to maintain and enhance the 

scenic quality and native plant communities

Elk Creek 940† Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation with selection harvests and 

variable retention to promote the development 

or maintenance of late seral habitat in 

previously entered stands

Forest Peak 

RNA 160 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Grass 

Mountain RNA 1,305 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

High Peak -

Moon Creek 

RNA

1,500 Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Little North 

Fork Wilson 

River

1,825 Fish and wildlife, 

natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to promote the development 

or maintenance of late seral habitat

Little Sink 

RNA 80 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Lost Prairie 60 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for the 

O&C harvest land base MITA suballocation, 

design timber harvests with consideration to 

maintain the R&I values; manage vegetation to 

maintain and enhance the fen and meadow 

habitats, rare botanical species occurrences, 

mixed conifer species, and older forest 

structure; Management can include projects in 

young stands to promote the development of 

old-growth characteristics and to reduce fire 

hazards

Lower 

Scappoose 

Eagle

314 Fish and wildlife Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain or enhance bald 

eagle habitat; consistent with management 

direction for the O&C harvest land base MITA

suballocation, design timber harvests with 

consideration to maintain the R&I values
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

241 | 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

Mary’s Peak 

ONA 491 Scenic, natural processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to enhance scenic, botanical, 

and wildlife habitat values

McCully 

Mountain 102

Scenic, fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain meadow and 

forest edge habitat

Middle 

Santiam 

Terrace

206 Cultural, natural

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for the 

O&C harvest land base MITA suballocation, 

design timber harvests with consideration to 

maintain the R&I values

Mill Creek 

Ridge 113 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation primarily to enhance oak 

and meadow habitats and to maintain botanical, 

wildlife and natural system values; consistent 

with management direction for the O&C harvest 

land base LITA suballocation, design timber 

harvests with consideration to maintain the R&I 

values

Nestucca River 1,179‡ Scenic, fish and 

wildlife Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain and enhance 

scenic and wildlife values

Rickreall Ridge 604 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for the 

O&C harvest land base LITA suballocation, 

design timber harvests with consideration to 

maintain the R&I values; manage vegetation 

(including timber harvests) to enhance the 

mosaic of special habitats and plant 

communities, with emphasis on protecting 

native plant communities and microclimate 

around the ridge in the northeastern corner

Saddle Bag 

Mountain RNA 304 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Sandy River 

ONA 11,444§

Historical, scenic, 

fish and wildlife, 

natural processes

Limited

Open–No Surface 

Occupancy for 

most of the 

ACEC, minerals 

are owned by 

non-Federal 

entities in 

portions of 

parcels 14 and 33

Closed for most 

of the ACEC, 

minerals are 

owned by nonFederal entities in 

portions of 

parcels 14 and 33

Recommend for 

withdrawal for 

most of the 

ACEC, minerals 

are owned by 

non-Federal 

entities in 

portions of 

parcels 14 and 

33

Consistent with management direction for the 

O&C harvest land base MITA and LITA 

suballocations, design timber harvests with 

consideration to maintain the R&I values; forest 

management on the lands acquired with LWCF 

funding in T. 2 S., R. 5 E., Sections 9–16, that 

are also in the HLB, will comply with the 

LWCF Act; manage vegetation to maintain or 

restore native plant communities through 

invasive plant treatments and native plantings
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

242 | 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

Silt Creek 118

Historical, fish 

and wildlife, 

natural processes

Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest: Active landslide area

Snow Peak 1,186

Historical, fish 

and wildlife, 

natural processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for the 

O&C harvest land base MITA suballocation, 

design timber harvests with consideration to 

maintain the R&I values; management for the 

R&I values will not preclude sustained-yield 

timber harvest

Soosap 

Meadows 343 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for the 

O&C harvest land base MITA and LITA 

suballocations, design timber harvests to 

maintain existing hydrologic conditions and the 

natural ecology of the subalpine meadows.

The Butte RNA 41 Natural processes Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Valley of the 

Giants 1,667ǀǀ

Scenic, fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited

BLM does not 

own sub-surface 

mineral rights, 

except for T. 7 S., 

R. 8 W., Section 

31 NE1/4

Closed Recommend for 

withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for the 

O&C harvest land base MITA and LITA 

suballocations, design timber harvests to not 

detract from the maintenance of the R&I values; 

manage vegetation with an emphasis on 

maintaining and restoring the R&I values

Walker Flat 10 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

No timber harvest: manage vegetation to 

maintain meadow habitat

Waterloo 8 Natural processes Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

White Rock 

Fen 66 Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Wilhoit Springs 136 Historical, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Yellowstone 

Creek 805#

Scenic, fish and 

wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to promote old growth 

characteristics and reduce fire hazards

* 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 Elk Creek ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands within the Nestucca 

River Segment A suitable ‘recreational’ Wild and Scenic River segment. Due to priority given to the protective designation of lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved 
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

243 | P a g e

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. 

‡ Acres within the Nestucca River ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands within the Nestucca 

River Segment A suitable ‘recreational’ 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. 

§ Acres within the Sandy River ONA ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands within the Sandy 

River designated ‘scenic’ and ‘recreational’ Wild and Scenic River segments; within the Sandy River suitable ‘recreational’ Wild and Scenic River segment; and within the Mt. 

Hood Corridor congressionally reserved lands. Due to priority given to the protective and preservation designation of lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and 

National Conservation Lands, the BLM manages these overlapping lands first for the protection and preservation management needs of the designated and suitable Wild and 

Scenic River segments and congressional reservation and second for the special management needs of the ACEC designation. 

ǀǀ Acres within the Valley of the Giants ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands within the 

North Fork Siletz River suitable ‘recreational’ 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. 

# Acres within the Yellowstone Creek ACEC include BLM-administered lands allocated to the Congressionally Reserved Lands and National Conservation Lands within the 

Quartzville Creek designated ‘recreational’ Wild and Scenic River. 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 designated Wild and Scenic River segment and 

second for the special management needs of the ACEC designation. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

244 | P a g e

Table F-8. Specific Relevant and Important Values of Designated ACECs within the Salem District within the Northwestern and 

Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP boundary. 

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Crabtree 

Complex 

RNA/ONA

Scenic qualities such as forest cover type, 

complex of habitats and geologic features 

considered exceptional within the Salem 

District

Several Bureau Special Status wildlife 

species and northern spotted owl; cliffs 

provide unique habitat with potential 

for raptor use

Relatively undisturbed old-growth forest; fills 

several West Cascades Ecosystem elements 

identified in the ONAP; area has a population of 

Alaska-cedar that is fairly uncommon in this region

--

Elk Creek --

Inland bald eagle forage and roosting 

habitat, marbled murrelet, red tree vole; 

historic nest sites for bald eagle and 

northern spotted owl; coho and chinook 

salmon, summer and winter steelhead, 

sea-run and resident cutthroat trout, 

Pacific lamprey

Contiguous block of old forest is a rare example of a 

fully functional natural system in the north Oregon 

Coast Range as evidenced by the extensive list of 

late-successional forest-dependent species that 

occur; area abuts the 360,000-acre ‘Tillamook Burn’

--

Forest Peak 

RNA --

Undisturbed Willamette Valley margin 

meadows adjacent to old growth 

forests; meadow may provide habitat 

for several at risk butterfly species and 

declining Willamette valley songbirds, 

including common nighthawk, Oregon 

vesper sparrow, western bluebird, and 

acorn woodpecker

Willamette Valley Ecosystem Elements: Willamette 

Valley Douglas-fir-bigleaf maple forest with some 

grand fir; Douglas-fir/poison oak forest; Lemmon’s 

needlegrass-moss bald; represents an intact and 

natural 3rd order stream system located on the 

fringes of the Willamette Valley

--

Grass Mountain 

RNA

Visible from the Willamette Valley and 

has remnants of the lookout once stationed 

on the summit; the cement foundation, 

disposal area, and pieces of metal roofing 

for the lookout, still remain onsite; in the 

early 1900s, Grass Mountain was a 

stopping place for grazing livestock as 

they were moved between Alsea Valley 

and Mary’s Peak

A high elevation grassy bald habitat 

juxtaposed with mature noble fir and 

forest that offers undisturbed refugia for 

rare and endemic invertebrate species 

including Roth’s blind ground beetle; 

nesting habitat for northern spotted owl 

and marbled murrelet 

The area represents the Coast Range Ecoregion’s 

Noble fir-western hemlock forest and the Grass bald 

on Coast Range mountain ecosystem elements; 

represents a natural 3rd order stream system and old 

growth conifer habitat

--

High Peak -

Moon Creek 

RNA

--

Large contiguous block of latesuccessional forest habitat found in 

north Oregon coast range; relatively 

inaccessible and undisturbed; potential 

northern spotted owl and marbled 

murrelet; provides high quality 

spawning habitat for anadromous fish, 

including Oregon coho salmon and 

steelhead trout

This area is a rare example of a northern Oregon 

Coast Range old-growth forest with an intact, 

functioning, late-successional forest system; 

adjacent to the ‘Tillamook Burn’; Coast Range 

Ecoregion ecosystem elements: Western 

hemlock/swordfern, Western hemlock/vine maplesalal

--
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

245 | P a g e

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Little North 

Fork Wilson 

River

--

Large contiguous blocks of latesuccessional forest habitat found in 

north Oregon coast range; relatively 

inaccessible and undisturbed; supports 

substantial salmon populations 

(Chinook, coho, chum, steelhead, sea 

run cutthroat)

Intact old-growth conifer riparian habitat is 

especially rare in coastal ecosystems; relict plant 

community of 450-year-old Douglas-fir, Sitka 

spruce, Western hemlock, and Western red cedar 

--

Little Sink 

RNA --

Provides an excellent example of a low 

elevation coast range old-growth forest 

adjacent to the Willamette Valley; 

northern spotted owls, red tree voles 

and great blue heron rookery; the ponds 

are important breeding sites for native 

amphibians 

Fulfills the following Willamette Valley Ecoregion 

Ecosystem Elements: Douglas-fir – grand fir/vine 

maple-salal; Slump pond at margin of valley, with 

aquatic beds and marshy shore; designated Instant 

Study (wilderness) Area; rare botany species include 

Dotted water-meal, and lichen Calicium adspersum

The past slumping 

soils or unstable 

ground at Little Sink 

has created at least 3 

distinct ponds within a 

coniferous forest 

habitat

Lost Prairie --

Supports a large Sphagnum/sedge rich 

fen and wetland habitat, which supports 

a diverse assemblage of uncommon 

invertebrate species; also offers nesting 

habitat for songbirds, and high quality 

forage for deer and elk.

Coast Range Ecoregion Ecosystem Element: Mid- to 

high-elevation sedge and sphagnum fens and a 

beaver marsh. The most outstanding botanical 

feature is the presence of a complex of sphagnum 

species and fen-associated bryophytes and vascular 

plants. Rare vascular plants include the Erythronium 

elegans, Fritillaria camschatcensis and Anenome 

oregana var. felix; many uncommon bryophyte 

species

--

Lower 

Scappoose 

Eagle

--

The area includes an active and 

productive bald eagle communal winter 

roost site and nest. The consistent, high 

eagle usage of the area is due to its 

proximity to Sauvie Island where the 

eagles forage on the very rich, unique 

resource of large concentrations of 

waterfowl

The area is included in the final integrated portfolio 

within The Nature Conservancy’s Pacific Northwest 

Coast Ecoregional Assessment (Vander Schaff et al. 

2006)

--

Mary’s Peak 

The highest mountain in the Oregon Coast 

Range Mountains north of Coquille; the 

summit of Mary’s Peak has distant views 

of the Willamette Valley, Oregon Coast 

Range Mountains and the Cascades

The mature noble-fir forest, high 

elevation grassy bald, rocky outcrops, 

wet meadows, seeps, springs, and 

Douglas-fir old-growth provide a refuge 

for a minimum of 10 rare or endemic 

invertebrates including Haddock’s 

rhyacophilan caddisfly and Roth’s blind 

ground beetle; nesting habitat for 

northern spotted owl and marbled 

murrelet

Highly diverse assemblage of native plant 

communities; special habitats or natural values 

include high-elevation grass meadows, noble fir 

community, and shallow soils with ‘rock garden’ 

plants

--
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

246 | P a g e

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

McCully 

Mountain --

Potential for nesting raptors, use by 

neotropical migratory birds, and 

occurrence of other wildlife species

Natural system associated with mid-elevation oak 

meadow and native prairie flora seldom seen along 

the western slopes of the northern Cascades in 

Oregon adjacent to the Willamette Valley

--

Middle Santiam 

Terrace

Includes a Native American cultural site 

that is one of few in the region on public 

lands

--

Old-growth fir and hemlock forest at a relatively 

low elevation river terrace with an increased value 

for research; represents several native plant 

community types in the Western hemlock zone in 

the western slopes of the Cascades

--

Mill Creek 

Ridge --

Mill Creek Ridge supports a great 

diversity of uncommon or endemic 

invertebrate species, and provide 

nesting habitat for Willamette Valley 

songbirds, including common 

nighthawk, western bluebird, and whitebreasted nuthatch

Oregon white oak community located in northwest 

Oregon on the eastern slopes of the Coast Range 

Mountains; contains uncommon plant species 

known from adjacent coniferous forests; many of 

the species are more common in the Cascades 

Mountains and from Southern Oregon; several plant 

species extend the northern range of these species

--

Nestucca River

Designated State scenic waterway and 

BLM backcountry byway. The Upper 

Nestucca River is eligible for inclusion in 

National Wild and Scenic River system 

(recreational designation); the river 

corridor is designated VRM I

The Nestucca River corridor includes 

high quality habitat for bald eagle, 

northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, 

and red tree vole; area is the only 

known site Oregon Coast Range 

breeding site for harlequin ducks; also a 

high quality anadromous fish stream for 

coho, chinook, summer and winter 

steelhead, sea-run and resident cutthroat 

trout

-- --

Rickreall Ridge --

Rickreall Ridge provides for unique 

high elevation rocky outcrops and 

adjoining older forests, which support a 

diversity of rare or endemic invertebrate 

species. Western grey squirrels and 

California ground squirrels common to 

lower elevations are found at this higher 

elevation.

A rocky ‘hogback’ ridge with steep talus slopes, 

with unique vegetation and is located within the 

Oregon Coast Range; has a disjunct flora in which 

the vegetation is similar to vegetation known from 

the southern Cascades; includes some older forest 

stands and associated coniferous-forest species; 

contains many uncommon mesic bryophytes 

species.

--

Saddle Bag 

Mountain RNA --

Old-growth western hemlock 

supporting mistletoe in the Coast Range 

provides habitat for Johnson’s 

hairstreak butterflies; potential nesting 

habitat for northern spotted owl and 

marbled murrelet.

Old-growth Pacific silver fir and western hemlock 

community; may be the last remaining mature 

naturally occurring Pacific silver fir stand in the 

Oregon Coast Range. Rare botanical species include 

Erythronium elegans, several Bureau Sensitive fungi 

species, and a collection of uncommon lichen and 

bryophyte species.

--
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

247 | P a g e

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Sandy River 

ONA 

Cultural: Barlow Road and Rock Corral 

are National Register sites; prehistoric site 

eligible for the National Register also 

exists; Scenic: The inner gorge has steep 

canyon walls, deep, trench-like pools, 

waterfalls and cliff-dwelling plant 

communities; The Mt. Hood corridor 

(Highway 26) has a VRM I classification 

and congressionally designated as the Mt. 

Hood Scenic Corridor

Stocks of Lower Columbia River 

chinook, winter steelhead, coho and 

cutthroat trout ; Peregrine falcons, bald 

eagles, and harlequin ducks have been 

known to use the Sandy River Gorge, 

migratory birds such as the willow 

flycatcher have been documented 

Diverse vegetative communities and low elevation 

old-growth forest ecosystems; riparian old-growth 

forests in the Middle Sandy are rare in the watershed 

downstream from Marmot Dam

Precipitous slopes and 

canyon walls line the 

inner gorge

Silt Creek -- --

Active, natural landslide with an old-growth forest 

and unique habitat related to the slow but continual 

mass earth movement; host to an abnormally large 

population of Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis.

Large scale, active 

natural landslide

Snow Peak --

High quality natural ecosystem 

supporting considerable biological 

diversity; northern spotted owl; various 

migratory bird species

Elevation of 4,280 ft. very close to the Willamette 

Valley; A variety of special habitats in close 

proximity, including wet meadows, dry meadows, 

rock outcrops/crevice habitat, talus slopes, mature to 

old-growth forests, headwater streams with adjacent 

riparian and brushy thickets; rare botanical fungi, 

lichens, and vascular plants, including several 

Bureau Sensitive species; deer cabbage, a wetland 

botanical species (Fauria crista-galli), found 

nowhere else in Oregon

--

Soosap 

Meadows -- --

These meadows are the only large, undisturbed 

expanse of natural Cascadian subalpine meadows in 

the Salem District. Streams that have cut through the 

glacial moraine have left behind a unique and 

diverse remnant of subalpine habitat.

--

The Butte RNA -- --

The area represents the Willamette Valley Douglasfir-bigleaf maple forest with some grand fir and the 

Oregon white oak/grass savanna ecosystem 

elements. It represents an uncommon transitional 

ecotone involving Willamette Valley margin plant 

communities and upland Coast Range forested 

communities.

--
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

248 | P a g e

ACEC

Name

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Valley of the 

Giants 

Educational organizations often visit the 

area for informal studies; The area also 

provides for scenic values and excellent 

opportunities for photography

Nesting habitat for one of the largest 

concentrations of breeding marbled 

murrelet in Oregon; northern spotted 

owls, bald eagles, and Oregon Coastal 

steelhead trout; invertebrate species 

closely associated with older forest 

conditions.

Well-studied remnant old-growth western hemlock 

plant association and the largest contiguous stand of 

ancient old-growth forest in the northern Oregon 

Coast Range (over 800 acres, 400+ years old); rare 

or uncommon botanical species reported from this 

location include Schistostega pennata, Filipendula 

occidentalis, and Tetraphis geniculata

--

Walker Flat -- --

One of the few natural occurrences of Sidalcea 

nelsonia in the Coast Range --

Waterloo -- --

Naturally occurring Ponderosa pine and historically 

part of a large oak-fir-pine savanna, with prairie 

located just to the east; is an integral part of a larger 

system of target conservation areas for the oak-pinefir habitats

--

White Rock 

Fen --

Nesting and foraging potential for 

neotropical migratory birds and other 

wildlife species

Four poor fens are unique to the region and are 

fragile; streams that have cut through the glacial 

moraine have left behind a unique and diverse 

remnant of subalpine habitat for botanical, wildlife 

and aquatic species.

--

Wilhoit Springs -- --

A rare community with regional significance as an 

intact low-elevation old-growth conifer forest --

Yellowstone 

Creek

The creek contains numerous waterfalls 

and cascades in a steep, v-shaped canyon 

surrounded by old-growth forest, lower 

portions are in the Quartzville Creek Wild 

and Scenic River; the diversity and old age 

of the vegetation combined with geologic 

features creates high intrinsic quality 

scenery

Northern spotted owl

This tributary to Quartzville Creek is an undisturbed 

area of low elevation (1,200-3,100 feet), highquality, contiguous, old growth forest; supports a 

broad diversity of overstory tree species including 

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, 

Pacific yew, Pacific silver-fir, noble fir, western 

white pine, sugar pine, bigleaf maple, red alder and 

black cottonwood

--
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

249 | P a g e

References 

Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council (ONHAC). 1981. Revised 1988 and 1993. Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (ONHP). 

147 pp. http://orbic.pdx.edu/documents/hplan_1998.pdf. 

---. 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. 

USDI BLM. 2001. North Bank Habitat Management Area/ACEC Record of Decision, Habitat Management Plan and Monitoring 

Plan. 73 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/files/NBnkACEC.pdf. 

Vander Schaaf, D., G. Wilhere, Z. Ferdan͂a, K. Popper, M. Schindel, P. Skidmore, D. Rolph, P. Iachetti, G. Kittel, R. Crawford, 

D. Pickering, and J. Christy. 2006. Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregion Assessment. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy, 

The Nature Conservancy of Canada, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Nature Conservancy, 

Portland, OR. 147 pp. 

http://oregonexplorer.info/data_files/OE_location/northcoast/documents/NorthCoastPDFs/PNW%20Coast%20EA%20Final

_Main_Report_Aug21.pdf. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

250 | P a g e
251 | P a g e

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

252 | P a g e

Coos Bay 

The Recreation Management Area Frameworks for the Coos Bay 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 Coos Bay District. 

Name Type Acres

Bastendorff Beach SRMA 53

Blue Ridge Trail System ERMA 1,405

Coos Head SRMA 54

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area SRMA 1,146

Doerner Fir Trail ERMA 17

East Fork Illinois Trails ERMA 1,440

Edson Creek Campground SRMA 45

Fawn Creek Campground SRMA 3

Floras Lake ERMA 50

Hinsdale Garden SRMA 11

Hunter Creek Trail System ERMA 198

Loon Lake Recreation Area SRMA 76

North Spit Boat Ramp SRMA 5

North Spit Trail System ERMA 1,505

Park Creek Campground SRMA 4

Rocky Peak Trail ERMA 1,949

Sixes River Campground SRMA 27

Smith River Corridor ERMA 9,505

Smith River Falls Campground SRMA 4

Storm Ranch SRMA 236

Vincent Creek Campground SMRA 4

Wasson Creek ERMA 5,811

West Laverne Park Campground SRMA 24
Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

253 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map G-1. Recreation Management Areas within the Coos Bay District. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

254 | P a g e

Eugene 

The Recreation Management Area Frameworks for the Eugene 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 Eugene District. 

Name Type Acres

Calapooya Divide Backcountry Byway ERMA 225

Carpenter Bypass Mountain Bike Trail ERMA 1,160

Carpenter Bypass Staging Area SRMA 1

Cascade View OHV Complex SRMA 6

Clay Creek Recreation Site SRMA 10

Clay Creek Trail ERMA 14

Coburg Hiking Trail System ERMA 1,940

Coburg Hills Backcountry Byway ERMA 79

Crooked Creek OHV Staging Site SRMA 1

Culp Creek Trailhead SRMA < 1

Dorena Dam Trail Access Site SRMA 1

Eagles Rest Hiking/Biking Trail ERMA 3

Hult Equestrian Staging Area SRMA 1

Hult Reservoir Non-motorized Trail ERMA 213

Hult Reservoir Recreation Area SRMA 21

Lost Creek Backcountry Byway ERMA 144

Lost Creek Trails ERMA 20

Lower Lake Creek Falls SRMA 2

Martin Rapids Overlook SRMA 3

McGowan Creek Environmental Education Area SRMA 1

McGowan Creek Environmental Education Area Trail ERMA 91

McKenzie River Campground SRMA 146

McKenzie River Dispersed Recreation Corridor ERMA 276

McKercher Park SRMA < 1

Mosby Creek Trailhead SRMA 10

North Bowl Campground ERMA 83

Rennie Boat Landing SRMA < 1

Row River Trail ERMA 67

Row River Trail Expansion ERMA 2

Sharps Creek Recreation Site SRMA 3

Shotgun Creek Backcountry Byway ERMA 169

Shotgun Creek Recreation Site SRMA 16

Shotgun Non-Motorized Trail System ERMA 64

Shotgun OHV Trail System ERMA 5,753

Silver Creek Boat and McKenzie River Watchable Wildlife Site SRMA 1

Smith Creek SRMA 1

Taylor Landing Recreation Site SRMA 3
Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

255 | P a g e

Name Type Acres

Tyrrell Seed Orchard Interpretive Trail ERMA 8

Upper Lake Creek ERMA 12,486

Whitewater Day Use Area SRMA 6

Whittaker Creek Recreation Area SRMA 2

Whittaker Creek Trail ERMA 13

Willamalane Non-Motorized Trails ERMA 1,058

Willamette River Greenway SRMA 4
256 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map INSERT MAP HERE 

G-2. Recreation Management Areas within the Eugene District. 

256 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

| Page

Map INSERT MAP HERE 

G-2. Recreation Management Areas within the Eugene District. 
Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

257 | P a g e

Roseburg – Swiftwater 

The Recreation Management Area Frameworks for the Swiftwater 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 Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg 

District.

Name Type Acres

Calapooya Divide Backcountry Byway ERMA 44

Cavitt Creek Falls Recreation Site SRMA 16

Eagleview Group Campground SRMA 12

E-Mile Day-Use Area SRMA 5

Honeycombs ERMA 4

Hubbard Creek OHV ERMA 11,583

Lone Rock Drift Boat Launch SRMA 1

Millpond/Lone Pine Recreation Site SRMA 52

Narrows ERMA 16

North Bank-Comstock Day Use Area SRMA 2

North Bank-West Entrance SRMA 2

North Bank Habitat Management Area ERMA 6,523

North Umpqua Wild Scenic River Corridor SRMA 2,222

Osprey Boat Ramp SRMA 3

Rock Creek Recreation Site SRMA 22

Scaredman Recreation Site SRMA 10

Smith River Corridor-Roseburg ERMA 140

Swiftwater Day-Use Area SRMA 4

Tyee Recreation Area SRMA 14

Upper Susan Creek Falls Trail ERMA 53

Wolf Creek Falls Trail SRMA 16
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

258 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map G-3. Recreation Management Areas within the Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg 

District. 
Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

259 | P a g e

Salem 

The Recreation Management Area Frameworks for the Salem 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-4).

Table G-4. Recreation Management Areas within the Salem District. 

Name Type Acres

Alsea Falls SRMA 3,226

Aquila Vista SRMA 178

Baty Butte Trail ERMA 551

Canyon Creek SRMA 13

Cedar Grove SRMA 5

Crabtree Valley ERMA 584

Crazy Cougar ERMA 1,312

Crooked Finger ERMA 451

Crown Zellerbach Trail (CZ Mainline) ERMA 23

Dogwood SRMA 6

Eagle Creek Trail ERMA 160

Elkhorn Creek WSR ERMA 1,103

Elkhorn Valley Campground SRMA 78

Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site SRMA 184

Green Peter Peninsula ERMA 2,054

Highland ERMA 844

Ivors Wayside SRMA 2

Marmot Recreation Site SRMA 92

Marmot Trail System ERMA 530

Mary’s Peak ERMA 3,759

Mill Creek-Gooseneck ERMA 7,300

Mill Creek Recreation Site SRMA 469

Missouri Bend SRMA 3

Molalla River Rifle Club Lease ERMA 40

Monument Peak Trail System ERMA 909

Mountaindale ERMA 199

Nasty Rock Trail ERMA 135

Nestucca Backcountry Byway ERMA 203

Nestucca River SRMA 134

North Fork Eagle Creek Campground SRMA 68

North Fork Santiam County Park SRMA 12

Old Miner’s Meadow SRMA 3

Oxbow Regional Park SRMA 260

Pacific City ERMA 63

Quartzville Backcountry Byway ERMA 72

Quartzville Creek and Yellowstone Trail ERMA 2,689
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

260 | P a g e

Name Type Acres

Salmonberry Rail to Trail ERMA 14

Sandy-Salmon River Corridor ERMA 2,187

Sandy Ridge Trail System SRMA 3,802

Sandy Ridge Trailhead SRMA 52

Scaponia Park SRMA 8

Shellburg Trail System ERMA 283

Sheridan Peak Overlook SRMA 3

Silver Falls State Park SRMA 237

Snow Peak/Neal Creek ERMA 6,757

South Fork Alsea Backcountry Byway ERMA 88

South Fork Clackamas Waterfalls ERMA 1,116

Table Rock Fork – Molalla River ERMA 19,353

Table Rock Wilderness-Pechuck Lookout ERMA 6,171

Tillamook Ridge-Little North Fork Wilson ERMA 5,745

Three Bears-Hardy Creek SRMA 14

Upper Nestucca OHV Trail System ERMA 7,633

Wildcat Creek Trail System SRMA 2,444

Wildwood Recreation Site SRMA 553

Wilhoit Springs ERMA 561

Yaquina Head ONA SRMA 91

Yellowbottom SRMA 13
Appendix G – Recreation Management Areas 

261 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map G-4. Recreation Management Areas within the Salem District.
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

262 | P a g e
263 | 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 limited56or closed for 

public motorized access (Map H-1 to Map H-4). 57 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 objectives58

 Closed– Areas that the BLM has closed to all public motorized vehicle activities to 

protect resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce visitor conflicts 

 

56 Designation of areas as limited, and as displayed in maps in Maps H-1 through H-4, 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.

57 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). 

58 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

264 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map H-1. Public motorized access area designations within the Coos Bay District.
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

265 | Page

 

orized access area designations within the Eugene District. 

Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

265 | Page

 

orized access area designations within the Eugene District. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

266 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map H-3. Public motorized access area designations within the Swiftwater Field Office of the 

Roseburg District.
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

267 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map H-4. Public motorized access area designations within the Salem District.
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

270 | Page

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. 

268 | Page

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. 

268 | Page

nd planning prior to 

ng and analysis. The 

using an interdisciplinary 

recreation, commercial and 

d types). 

e-specific decisions to 

 the designation criteria in 

dverse effects or to continue 

nd rehabilitation after 

s. 

idered for closure and

destination when the 

graphy and user experience. 

pose and need and the 

ere resource or user 

te will be considered for 

at. 

d for closure. 

n tracks or skis will be 

es on routes in sensitive 

ent administrative/agency 

nly. 

agement Plan. 

enhance habitat when 

 CFR 8364 (Closures and 

CFR 6302 (Use of 

41 (Conditions of Use). 

s are enacted at the 

nflicts and protect persons, 

d officer determines that 

dverse effects upon soil, 

ical resources, threatened or 

ses, or other resources, the 

hicle causing the adverse 

mplemented to prevent 

all be considered only after 

red. The duration of 

months or less; however, 

porary closures. This may 

Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

266 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map H-3. Public motorized access area designations within the Swiftwater Field Office of the 

Roseburg District.
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

269 | 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

270 | 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. 
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

271 | P a g e

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

District/Field Office Recreation Trail Miles

Coos Bay

Blue Ridge 10.0

Doerner Fir 0.5

Euphoria Ridge OHV Trail System 4.0

Floras Lake 1.0

Four Mile Creek 0.3

Loon Lake Waterfall 0.5

Lost Lake 1.0

New River/Storm Ranch 2.0

New River Water Trails 5.0

New Fork Hunter Creek 2.0

North Spit Trail System 9.0

Subtotal 35.3

Eugene

Clay Creek Trail 0.6

Eagles Rest Trail 0.2

Lake Creek Falls Trail 0.2

Row River Trail 13.5

Shotgun Creek Non-Motorized Trails 6.2

Shotgun Creek OHV Trail System 23.2

Tyrrell Forest Succession Trail 1.0

Whittaker Creek Trail 1.0

Subtotal 45.9

Roseburg

Emerald Trail 1.3

North Bank Ranch Trail System 8.0

North Umpqua Trail 12.3

Sawmill Trail 12.3

Susan Creek Trails 2.0

Susan Creek Falls Trails 1.0

Wolf Creek Falls Trails 1.2

Subtotal 38.1

Salem

Alsea Falls Trail System 8.0

Baty Butte-Silver King Trail 3.4

Boulder Ridge Trail 0.2

Eagle Creek Trail 0.5

McIntyre Ridge Trail 0.5

Molalla River Trail System 24.6

Nasty Rock Trail 1.0

Sandy Ridge Trail System 15.4

Table Rock Wilderness Trails 20.4

Upper Nestucca OHV Trail System 25.0

Valley of the Giants Trail 0.8

Subtotal 99.8

Grand Total 219.1
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

272 | 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 (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 
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

273 | 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. 

Coos Bay District Public Motorized Access Designations 

Table H-2. Coos Bay District public motorized access designations 

Designation Acres

Open -

Limited to Existing Routes 317,458

Limited to Designated Routes 4,157

Closed 3,801
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

274 | P a g e

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Coos Bay District. See additional 

guidelines for the Blue Ridge OHV Travel Management Area.

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 and 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 will be available to the public at the Coos Bay District office illustrating 

designations, describing specific restrictions, and defining opportunities. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM has completed route 

designations for the New River ACEC and the Blue Ridge OHV Travel Management Area. The 

BLM will accomplish final route designations for the rest of the district though implementationlevel travel management planning. The BLM’s geo-database will provide information for 

identifying roads and trails for both motorized and non-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 implementation-level travel management planning process. 
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

275 | P a g e

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. 

Bastendorff Beach Travel Management Area 

The BLM completed route designations within the Bastendorff Beach area through the 

Bastendorff Beach Cooperative Management Plan Environmental Assessment (EA C030-2011-

0006-EA). The BLM would continue to manage the Bastendorff Beach Travel Management 

Area in the Coos Bay District as a Recreation Management Area with a street-legal vehicle 

focus. The following management guidelines apply to the Bastendorff Beach Travel 

Management Area on the Coos Bay District: 

Acres: 111 

Public Motorized Access Designation: Limited to designated roads and trails. 

Niche: Offers foredune access along beach; beach is closed to motorized vehicles. 

Management Guidelines: 

 Road, routes, and parking lots are available to street-legal vehicles only, to be 

compatible with the state’s Ocean Shore State Recreation Area rules on the beach. 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: The principal venue for public 

collaboration on the designated routes is through local partnership relationships. A designated 

route map is posted on-site at each of the four parking lots, and is available to the public online at 

the Coos Bay District office webpage. The designated route is marked on the ground with 

regulatory and directional signage. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM completed route designations 

within the Bastendorff Beach Area through the Bastendorff Beach Cooperative Management 

Plan Environmental Assessment (EA C030-2011-0006-EA). The BLM would accomplish these 

modifications in collaboration with partners and users and through changes to Bastendorff Beach 

Cooperative Management Plan and an environmental assessment. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM would maintain roads in 

accordance with the design features identified in the environmental assessment, standards in 

BLM Manual H-9114-1 – Trails (USDI BLM 1987), and other professional sources. 

Blue Ridge Travel Management Area 

The BLM completed route designations within the Blue Ridge Travel Management Area through 

the Blue Ridge Multiple Use Trail System environmental assessment (EA OR-125-98-18). The 

BLM will continue to manage the Blue Ridge Travel Management Area in the Coos Bay District 

as a Recreation Management Area with an off-highway vehicle focus. The following 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

276 | P a g e

management guidelines apply to the Blue Ridge Travel Management Area on the Coos Bay 

District: 

Acres: 1,609 

Designation: Limited to designated roads and trails; seasonal closure

Niche: Offers a multiple-use, single-track trail riding experience for hikers, equestrians, 

mountain bikers, and motorcycle riders.

Management Guidelines: 

 The single-track trail system is available to Class III (motorcycles) vehicles with Oregon 

all-terrain vehicle permits and all non-motorized modes of travel. 

 Motorized, mechanized, and equestrian use is prohibited between December and April to 

prevent excessive damage to the trail tread when soil moisture conditions are high. 

Motorized use on the trail system may be restricted during summer months due to fire 

hazard conditions. 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: The principal venue for public 

collaboration on the trail system is through local partnership relationships. A printed trail map is 

available to the public at the Coos Bay District office and on the Coos Regional Trail Partnership 

webpage. The trail system is marked on the ground with regulatory and directional signage.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM completed route designations 

through the Blue Ridge Multiple Use Trail System environmental assessment (EA OR-125-98-

18). The BLM will use adaptive management to adjust the system for commercial timber 

production demands, user needs and resource protection. The BLM will accomplish these 

modifications in collaboration with trail partners and users and through changes to the Blue 

Ridge Trail system plan and an environmental assessment. 

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 environmental 

assessment, 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 riding experience for trail users and to conserve natural resource values. 

Coos Bay Shorelands Travel Management Area 

The BLM completed route designations within the Coos Bay Shorelands Travel Management 

Area through the Coos Bay Shorelands Management Plan and environmental assessment (EA 

OR-129-93-07). The BLM would continue to manage the Coos Bay Shorelands Travel 

Management Area in the Coos Bay District as a Recreation Management Area with a natural 

system focus. The following management guidelines apply to the Coos Bay Shorelands Travel 

Management Area on the Coos Bay District: 

Acres: 1,700 
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

277 | P a g e

OHV Designation: Limited to designated roads and trails. 

Niche: Offers non-motorized and motorized opportunities including, access to beach, an interior 

trail experience for hikers and equestrians, and exterior motorized access along the Foredune and 

Bayside intertidal area sand roads. North Spit Boat Ramp facility affords the only boat access 

from the North Spit area to the lower Coos Bay channel. 

Management Guidelines: 

 Only the Foredune and Bayside intertidal area sand roads are available to motorized 

vehicles and may be restricted on a seasonal basis. 

 North Spit Boat Ramp facility is accessible from County public road and only street-legal 

vehicles are allowed. 

 Manage off-highway vehicle use on BLM-administered land to protect natural resources, 

provide visitor safety, and minimize conflicts among various users. 

 Continue to provide non-motorized recreation opportunities and create additional 

opportunities where consistent with other management objectives. 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: The principal venue for public 

collaboration on the trail system is through local partnership relationships. A printed trail map is 

available to the public at the Coos Bay District office webpage. The trail system is marked on the 

ground with regulatory and directional signage. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM completed route designations 

through the Coos Bay Shorelands Management Plan and environmental assessment (EA OR129-93-07). The BLM would accomplish these modifications in collaboration with partners and 

users and through changes to the Coos Bay Shorelands plan of 1995 and an environmental 

assessment. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM would construct and 

maintain roads and trails in accordance with the design features identified in the environmental 

assessment, standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 – Trails (USDI BLM 1987), and other 

professional sources. Trail maintenance would be a priority within this Travel Management Area 

to ensure a quality riding experience for trail users and to conserve natural resource values. 

New River Travel Management Area 

The BLM completed route designations within the New River ACEC through the New River 

ACEC Management Plan and environmental assessment (EA OR-128-93-15). The BLM would 

continue to manage the New River ACEC Travel Management Area in the Coos Bay District as 

a Recreation Management Area with an non-motorized focus. The following management 

guidelines apply to the New River ACEC Travel Management Area on the Coos Bay District: 

Acres: 1135 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

278 | P a g e

Public Motorized Access Designation: Limited to designated roads and trails 

Niche: Offers a non-motorized experience for hikers. 

Management Guidelines: 

 The trail system is available to non-motorized use. 

 Vehicle use of River Road is available to street-legal vehicles and may be restricted on a 

seasonal basis. 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: The principal venue for public 

collaboration on the trail system is through local partnership relationships. A printed trail map is 

available to the public at the Coos Bay District office and on the Coos Regional Trail Partnership 

webpage. The trail system is marked on the ground with regulatory and directional signage. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM completed route designations 

through the New River ACEC Management Plan and environmental assessment (EA OR-128-

93-15). The BLM would use adaptive management to adjust the system for user needs and 

resource protection. The BLM would accomplish these modifications in collaboration with trail 

partners and users and through changes to the New River ACEC Management Plan and an 

environmental assessment. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM would construct and 

maintain roads and trails in accordance with the design features identified in the environmental 

assessment, standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 – Trails (USDI BLM 1987), and other 

professional sources. Trail maintenance would be a priority within this Travel Management Area 

to ensure a quality experience for trail users and to conserve natural resource values. 
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

279 | P a g e

Eugene District Public Motorized Access Designations 

Table H-3. Eugene District public motorized access designations. 

Designation Acres

Open -

Limited to Existing Routes 311,045

Limited to Designated Routes -

Closed 2,661

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Eugene 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 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 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

280 | P a g e

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 

281 | 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-
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

282 | 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 implementation-level transportation planning. 

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 

283 | P a g e

Salem District Public Motorized Access Designations 

Table H-5. Salem District public motorized access designations. 

Designation Acres

Open -

Limited to Existing Routes 373,588

Limited to Designated Routes 7,633

Closed 22,069

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Salem District. See additional 

guidelines for the Upper Nestucca OHV Area.

Limited to Existing 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: 

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 management plan, maps and brochures 

shall be available to the public at the main office illustrating designations, and describing 

specific restrictions.
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

284 | P a g e

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: Route designations have been completed 

for the Upper Nestucca Travel Management Area. 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 has been and 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 existing system during implementation-level travel planning. 

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. 

Upper Nestucca Travel Management Area 

Acres: 9,579 

Designation: Limited to designated roads and trails 

Niche: Located 20 miles northwest of McMinnville, Oregon, this area provides Class I (allterrain vehicles), and Class III (motorcycles) OHV riding experience along a designated road and 

trail network. 

Management Guidelines:

 Designated trails and maintained roadways are limited to Class I and Class III motor 

vehicle use within the boundaries of the travel management area. 

 All Class I and Class III vehicles must be equipped with approved spark arresters, an 

Oregon all-terrain vehicles sticker for the appropriate vehicle class, and must meet posted 

noise requirements. 

 Class II vehicle use is only authorized on Road Maintenance Level 3 and Level 4 

roadways59.

 The BLM may restrict motorized use on the trail system during summer months due to fire 

hazard conditions. 

 

59 Level 3 – This level is assigned to roads where management objectives require the road to be open seasonally or year-round 

for commercial, recreational, or administrative access. Typically, these roads are natural or aggregate surfaced, but may include 

low use bituminous surfaced road. These roads have a defined cross section with drainage structures (e.g., rolling dips, culverts, 

or ditches). These roads may be negotiated by passenger cars traveling at prudent speeds. User comfort and convenience are not 

considered a high priority. Drainage structures are to be inspected at least annually and maintained as needed. Grading is 

conducted to provide a reasonable level of riding comfort at prudent speeds for the road conditions. Brushing is conducted as 

needed to improve sight distance. 

Level 4 – This level is assigned to roads where management objectives require the road to be open all year (except may be closed 

or have limited access due to snow conditions) and which connect major administrative features (recreational sites, local road 

systems, administrative sites, etc.) to County, State, or Federal roads. Typically, these roads are single or double lane, aggregate, 

or bituminous surface, with a higher volume of commercial and recreational traffic than administrative traffic.
Appendix H – Public Motorized Access 

285 | P a g e

 The BLM may permanently or temporarily close areas or trails for administrative use, 

extreme wet conditions, construction and reconstruction requirements, or other 

environmental concerns. 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: The principal venue for public 

collaboration on the trail system is through local partnership with the Applegate Rough Riders 

Motorcycle Club. Trail maps are available to the public at the Salem District Office and 

Tillamook Field Office. The trail system is marked on the ground with regulatory and directional 

signage. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM has completed route 

designations through the Upper Nestucca Motorcycle Trail System Environmental Assessment 

(EA OR 086-97-05). The BLM will use adaptive management to adjust the system for timber 

management, user needs, 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 Monitoring and 

Maintenance Plan for the Upper Nestucca Trail System. Trail maintenance will be a priority 

within this travel management area to ensure a quality riding experience for trail users and to 

conserve natural resource values. 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

286 | P a g e
287 | 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 

FR Federal Register 

FS U.S. Forest Service 

FTEM Fuels Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GIS geographic information system 

HLB Harvest Land Base 

HUC hydrologic unit code (e.g., HUC-10 watershed) 

LITA Low Intensity Timber Area 

LSR Late-Successional Reserve 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

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 

ONA Outstanding Natural Area 

QMD quadratic mean diameter 

RD relative density 

RMA recreation management area 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

288 | P a g e

R&I relevant and important (values) 

RMP resource management plan 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD record of decision 

ROW right-of-way 

SDI Stand Density Index 

SOD sudden oak death 

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 

VRM visual resource management 

WSR Wild and Scenic River 
289 | 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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

290 | 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 

291 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

292 | 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 

293 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

294 | 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 

295 | 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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

296 | 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. 

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. 

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. 
Glossary 

297 | P a g e

Land Use Allocation – The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable 

development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based 

on desired future conditions.

Lead-off ditch – A formed channel that diverts ditch water away from the road, usually angled 

in the direction of water flow and placed at locations to empty into vegetative filtering areas. 

Leasable minerals – Minerals generally found in bedded deposits and include oil, gas, coal, 

chlorides, sulfates, carbonates, borates, silicates, and nitrates of potassium (potash) or sodium 

and related products; sulfur; phosphate and its associated and related minerals; asphalt; and 

gilsonite. 

Locatable minerals – Metallic minerals (e.g., gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, and nickel) and 

nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar, mica, certain limestone and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals 

in placer form and gemstones) in land belonging to the United States that are open to citizens of 

the United States for exploration, discovery, and location which conveys the possessory right to 

extract the locatable minerals upon receiving all required authorizations in accordance with 

regulations at 43 CFR 3802 for lands in wilderness review and 43 CFR 3809 for other public 

lands. 

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. 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

298 | P a g e

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. 

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. 
Glossary 

299 | P a g e

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. 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

300 | P a g e

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. 

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. 
Glossary 

301 | P a g e

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 

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, 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

302 | P a g e

fills in stream channels, and unstable areas will be removed, if necessary, to restore 

natural hydrologic flow. The road will be closed with an earthen barrier or its equivalent. 

The road will not require future maintenance. This category includes roads that have been 

closed due to a natural process (abandonment) and where hydrologic flow has been 

naturally restored. 

 Obliteration (full site restoration/permanent) – Roads receiving this level of treatment 

have no future need. All drainage structures will be removed. Fill material used in the 

original road construction will be excavated and placed on the subgrade in an attempt to 

reestablish the original ground line. Exposed soil will be vegetated with native trees or 

other native vegetation. Road closure by obliteration is rarely used. 

Rotation [age] – The planned number of years between the establishment of an even-aged or 

two-aged forest stand and its regeneration harvest. 

Salable minerals – Minerals including but not limited to petrified wood and common varieties 

of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinder, clay, and rock. 

Salvage harvest(ing) – Removal of dead trees or of trees damaged or dying because of injurious 

agents other than competition, to recover their economic value. 

Sediment – Fine particles of inorganic or organic matter carried by water. 

Seed orchard – A plantation of clones or seedlings from selected trees; isolated to reduce 

pollination from outside sources, weeded of undesirables, and cultured for early and abundant 

production of seed. 

Selection harvest(ing) – A method of uneven-aged management involving the harvesting of 

single trees from stands (single-tree selection) or in groups up to four (4) acres in size (group 

selection) without harvesting the entire stand at any one time. 

Seral stages – The series of relatively transitory plant communities that develop during 

ecological succession from bare ground to the climax stage. 

Shelterwood harvest(ing) – A regeneration harvest method under an even-aged silvicultural 

system. With this method a portion of the mature stand is retained as a source of protection 

during the regeneration period. The retained trees are removed when protection requirements 

have been met. 

Shotgun culverts – Ditch relief or stream culverts where the outlet extends beyond the natural 

ground line. 

Silvicultural practices (or treatments or system) – The set of field techniques and general 

methods used to modify and manage a forest stand over time to meet desires conditions and 

objectives. Examples include reforestation, pre-commercial thinning, and commercial thinning. 
Glossary 

303 | P a g e

Silvicultural prescription – A planned series of treatments designed to change current stand 

structure to one that meets management goals. 

Silvicultural system – A planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and reestablishing 

a stand. The system name is based on the number of age classes managed within a stand (e.g., 

even-aged, 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 

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 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

304 | P a g e

 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. 

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. 
Glossary 

305 | P a g e

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.

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.
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

306 | P a g e

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 

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. 
Glossary 

307 | P a g e

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. 

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. 
Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP 

308 | P a g e

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.