Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

441 | Page

Recreation and Visitor Services 

Key Points x Alternative D provides the greatest number of acres allocated as Recreation Management Areas. 

x Alternative A reduces recreation opportunities when compared to the No Action alternative. 

x Alternative D provides the greatest number and acres of Recreation Management Areas in closest 

proximity to the twelve most populated communities in the planning area. 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect the BLM’s ability to provide recreation opportunities and manage for 

beneficial recreation outcomes across western Oregon?

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM evaluated the effects of the alternatives on recreation opportunities and outcomes by comparing 

how the alternatives affect: A) acres of Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) by type; B) changes to 

Recreation Setting Characteristics; C) the availability of recreation opportunities and the extent to which 

they meet anticipated recreation demand in the planning area; and D) acres affected by specific activity 

prohibitions. This analysis includes both effects from the alternatives’ recreation management strategies 

and effects from management for other program areas on recreation resources. 

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

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

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

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

administrative settings. Effects on settings can either be the achievement of a desired setting or the 

unwanted shift in setting (e.g., to either a more primitive or urban environment). 

The BLM does not specifically manage for recreation settings in areas where the BLM has not designated 

RMAs, although these areas do still provide intrinsic recreational values and opportunities. The indicator 

typically used to describe the effect on these areas is the availability of opportunities as described by 

either acreage restrictions or specific activity prohibitions. 

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

of recreation opportunities (activities and desired outcomes) and changes to physical, social, and 

administrative settings as indicators of effects. This analysis analyzed the effects that proposed 

management decisions would have on managing recreation settings and the targeted outcomes. For areas 

managed as Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs), the BLM considered both availability of 

activity opportunities and changes to the qualities and conditions (i.e., settings). This analysis includes the 

effects that proposed management decisions would have on managing recreation activities and the 

prescribed setting conditions. Since visitor use patterns are difficult to estimate and are dependent on 

many factors beyond the scope of management (e.g., recreational trends and economy) the BLM only 

used qualitative language (e.g., increase or decrease) to describe anticipated effects on visitation. 

Recreation Management Areas 

The BLM assumed that designation of an RMA increases its ability to protect and enhance the targeted 

activities, experiences, benefits, and desired recreation setting characteristics on a long-term basis. The 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

442 | Page

BLM considered how the alternatives would affect: (1) the types of RMAs, spatial distribution, and acres 

on BLM-administered lands within the decision area; (2) the type of targeted outcomes and targeted 

activities; 3) the management actions that result in short-term and long-term elimination, restriction, or 

reduction of recreation opportunities, activities, experiences, or setting characteristics. 

Recreation Setting Characteristics 

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

areas in which to recreate based on the qualities and conditions of the area and because they want to 

realize a specific set of recreation experiences and benefits. For example, primitive camping in a 

backcountry forested setting by a remote lake offers a different experience from camping in a highlydeveloped campground adjacent to a rural reservoir. 

The BLM categorized the type of recreational setting available in a particular area through its recreation 

setting classification system. The BLM bases its Recreational Setting Classification System on a 

combination of physical, operational, and social setting characteristics. The combination of these 

characteristics determines the overall recreational setting for a particular area. This analysis considers the 

social and physical setting characteristics of remoteness and naturalness because they provide the most 

direct measure of resource management effects under each alternative. The BLM considered how the 

alternatives would affect: (1) acres of naturalness and remoteness in RMAs; (2) the protection of setting 

characteristics in SRMAs and ERMAs; (3) recreation opportunity class by type and acres. 

The scale of this analysis is at the forest stand level, which varies greatly across BLM-administered lands. 

In fact, within a one-square-mile block of ownership, there can be more than a dozen different stand 

types. This results in an equal number of recreation settings, some of which can be relatively small and 

disjointed. For example, small patches of old forest scattered throughout young, even-aged stands can 

result in the Primitive setting being obscured by a more predominate Front Country setting. 

The intermixing of setting types affects visitor experiences depending on their individual preferences. 

Since setting preferences are subjective and vary from one person to the next, this analysis does not 

consider this interrelationship. Rather, the BLM has analyzed all forest stands on BLM-administered 

lands within the decision area to calculate the total number of acres within each setting type. This analysis 

does not consider non-forested lands or BLM-administered lands occupied by existing roads, since timber 

harvest does not affect the naturalness of these areas. Non-forested habitat and roads account for 

approximately 4 percent and 3 percent, respectively, of the BLM’s total land base. Figure 3-135 shows a

visual representation of forest structural stage classifications for the naturalness levels for each 

recreational setting using a series of forest stand visualizations. 

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

444 | Page

process by alternative. This analysis does not consider the proximity of non-BLM roads located on 

adjacent lands, since they do not aid in the comparison of alternatives. 

Table 3-124. Classification of recreational settings by remoteness. 

Recreational Setting Classifications Level of Remoteness

Primitive Greater than 1 mile from any class of road, excluding those that 

are permanently closed or decommissioned

Backcountry 0.25 to 1 mile from any class of road, excluding those that are 

permanently closed or decommissioned

Middle Country Within 0.25 mile of local* or resource roads

Front Country Within 0.25 mile of collector roads

Rural/Urban Within 0.25 mile of arterial roads or highways

*Collector roads-Roads that primarily provide access to large blocks of public land, accommodate multiple uses, have BLM’s

highest traffic volumes, and connect with State and county road systems. Local roads-Roads that normally serve smaller areas 

than collectors, accommodate fewer uses, have lower traffic volumes, and connect with collectors or State and county road 

systems. Resource roads-Roads that provide point access to public lands, typically exist for a single use, carry very low traffic 

volumes, and connect with local or collector roads. 

Naturalness (landscape quality, level of disturbance, forest structural complexity, and age): For the 

purposes of classifying recreational settings, the BLM determines naturalness by using forest structural 

stage classes. Table 3-125 contains the classification of recreational settings from Primitive to Urban by 

levels of naturalness. 

Table 3-125. Classification of recreational settings by naturalness. 

Recreational Setting 

Classifications Level of Naturalness

Primitive

x Undisturbed natural landscape

x For this analysis, the BLM uses stands that have structurally-complex forest 

with existing old or very old forest as a proxy for this level of naturalness

Backcountry

x Natural-appearing landscape having modifications not readily noticeable

x For this for this analysis, the BLM uses mature forest with a single or 

multiple canopies as a proxy for this level of naturalness

Middle country

x Natural-appearing landscape having modifications that do not overpower 

natural features

x For this for this analysis, the BLM uses young, high-density forest with 

structural legacies; or, young, low-density forest with or without structural 

legacies as proxies for this level of naturalness

Front country

x Partially-modified landscape with more noticeable modifications

x For this analysis, the BLM used young, high-density forest without structural 

legacies as a proxy for this level of naturalness

Rural

x Substantially-modified natural landscape

x For this analysis, the BLM used stand establishment forest with or without 

structural legacies as a proxy for this level of naturalness

Urban x Urbanized developments dominate landscape

Timber management activities would affect the naturalness aspects of the recreation setting (i.e., forest 

stand structure and age). This in turn affects where visitors recreate based on their setting preferences. 

The amount of timber harvest by type and acres that would occur over the next 10 years is used to classify 

degrees of naturalness along the continuum of recreation settings from Primitive to Rural. This analysis is 

based on forest stand types that are characteristic of these areas. For example, timber harvest that involves 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

445 | Page

thinning dense, young stands would shift the naturalness of an area from the Front Country to the Middle 

Country setting. In contrast, the regeneration harvesting of older stands would modify the naturalness of 

an area from Primitive to Rural. These changes influence the distribution of recreation demand for visitors 

who prefer these different settings. 

Analysis of Recreation Opportunity Restrictions and Targeted 

Activities 

For all areas, the BLM considered the potential for increased or decreased conflict between recreationists 

because of management actions and allowable use restrictions. Recreational conflict occurs when 

incompatible activities take place in the same area. Certain activities interfere with the experience 

expectations of other recreational users (Marcouiller et al. 2008). For example, a hiker with the 

expectation of a quiet experience that encounters an OHV on a trail might consider the encounter as a 

conflict. The presence of an OHV interferes with the expectation of a quiet outing. Conflict among 

recreational users is generally asymmetrical; that is, one user might perceive there is a conflict while 

another user might not perceive there is a conflict (Jackson and Wong 1982). The asymmetrical nature of 

recreational conflict can result in limited recreational experience opportunities where incompatible 

activities are allowed in the same area. 

Recreation Demand 

The BLM estimated recreation demand by considering the estimated number of visitors projected to 

participate in a particular recreation opportunity from 2014-2024 and beyond. The recreation demand 

assessment considers the market area or “visitation range” where the majority of the current or potential 

visitors are likely to reside. The BLM considered the extent to which the alternatives could meet this 

projected recreation demand. This analysis considered the effect of the alternatives on: (1) recreation 

activity type and level of recreation demand that will be met; (2) locations where visitation (demand) 

would exceed the supply of recreation opportunities and where visitor capacity would be exceeded; and 

(3) the spatial distribution of Recreation Management Areas within market area or “visitation” range 

(based on drive time from primary western Oregon communities) by acres. 

The BLM conducted a recreation demand analysis throughout the planning area in 2013-2014. This 

analysis provided the BLM with a better understanding of the current levels of recreational demand and 

scarcity in the planning area. Understanding these current levels of demand assisted the BLM in analyzing 

the potential effect of the alternatives on different recreation types. The BLM also used this recreation 

demand analysis in the identification of potential new RMAs for Alternatives C and D. Econ-Northwest 

conducted a recreation demand analysis throughout the planning area in 2014. The analysis focused on 

proximity to user populations and both scarcity and demand for recreation opportunities. A number of 

factors influence the demand for outdoor recreation in western Oregon. This analysis examined recreation 

context, supply, and demand drivers.

The BLM measured recreation demand in two ways: (1) total number of visitors per year, and (2) total 

number of participants by 13 primary recreation activity categories. Because a single visitor usually 

participates in more than one activity, the number of participants is generally higher than the number of 

actual visitors. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

446 | Page

Analysis Assumptions 

x Since visitor use patterns are difficult to estimate and dependent on many factors beyond the 

scope of management (e.g., recreation trends and economy) only qualitative langue (e.g., 

increase or decrease) is used to describe anticipated impacts on visitation. 

x Special designations, either legislative or administrative, would attract more visitors and result 

in higher use levels. A special identification or designation (e.g., SRMA, WSR) would lead to 

increased visitation. Designated areas that are currently receiving a custodial level of 

management would consequently need more intensive recreation oversight and monitoring 

(e.g., increased facilities, signage, increased staff presence and enforcement, and increased user 

controls). 

x Overlapping designations for other resources are less problematic with ERMAs than with 

SRMAs, because the BLM designs recreation objectives and management direction for ERMAs 

to be commensurate with, and considered in the context of, the management of other resources 

and resource uses. 

x Visual Resource Management classes support the desired physical recreation settings and aid in 

the attainment and long-term protection of these settings. 

Background 

The BLM’s Recreation and Visitor Services Program manages recreation resources and visitor services to 

offer the greatest benefits possible to individuals and communities and to enable communities to achieve 

their own desired social, economic, and environmental outcomes. In previous planning efforts, which are 

reflected in the current RMAs, SRMAs were established where BLM-administered lands were 

experiencing heavy recreation use or where the BLM planned on making large investments in staff, 

funding, facilities, or time. All remaining BLM-administered lands were an ERMA, regardless of whether 

recreation occurred or was a management objective. Due to new BLM policy (BLM Manual 8320 – 

Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services 2011), through the current planning process the BLM will 

designate some BLM-administered lands within the decision area as SRMAs or ERMAs, but will not 

identify other BLM-administered lands for recreation; these lands that will not be managed for recreation 

will be known as public lands not designated. 

Under the new policy, the BLM only designates SRMAs where it recognizes recreation management as 

the predominant land use plan focus and where the BLM intends to manage and protect specific 

recreation opportunities and setting characteristics on a long-term basis. In addition, ERMAs are 

administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use or 

demand, but where recreation management is commensurate and considered in context with the 

management of other resources and resource uses. Defining adverse or beneficial effects is often 

subjective for the purposes of recreation and visitor services. A management action may be adverse to one 

individual or user group, while also beneficial to another individual or user group. Therefore, the BLM 

does not use the terms adverse or beneficial in this analysis. 

A majority of the BLM-administered lands in western Oregon are intermingled with private lands. Legal 

public access is often not available where private lands surround BLM-administered lands. In such cases, 

reciprocal right-of-way agreements, easements, and unsecured access rights across adjacent private lands 

all have a determining effect on public access, which, in turn, influence visitor use. This lack of 

comprehensive legal public access constrains the Bureau’s ability to manage for recreational opportunities 

on a substantial portion of its lands in western Oregon. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

447 | Page

The BLM has assigned either a secured or an unsecured legal public access status to every distinct 

Recreation Management Area unit of the BLM-administered lands throughout western Oregon. Secured 

legal public access occurs where the United States has secured public access rights across private land. 

Public access rights are generally included in the acquisition of exclusive or access road easements where 

the United States has acquired control of the right-of-way. Physical access to these blocks of public land 

must be present and available via roads, trails, or navigable waterways. Unsecured legal public access 

occurs where the United States has not secured public access rights across private land. Administrative 

access may be legally and physically available to the BLM, although the right-of-way agreements or 

easements do not include legal access rights for the public. 

Affected Environment 

BLM-administered lands in western Oregon offer diverse opportunities for a variety of outdoor recreation 

activities and related benefits. Typical recreation activities on BLM-administered lands include camping, 

hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, OHV use, and picnicking. 

BLM-administered lands are not the sole provider of recreational settings and opportunities in western 

Oregon, and many additional opportunities exist on other Federal, State, and county lands throughout the 

planning area. Other recreation-tourism markets also affect the amount of use on BLM-administered 

lands. An estimated 18 percent of all outdoor recreation participation in western Oregon occurs on BLMadministered lands (USDI BLM Recreation Management Information System 2014). For comparison 

purposes, BLM-administered lands account for 12 percent of all lands within the region. Recreation 

visitors to the planning area come from three primary sources: national and international locations, major 

metropolitan areas, and local communities. 

Recreation Management Areas 

The BLM currently manages 29 SRMAs in western Oregon that total 168,968 acres, accounting for 6 

percent of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. Under the 1995 RMPs, the BLM identified 

BLM-administered lands not delineated as an SRMA as an ERMA. In ERMAs, current management 

consists primarily of providing basic information and access. Dispersed recreation occurs in ERMAs, and 

visitors have the freedom of recreational choice with minimal regulatory constraints. Recreation issues or 

management concerns are apparent in ERMAs throughout the planning area where limited recreation 

management is present. These issues are most apparent in ERMAs within the Rural Urban interface where 

increased recreation activities (including off-highway vehicle use and target shooting) have led to social 

and natural resource impacts. The BLM manages 14 ERMAs in western Oregon totaling 2,397,460 acres, 

accounting for 94 percent of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. See Appendix N for an 

overview of Recreation Management Areas by district. 

Recreation Participation 

Table 3-126 and Figure 3-136 provide the current level of participation for the 13 primary recreation 

activities on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, the annual rate of change for each activity 

(based on statewide trends), and their projected levels by the year 2060. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

448 | Page

Table 3-126. Current and projected levels of participation by recreation activity within the planning area 

from 2012 to 2060. 

BLM Recreation 

Categories

Current 

Number of 

Participants 

(2012)

Projected Number of Participants

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Wildlife Viewing, 

Interpretation, and Nature 

Study

2,564,574 2,810,926 3,149,289 3,456,865 3,751,811 4,056,276

Driving for Pleasure 

(Along Designated BLM 

Roadways)

1,959,729 2,140,696 2,388,704 2,610,605 2,819,454 3,033,896

Camping and Picnicking 1,273,349 1,389,106 1,548,035 1,689,978 1,822,216 1,956,881

Non-motorized Travel 

(Hiking, Biking, and 

Horseback Riding)

1,211,201 1,334,041 1,499,867 1,666,874 1,841,117 2,031,541

Hunting (Big Game, 

Upland Game, and 

Migratory Game Birds)

1,063,709 1,111,142 1,159,767 1,197,012 1,232,188 1,270,468

Motorized Off-Highway 

Vehicle Travel 826,256 887,031 955,996 1,035,266 1,128,804 1,238,989

Fishing 598,420 645,558 706,223 760,591 814,388 872,763

Specialized Nonmotorized Activities and 

Events

458,870 501,333 559,264 612,440 663,431 716,455

Swimming and Other 

Water-Based Activities 424,376 467,997 526,296 583,388 640,883 701,192

Non-motorized Boating 224,876 242,296 262,362 286,958 315,870 349,744

Motorized Boating 97,622 107,563 119,936 133,508 149,019 167,485

Non-motorized Winter 

Activities 50,444 56,687 64,711 73,679 84,205 97,138

Snowmobile and other 

Motorized Winter 

Activities

6,903 7,428 7,998 8,734 9,629 10,697

Total All Activities 10,760,329 11,701,805 12,948,446 14,115,899 15,273,015 16,503,525
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

449 | Page

Figure 3-136. Projected levels of change by recreation activity within the planning area from 2012-2060. 

Recreation Supply and Demand Estimates 

The BLM evaluated activity-specific recreation demand for the twelve communities within the project 

area with the largest resident populations. Table 3-127 provides a summary of 2,265 responses to the 

2012-2013 interactive BLM website that solicited public input. Results show community level and 

activity specific recreation demand preferences for 17 distinct recreation activities across western Oregon. 

 

+1.0%

+0.9% 

+0.9% 

+1.1% 

+0.4% 

+0.8% 

+0.8% 

+0.9% 

+1.1% 

+0.9% 

+1.1% 

+1.4% 

+0.9% 

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, & Nature Study

Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM Roads)

Camping/Picknicking

Nonmotorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, & Horseback)

Hunting (Big/Upland Game, Migratory Game Birds)

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Travel

Fishing

Specialized Nonmotorized Activities & Events

Swimming & Other Water-Based Activities

Nonmotorized Boating

Motorized Boating

Nonmotorized Winter Activities

Snowmobile & Other Motorized Winter Activities

Recreation Participation (+% Average Annual Rate of Change, 2012-2060) 

2012 2060
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

450 | Page

Table 3-127. Activity-specific recreation demand for western Oregon communities. 

Recreation 

Activity

Percentage of Activities in Each Community

Coos Bay

Corvallis

Eugene

Grants Pass

McMinnville

Medford

Newberg

Portland

Roseburg

Salem

Sandy

Tillamook

Nature Viewing 4% 3% 6% 2% 7% 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3%

Non-Motorized 

Trails 6% 5% 6% 11% 4% 12% 4% 5% 5% 8% 6% 5%

Water Trail - 1% - - - - - 1% - - 1% 1%

Hiking 2% 6% 6% 9% 7% 8% 2% 1% 6% 5% 6% 4%

Mountain Biking 17% 34% 29% 17% 18% 16% 21% 37% 14% 23% 27% 19%

Horseback Riding 1% 3% 5% 7% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 7% 5% 3%

Riding OHVs 48% 19% 25% 29% 28% 31% 29% 21% 43% 26% 30% 25%

Hunting-Fishing 4% 6% 9% 3% 5% 2% 5% 4% 6% 7% 4% 7%

CampingPicnicking 2% 2% 3% 3% 7% 2% 4% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2%

Hang GlidingParagliding 10% 8% 4% 10% 11% 11% 20% 13% 4% 4% 6% 22%

Target Shooting 2% 5% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4% 4% 1% 7% 4% 2%

Gold PanningDredging 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1%

River Recreation 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 1% 2% 2% 2% - 2% 2%

Rock Hounding 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% - 2% 1% 1% 1% 2%

Rock Climbing - 1% 1% 1% - 1% - 1% 6% - 2% -

Winter Activities - - 1% 1% 1% 6% - 1% 1% 2% 1% 2%

Self-reported participation on the BLM’s interactive mapping site revealed differences in outdoor 

recreation as a function of both supply opportunities and demand preferences. Among respondents, 

motorized trail use is slightly greater than non-motorized trail use in the southern portion of the region, 

while the opposite holds true for respondents in the northern portion (Table-127). Population centers 

throughout western Oregon are shown in Figure 3-137, with the Portland Metro area the largest. 

Applying travel times distances from Portland (Figure 3-138) as well as other population centers in 

western Oregon (Figure 3-139) reveals the portions of BLM-administered lands that can be accessed 

relatively easily for recreation, and the distribution of non-motorized trail recreation in 2012 at the district 

level. 




Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

455 | Page

associated qualities and conditions. Since management of ERMAs is commensurate with the management 

of other resources and resource uses, all recreation and visitor services decisions must be compatible with 

other resource objectives. 

A detailed management framework (i.e., proposed objectives, recreation setting characteristics, 

management action and allowable use decisions) for SRMAs and ERMAs proposed in Alternatives A, B, 

C, and D can be found in Appendix N. 

No Action Alternative 

During the development of the 1995 RMPs, the BLM identified the locations of the current SRMAs based 

on where it was experiencing heavy recreation use or where it planned to make large investments in staff, 

funding, facilities, or time. Consistent with its policy at the time, the BLM then identified all remaining 

BLM-administered lands as an ERMA. Under the No Action alternative, western Oregon BLM districts 

would continue to manage 29 SRMAs totaling 168,968 acres and 14 ERMAs totaling 2,397,460 acres 

(Tables 3-128 and 3-129). Districts would manage all Recreation Management Areas under direction set 

forth in the 1995 RMP and related amendments. Every acre of BLM-administered land within the 

decision area would have an RMA designation, although this is no longer consistent with current BLM 

policy. 

Table 3-128. Summary of existing and proposed Special Recreation Management Areas by alternative. 

District/Field Office No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Coos Bay 4,310 468 468 468 1,600 

Eugene 31,466 104 95 241 8,645 

Klamath Falls 19,405 612 2,691 7,451 23,873 

Medford 36,363 17,199 19,782 46,155 48,235 

Roseburg 5,952 167 165 2,413 2,413 

Salem 71,472 1,515 1,771 2,318 1,927 

Totals 168,968 20,065 24,972 59,046 86,693 

Table 3-129. Summary of existing and proposed Extensive Recreation Management Areas by alternative. 

District/Field Office No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Coos Bay 317,867 - 6,146 14,790 19,758 

Eugene 285,274 - 20,416 23,971 26,323 

Klamath Falls 208,138 - 66,779 89,842 192,262 

Medford 831,864 - 12,283 135,837 219,169 

Roseburg 422,147 - 6,819 39,083 40,502 

Salem 332,170 - 26,877 54,248 82,444 

Totals 2,397,460 - 139,320 357,771 580,458 

The No Action alternative would have a detrimental effect on recreation areas where current management 

objectives and direction fail to provide adequate management for emerging recreation trends and 

increased visitation. These effects would likely become substantial in localized areas over the life of the 

plan. There would be no protection of recreation settings, activities, and outcome opportunities in areas 

outside of where the BLM has previously-developed and traditionally-managed recreation use. Over time, 

recreation opportunities would be lost where recreation conflicts with other resource uses, primarily forest 

management, incompatible recreation activities, and lands and realty. Opportunities would also be lost 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

456 | Page

where recreation conflicts with other types of recreation (e.g., motorized/non-motorized, target 

shooting/non-target shooting, quiet use/crowded use).

Existing developed recreation sites would often meet the current level of recreation demand in the 

planning area. However, seasonal crowding at certain developed sites (Fishermen’s Bend, Sandy Ridge 

Trail System, etc.) would affect user enjoyment of the area because use exceeds management capability 

and anticipated increases in recreation demand. Similarly, the anticipated increase in recreation over the 

life of the RMP could result in the demand for additional or expanded recreation sites and trail systems 

because of user conflicts and degraded recreation experiences. Without management direction 

establishing principal activities and allowable use restrictions protecting desired recreation settings, the 

BLM’s existing RMAs would be insufficient to meet demand, provide targeted recreation outcomes, and

protect proposed recreation settings. 

Existing motorized and non-motorized trails within the decision area would continue to attract users, but a 

lack of supporting management objectives and actions would limit effective management and allow for 

increased conflict between recreation and competing uses along both motorized and non-motorized trails. 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would designate 141 SRMAs totaling 20,065 acres. Alternative A would 

designate SRMAs where existing developed recreation sites or facilities currently exist within the 

planning area. The BLM would not designate ERMAs within the planning area. In effect, Alternative A 

places an emphasis on the management and protection of recreation opportunities on less than 1 percent 

of the planning area. 

When compared to Alternatives B, C, and D, Alternative A would designate the fewest acres for 

recreation management. Alternative A would only designate SRMAs where the BLM recognizes 

recreation as the predominant land management focus. Alternative A places an emphasis on the 

management and protection of developed recreation facilities on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area. 

Alternative A would not provide for recreation management at areas outside of where the BLM has 

current developed recreation facilities. This would result in a lack of objectives and management direction 

for intensively-visited areas that exist outside of where the BLM has developed recreation facilities as 

well as for areas outside of developed recreation facilities for lands providing the most sensitive or unique 

opportunities. This would result in reactive recreation management aimed at addressing problems and 

issues rather than management that proactively addresses and provides for public use. 

The BLM’s lack of proactive management of public visitation to high use areas outside of developed 

recreation facilities in Alternative A would create management issues. These include continued private 

property trespass, OHV incursion, and route proliferation. The BLM expects visitation within the decision 

area to increase over the life of the plan, increasing these issues and leading to the continued decline in 

both recreation settings and environmental resources if the BLM does not provide and manage for 

additional recreation opportunities. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would designate 134 SRMAs totaling 24,972 acres and 75 ERMAs totaling 139,320 acres. 

Alternative B would designate SRMAs at currently-developed recreation facilities and on lands where 

there are both unique recreation opportunities and where SRMA designation would not conflict with 

sustained yield timber harvest. This alternative would designate ERMAs where the BLM has developed, 

and currently manages, recreation areas, primarily where the BLM has authorized motorized and nonmotorized trails, and where the BLM currently manages dispersed recreation activities. Alternative B 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

457 | Page

would place an emphasis on the management and protection of recreation opportunities on approximately 

6 percent of the decision area and would allocate less than 1 percent of the decision area as an SRMA to 

protect the management and protection of recreation opportunities as the primary land use focus. 

Under this alternative, the BLM would provide sufficient management direction to preserve the desired 

physical Recreation Setting Characteristics within both SRMAs and ERMAs. These restrictions would 

restrict or prohibit the type of development that would affect these settings and shift the setting 

characteristics to an undesirable setting. 

When compared with Alternative A, Alternative B would provide for the protection of the majority of 

existing recreation opportunities, visitor activities, experiences, and outcomes that are currently available 

to visitors of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. Visitation would increase based on the 

current trends identified in Table 3-126. The BLM assumed that increased visitor use would result from 

the protection of these unique recreation settings and the establishment of recreation outcome objectives 

on the 139,320 acres of designated ERMAs when compared to Alternative A. Compared to the No Action 

alternative, Alternative B would establish allowable use activities within both SRMAs and ERMAs. 

Limiting incompatible activities and adequately managing anticipated increases in visitor use would lead 

to the long-term protection of desired targeted recreation setting characteristics. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would designate 139 Special Recreation Management Areas totaling 59,046 acres and 119 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas totaling 357,771 acres. Alternative C would designate SRMAs 

at currently developed recreation facilities and on lands where designation does not conflict with 

sustained yield timber harvest. This alternative would designate ERMAs where the BLM has developed 

and currently manages recreation activities outside of developed facilities, primarily where the BLM has 

authorized motorized and non-motorized trails, and where the BLM currently manages dispersed 

recreation activities. Alternative C would also designate SRMAs and ERMAs where the BLM is seeking 

to address activity-specific recreation demand. Alternative C places an emphasis on the management and 

protection of recreation opportunities on approximately 16 percent of the decision area. Alternative C 

would allocate 2 percent of the decision area as an SRMA to provide the management and protection of 

recreation opportunities as the primary land use focus. 

Compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would allocate approximately three times as many acres 

as SRMAs. Increased SRMA designation would result in the long-term protection of Recreation Setting 

Characteristics on 59,046 acres. Alternative C would allocate more acres as ERMA when compared to 

Alternatives A and B, and less when compared with Alternative D. The BLM assumed that increased 

visitor use would result from the increased protection of unique recreation settings and the establishment 

of recreation outcome objectives when compared to Alternatives A, B, and the No Action alternative. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would designate 141 SRMAs totaling 86,693 acres and 143 ERMAs totaling 580,458 acres. 

Alternative D builds off the RMA designations in Alternatives A through C. In addition to the designation 

criteria established in previous alternatives, the BLM would designate RMAs where known historic 

recreation use has occurred within the BLM-administered lands in the decision area, to the maximum 

extent possible without precluding sustained yield timber harvest. 

Alternative D would allocate the greatest number of acres as Recreation Management Areas when 

compared to Alternatives A, B and C. Alternative D places an emphasis on the management and 

protection of recreation opportunities on approximately 27 percent of the decision area. Alternative D 

allocates 3 percent of the decision area as an SRMA to protect the management and protection of 

recreation opportunities as the primary land use focus. The BLM assumed that increased visitor use would 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

458 | Page

result from the increased protection of unique recreation settings and the establishment of recreation 

outcome objectives when compared to A, B, C, and the No Action alternative. 

Recreation Opportunity Restrictions and Targeted Activities 

Restriction of certain recreation activities (through ACEC special management, implementation of 

biological resource management, or protection of Recreation Setting Characteristics in SRMAs or 

ERMAs) would reduce opportunities for these activities on public lands. Table 3-130 summarizes these 

activity-specific recreation restrictions. 

Table 3-130. Recreation activities restricted within the decision area. 

Recreation Opportunities

Activity-specific Restrictions

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

Horseback Riding 1,048 8,828 49,414 63,620

Hiking - 1,511* 32,220 (2,924*) 38,983 (2,924*)

Mountain Bicycling 1,248 13,814 57,490 75,402

OHV Use 17, 517 49,970 87,265 105,474

Overnight Camping 829 18,006 60,205 66,611

Target Shooting 18,236 41,681 66,407 135,464

*Seasonal restrictions

Under each alternative, the BLM emphasizes specific recreation activities within RMAs in order to create 

and sustain high-quality recreation opportunities, to achieve desired recreation conditions, or to protect 

Recreation Setting Characteristics. Table 3-131 summarizes areas where certain recreation activities are 

emphasized and enhanced. 

Table 3-131. Recreation activities emphasized within the decision area. 

Recreation Opportunities

Activity-specific Emphasis

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

Horseback Riding 19,017 155,480 367,402 603,530

Hiking 20,065 164,307 384,595 628,167

Mountain Bicycling 18,817 150,494 359,326 591,748

OHV Use 2,548 114,338 329,551 561,676

Overnight Camping 19,235 146,301 356,611 600,539

Target Shooting 1,829 122,627 350,409 531,687

Under all action alternatives, camping restrictions would protect resources, reduce conflicts, and reduce 

long-term camping (squatting) on BLM-administered lands. The BLM anticipates that under all action 

alternatives, there would be a decrease in littering and unsanitary conditions as the BLM invokes camping 

restrictions. Alternative C and then Alternative D would have the most camping restrictions and 

Alternatives B and A would have the least. 

Under all alternatives, firearm use restrictions would curb inappropriate recreational target shooting and 

improve public safety. Firearm use restrictions would also reduce the associated litter including brought 

onto BLM-administered lands for targets. Alternative D and then Alternative C propose the most areas 

where recreational target shooting is restricted followed by Alternatives B and A. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

459 | Page

Under all alternatives, the BLM identifies non-motorized trail activities and locations where the BLM 

would restrict these activities. Non-motorized trail activities would be restricted in areas where increased 

visitor conflict is expected and where the BLM is emphasizing conflicting activities. Alternatives D and 

then Alternative C propose the most areas where equestrian use is restricted followed by Alternative B 

and A. Alternatives D and C propose the most areas where mountain biking is restricted followed by 

Alternative B and A. 

Under all alternatives, the BLM identifies the types of recreation activities and emphasizes locations of 

these activities. Emphasizing specific recreation activity locations would ensure that investments in 

recreation are as efficient and effective as possible. Under all alternatives, decisions were made about 

where to potentially develop new recreation opportunities to provide the greatest benefits possible in 

terms of visitor demand, desired experiences, and beneficial outcomes. Under the action alternatives, the 

acres targeted for specific recreation activities would increase in acreage from Alternatives A through D. 

Recreation Setting Characteristics 

This analysis considers how the setting characteristics of remoteness and naturalness would vary by 

alternative. Remoteness and naturalness, which are defined in the methods section, provide a measure of 

how the alternatives would affect the recreational experiences available on BLM-administered lands. 

Timber management actions that require new road construction would affect the level of remoteness of an 

area. Increasing the amount or improving the type of access into an area can lead to higher levels of 

certain types of use. Such changes can also displace certain types of visitors who prefer a more remote 

setting. 

Under all alternatives, the recreation settings are static and would not significantly change from values 

that currently exist in the No Action alternative. The BLM anticipates minor changes to remoteness levels 

because new road construction for timber harvest under each alternative would only require small 

increases in additional local and resource roads. These road types would be developed within the Middle 

Country setting or further into the Backcountry or Primitive settings. These settings vary by less than 0.5 

percent each under the action alternatives. Because of the extensive road network that already exists on 

BLM-administered lands, new road construction under the action alternatives would not measurably 

change these existing levels of remoteness. 

These minor changes in remoteness levels for each alternative cannot be modeled or shown because new 

road construction is only projected numerically (i.e., mileages) and not mapped spatially. So even though 

miles of new road construction may be known, there is no way to determine where new construction 

would occur and if it would increase or decrease remoteness acreage numbers. 

Under all alternatives, there would be no effect to the variety of recreational opportunities that exist on 

BLM-administered lands when considering remoteness levels. As a result, the majority of BLMadministered lands would continue to be located within a quarter-mile of roads, which are more 

conducive to motorized forms of recreation. Under all alternatives, 22 percent of BLM-administered lands 

would continue to be within the Primitive and Back Country settings, which are favored by those seeking 

non-motorized recreational opportunities. 

Table 3-132 shows the naturalness component of the Recreation Setting Characteristics (naturalness) by 

alternative. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

460 | Page

Table 3-132. Naturalness levels by alternative. 

Alternative Primitive 

(Acres)

Back Country 

(Acres)

Middle Country 

(Acres)

Front Country 

(Acres)

Rural 

(Acres)

No Action 588,776 516,118 178,922 443,170 435,232

Alt. A 627,043 623,388 156,681 396,966 357,621

Alt. B 621,105 617,535 161,534 427,101 334,424

Alt. C 590,837 566,186 149,499 414,083 441,094

Alt. D 629,097 659,078 162,275 398,293 312,956

When considering the decision area, all alternatives would have a relatively minor effect on naturalness 

settings. This is largely due to the short duration for which timber harvest practices would modify forest 

stands under each alternative. As a result, all action alternatives would continue to maintain a mix of 

naturalness settings that provide a variety of recreational opportunities and experiences for visitors. 

The alternatives would have some minor effects on visitor use patterns when comparing visitor setting 

preferences for different recreational activities with changes to individual naturalness settings. This 

analysis assumed that visitor preferences for naturalness would be similar to their overall recreation 

setting preferences, which includes physical, administrative, and social setting characteristics. 

All four action alternatives would have relatively minor effects to existing levels of the Primitive and 

Backcountry settings. 

Existing levels of these settings account for 24 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of all BLMadministered lands in the decision area because of the following: 

x The small changes to these settings under all four action alternatives would not diminish or improve 

recreational opportunities within these areas, due to their large proportion of the entire land base. 

x The greatest levels of recreational use that occur within these settings are from non-motorized 

activities, such as hiking, horseback riding, hunting, and fishing. High levels of use from mountain 

biking, wildlife viewing, camping, and picnicking also occur within the Backcountry setting. 

Visitors seeking these activities may experience localized changes within these settings, but visitor 

use patterns associated with these activities would not be affected when considering the entire land 

base. 

All action alternatives would affect the Middle Country setting by a relatively small percentage. 

x The highest percentage of almost every recreational activity occurs within this setting, which is 

likely due to a combination of both naturalness and remoteness characteristics. 

x Middle Country provides the highest level of naturalness within close proximity to roads, which is 

preferred by visitors who are seeking nature-based experiences that are easily accessible. 

x When considering the BLM’s decision area, 41 percent is Middle Country based on remoteness 

levels. However, less than 1 percent is Middle Country when considering naturalness. 

x All action alternatives would decrease the proportion of Middle Country (based on naturalness 

levels) compared to the No Action alternative, thereby decreasing recreational opportunities and 

experiences for visitors who prefer this setting. 

All action alternatives would reduce the Front Country setting by no more than 10 percent. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

461 | Page

x When considering the BLM’s decision area, 18 percent is classified as Front Country (based on 

existing naturalness levels), which is proportionally less than the Primitive and Backcountry 

settings. 

Alternatives A, B, and D would decrease the Rural setting. 

x The naturalness aspect of this setting is a substantially-modified environment (from a forestry 

standpoint). 

x These areas are generally not conducive to primitive forms of recreational use; however, high levels 

of recreation use occur within this setting. This is likely due to the experiences derived from 

improved access, amenities, and social interactions within developed recreation sites, which are 

also located within the overall Rural setting. These experiences are generally more important to 

visitors in the Rural setting than experiences derived from the physical aspects of the environment. 

x Since 17 percent of the BLM’s lands are classified as Rural when considering naturalness levels, 

decreasing the amount of this setting by as much as 28 percent would not noticeably affect overall 

recreational opportunities and experiences for visitors. 

x Substantially modifying the natural setting of certain areas would have a localized effect on visitors 

who prefer to recreate in those areas. As a result, some localized displacement of visitors would 

occur. This effect would be greatest under Alternative D. 

Although some localized effects would occur within each of these settings, none of the changes would be 

measurable enough to influence visitor use patterns that are associated with any single recreation activity 

within the decision area. As a result, all action alternatives would continue to maintain a mix of 

naturalness settings that provide a variety of recreational opportunities and experiences for visitors. 

The social recreation setting characteristics (i.e., contacts, group size, and evidence of use) that 

characterize the interaction or indication of visitors are likely to parallel the changes in remoteness. One 

exception may be areas that are closed to motorized use but emphasize mountain biking. Recreation 

Management Areas like the Sandy Ridge Trail System or the Mountain of the Rogue Trail System may 

actually see an increase in use due to the popularity of mountain biking in areas without motorized 

vehicles. 

Recreation Supply and Demand 

For analysis purposes, the BLM focused on the 12 most populated communities within the planning area 

when evaluating the alternatives effects to recreation supply and demand. The most general type of 

recreation development that is proposed within RMAs is motorized and non-motorized trails. To further 

highlight this recreation type, the following effects analysis focuses on trails in general and RMAs that 

target popular trail based activities within the planning area (hiking, mountain biking and off-highway 

vehicle use) specifically. See the full Recreation Supply and Demand report for detail on other recreation 

activities http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/recreation.php . 

Individual RMAs do not identify total miles of trail per area, but extrapolating from available trail miles 

per acre under current conditions allows an approximation of the number of trail miles that would be 

available under each alternative. Currently there are approximately 395 miles of trails on BLMadministered lands in western Oregon, this could increase to 1,000 miles under Alternative C, or to 1,600 

miles under Alternative D (Table 3-133). 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

462 | Page

Table 3-133. Potential RMA trail miles by alternative. 

District/Field Office No Action

(Miles)

Alt. A

(Miles)

Alt. B

(Miles)

Alt. C

(Miles)

Alt. D

(Miles)

Coos Bay 35 2 35 81 114

Eugene 46 - 46 54 78

Klamath Falls 29 - 29 42 92

Medford 146 79 146 831 1,221

Roseburg 39 1 39 230 238

Salem 100 5 100 197 294

Totals 395 49 395 1,012 1,619

Hiking Trails 

The availability of all identifiable non-motorized hiking trails (BLM and non-BLM) within a 30-minute 

and 60-minute drive of the selected communities varies, with Sandy having the most trail miles available 

within both the 30-minute and 60-minute times (Tables 3-134 and 3-135). Based on the available trail 

data, accessible hiking trails are generally scarcer for Coos Bay and Tillamook than the other 

communities when looking at a 60-minute drive.

Table 3-134. Supply and demand for hiking trails within a 30-minute drive from selected communities. 

Community County Participation Rate Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User

Coos Bay 40% 21,353 51 0.0024

Corvallis 54% 108,473 300 0.0028

Eugene 47% 160,078 73 0.0005

Grants Pass 46% 55,592 345 0.0062

McMinnville 46% 56,994 30 0.0005

Medford 47% 85,002 437 0.0051

Newburg 46% 236,095 187 0.0008

Portland 55% 773,649 298 0.0004

Roseburg 41% 39,120 66 0.0017

Salem 50% 213,239 326 0.0015

Sandy 45% 177,305 1,528 0.0086

Tillamook 34% 8,366 111 0.0133

1st Quartile 44% 51,474 72 0.0007

Median 46% 96,737 242 0.0020

2nd Quartile 48% 186,289 330 0.0054
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

463 | Page

Table 3-135. Supply and demand for hiking trails within a 60-minute drive from selected communities. 

Hiking trail miles per capita with respect to the local residential population within 30 minutes is lowest 

for Portland, followed by Eugene and McMinnville. At the 60-minute radius, McMinnville, Newburg, 

Corvallis, and Salem have the fewest hiking trail miles with respect to population. When available trail 

miles per capita for these communities are low increased visitor interactions can be expected to degrade 

the user experience near in these areas. 

Mountain Bike Trails 

The availability of all identifiable mountain bike trails (BLM and non-BLM) within 30-minute and 60-

minute driving time of the selected communities varies, with Corvallis having the most trail miles 

available within 30 minutes and Sandy having the most trail miles available within 60 minutes (Tables 3-

136 and 3-137). Based on the available trail data, mountain bike trails are generally scarcer for Salem and 

Tillamook than other communities when looking at a 30-minute drive.

 

Community County Participation Rate Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User

Coos Bay 40% 32,674 157 0.0048

Corvallis 54% 498,958 443 0.0009

Eugene 47% 305,863 846 0.0028

Grants Pass 46% 150,993 1,162 0.0077

McMinnville 46% 760,939 641 0.0008

Medford 47% 137,371 512 0.0037

Newburg 46% 963,756 901 0.0009

Portland 55% 1,136,424 2,142 0.0019

Roseburg 41% 73,796 859 0.0116

Salem 50% 937,711 928 0.0010

Sandy 45% 704,886 2,800 0.0040

Tillamook 34% 26,923 269 0.0100

1st Quartile 44% 121,477 495 0.0010

Median 46% 402,411 853 0.0032

2nd Quartile 48% 805,132 986 0.0055
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

464 | Page

Table 3-136. Supply and demand for mountain bike trails within a 30-minute drive from selected 

communities. 

Table 3-137. Supply and demand for mountain bike trails within a 60-minute drive from selected 

communities. 

Mountain bike trails per capita with respect to the local residential population within 30 minutes is lowest 

for Salem followed by Portland and Eugene. At the 60-minute radius, Salem, Newburg and Portland have 

the fewest mountain bike trails with respect to population. 

Community County Participation Rate Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User

Coos Bay 11% 5,716 30 0.0052

Corvallis 17% 34,276 183 0.0053

Eugene 11% 36,811 11 0.0003

Grants Pass 10% 11,990 56 0.0047

McMinnville 9% 11,698 27 0.0023

Medford 14% 25,988 16 0.0006

Newburg 9% 48,456 42 0.0009

Portland 11% 159,198 47 0.0003

Roseburg 9% 8,554 15 0.0018

Salem 12% 50,348 9 0.0002

Sandy 7% 26,005 79 0.0030

Tillamook 11% 2,651 8 0.0030

1st Quartile 9% 10,912 14 0.0005

Median 11% 25,996 29 0.0020

2nd Quartile 12% 39,723 49 0.0035

Community County Participation Rate Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User

Coos Bay 11% 8,746 42 0.0048

Corvallis 17% 157,663 193 0.0012

Eugene 11% 70,336 284 0.0040

Grants Pass 10% 32,567 155 0.0048

McMinnville 9% 156,175 187 0.0012

Medford 14% 41,999 221 0.0053

Newburg 9% 197,801 202 0.0010

Portland 11% 233,849 225 0.0010

Roseburg 9% 16,137 147 0.0091

Salem 12% 221,404 170 0.0008

Sandy 7% 103,383 280 0.0027

Tillamook 11% 8,531 244 0.0286

1st Quartile 9% 28,460 166 0.0012

Median 11% 86,859 197 0.0034

2nd Quartile 12% 167,698 230 0.0049
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

465 | Page

Off-Highway Vehicle Trails 

The availability of all identifiable OHV trails (BLM and non-BLM) within 30-minute and 60-minute 

driving time of the selected communities varies, with Grants Pass having the most trail miles available 

within both a 30-minute and 60-minute drive (Tables 3-138, and 3-139). Based on the available trail data, 

OHV trails are non-existent for Eugene and Portland when looking at 30-minute distances. 

Table 3-138. Supply and demand for OHV trails within a 30-minute drive from selected communities. 

*The data does not reflect the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area because the data was based on linear routes and the dunes 

are represented as a polygon. 

Table 3-139. Supply and demand for OHV trails within a 60-minute drive from selected communities. 

*The data does not reflect the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area because the data was based on linear routes and the dunes 

are represented as a polygon. 

Community County Participation Rate Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User*

Coos Bay 29% 15,853 - -

Corvallis 10% 19,356 21 0.0011

Eugene 6% 19,925 - -

Grants Pass 10% 12,354 177 0.0143

McMinnville 11% 13,440 58 0.0043

Medford 10% 18,589 89 0.0048

Newburg 11% 55,673 58 0.0010

Portland 2% 20,947 - -

Roseburg 19% 18,551 53 0.0028

Salem 11% 44,848 2 -

Sandy 9% 34,673 80 0.0023

Tillamook 16% 3,989 58 0.0146

1st Quartile 9% 15,250 2 0.0000

Median 10% 18,972 55 0.0017

2nd Quartile 12% 24,379 64 0.0044

Community County Participation Rate Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User*

Coos Bay 29% 24,258 124 0.0051

Corvallis 10% 89,033 22 0.0002

Eugene 6% 38,072 1 -

Grants Pass 10% 33,554 653 0.0194

McMinnville 11% 179,435 124 0.0007

Medford 10% 30,041 278 0.0093

Newburg 11% 227,261 150 0.0007

Portland 2% 30,770 168 0.0054

Roseburg 19% 34,994 243 0.0069

Salem 11% 197,217 119 0.0006

Sandy 9% 137,844 162 0.0012

Tillamook 16% 12,835 78 0.0061

1st Quartile 9% 30,587 109 0.0006

Median 10% 36,533 137 0.0031

2nd Quartile 12% 148,242 186 0.0063
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

466 | Page

Off-highway vehicle trails per capita with respect to the local residential population within 30 minutes are 

lowest for Eugene and Portland. At the 60-minute radius, Eugene, Corvallis, and Salem have the fewest 

OHV trails with respect to population. 

Overall, the alternatives increase RMA acreage progressively from Alternative A through D, although the 

changes in RMA acreage do not follow consistent patterns for all of the identified communities. 

Recreation opportunities that are close to population centers experience the most participants and visitordays, and consequently result in the highest value for residents within the 12 study communities. 

In all alternatives, in terms of proximity to the 12 target population centers, the overall acreage accessible 

within 30-minute and 60-minute driving distances under each alternative track with their overall RMA 

acreage. The communities with the least existing non-motorized and motorized trail miles within 30-

minute proximities for the various recreation activities see some improvement under Alternatives C and 

D, while other communities with little trail mileage within 30 minutes would see substantial increase in 

RMA acreage under Alternatives C and D (Table 3-140). Moving out from 30-minute distances to 60-

minute distances increase the recreation area acreage by more than double, and increases to five- or sixfold under Alternatives C and D. While all communities would see increased total RMA acreage 

progressively from Alternatives A through D, Grants Pass and Medford would experience the highest 

increase in RMA acreage under Alternatives C and D. 

Table 3-140. Acres of RMAs by community and alternative within 30-minutes. 

Community Population Estimate Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Coos Bay 53,921 - - - 479

Corvallis 201,622 17 141 407 285

Eugene 337,718 17 26 31 572

Grants Pass 121,116 5,098 3,797 29,546 31,517

McMinnville 124,442 - 15 15 15

Medford 180,471 32 5,706 21,364 20,845

Newburg 515,492 - - - -

Portland 1,396,478 - - - -

Roseburg 96,117 44 2,257 12,622 12,622

Salem 423,093 0 - - -

Sandy 394,012 602 1,559 5,490 6,640

Tillamook 24,321 - - 86 86

When considering 60-minute distances, Alternative C provides an increase in RMA acreage with respect 

to the No Action alternative for all of the communities with the fewest current trail miles, and this pattern 

increases with Alternative D (Table 3-141). In terms of total trail mileage scarcity, Grants Pass and 

Medford see a particular increase with Alternatives C and D, while in terms of per capita trail mileage 

scarcity, Corvallis and Newburg would particularly benefit under Alternatives C and D at the 60-minute 

distance. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

467 | Page

Table 3-141. Acres of RMAs by community and alternative within 60-minutes. 

Community Population Estimate Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Coos Bay 82,511 289 2,956 3,226 3,584 

Corvallis 927,432 72 12,581 20,062 24,109 

Eugene 645,281 130 14,068 18,756 25,903 

Grants Pass 328,960 9,589 18,937 159,806 192,068 

McMinnville 1,661,439 14 6,652 11,084 15,600 

Medford 291,658 10,749 24,361 163,742 199,365 

Newburg 2,104,270 286 7,234 12,040 17,238 

Portland 2,051,307 613 2,924 8,056 10,726 

Roseburg 181,317 154 7,245 41,444 56,755 

Salem 1,860,538 530 4,387 7,727 11,443 

Sandy 1,566,414 605 3,090 8,226 11,469 

Tillamook 78,264 18 7,041 9,545 14,693 

Effects from the Management of Other Resources 

The BLM expects effects to recreation to occur from wildland fire and fuels management, Special Status 

Species protections, forest management, trails and travel management, cultural resource protection, lands 

and realty actions, renewable energy development, special designations, riparian resources protections, 

mineral resource development, and livestock grazing management decisions. These resources or resource 

uses would have both short-term and long-term effects, based on the proposed management decisions. 

Effects from Wildland Fire and Fuels Management 

In all alternatives, fire suppression would protect high-value developed recreation resources, help 

maintain recreation opportunities, and protect recreation infrastructure over the long-term. Temporary 

closures of recreation facilities and areas could occur during and after fire events. Temporary closures 

could displace recreational users for the short-term. Temporary closures of public lands to implement 

fuels management prescriptions would prevent users from pursuing recreational activities in the shortterm. 

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation efforts could have both short-term and long-term effects for 

recreational users. Some stabilization and rehabilitation efforts could require temporary closures to public 

recreation users. These closures would be short-term and require those seeking a recreational experience 

to travel to other areas. In the long-term, fire stabilization and rehabilitation efforts would restore the 

landscape and may improve wildlife habitat. Hunting, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and nature 

photography opportunities could improve as natural landscapes are restored. 

Effects from Forestry Management 

In all alternatives, timber management would affect recreation opportunities in or outside RMAs by 

altering the physical Recreation Setting Characteristics. Over the long-term, timber activities would 

degrade an areas’ naturalness if landscape design features were not incorporated to offset effects on the 

landscape. Road construction from timber harvest would result in additional vehicle routes and change the 

remoteness of the area. Access to and through the area may be improved if forestry roads were open to the 

public; however, the improved roads may provide no additional opportunities for OHV driving and riding 

and even displace visitors participating in trail-based activities. The Recreation Setting Characteristics 

section analyzes forest management effects to the physical characteristics of remoteness and naturalness. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

468 | Page

Effects from Special Status Species Protections 

Under all alternatives, the BLM would manage recreation to protect habitat for Federal threatened and 

endangered species. In all alternatives, recreation would be similarly affected by management for 

threatened and endangered species because law, direction, and policy require that listed species be 

protected. 

Effects from Cultural Resource Protection 

Managing public lands to protect cultural resources would have few, if any, effects on recreation use and 

management. Protection of cultural resources, and in many cases, interpreting or enhancing cultural sites, 

is a benefit to recreation users and visitors. The BLM would survey for and avoid archaeological sites and 

sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places when identifying or planning potential recreation 

facilities. 

Effects from Trails and Travel Management 

Trails and travel management directly affect Recreation Setting Characteristics, recreation opportunities, 

and recreation outcomes. Travel designations, including the level of development and maintenance, 

influence recreation use and desired recreation settings. 

The Trails and Travel Management section discusses area designations, limitations on public travel and 

access, and acres open to different types and modes of travel by alternative. An effect on specific 

recreation activities increases as the acres available to specific recreation activities decreases. However, a 

quality recreation opportunity has many more variables (i.e., naturalness, level of contact with other 

visitors, group size, level of management control, and level of maintenance) to consider. Pedestrian, 

mountain bike, and equestrian travel are not constrained by limiting designations for motorized activities. 

Effects from Special Designations 

Congressional actions or presidential proclamations that result in the designation of National Monuments, 

Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or National Scenic or Historic Trails usually identify those areas as 

valuable for a variety of recreation activities. Existing Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas preclude 

the construction of facilities for recreation management and the development of motorized and 

mechanized trails. 

Designations made by the BLM through the land use planning process include, but are not limited to, 

ACECs and lands managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. These designations would protect 

many resources valuable for low impact or wildlife-based recreation such as hiking, nature study, or 

hunting. ACEC designations vary between alternatives and would not affect the distribution of RMAs. 

Effects to recreation and visitor services would be both adverse and beneficial, depending on the resource 

management decision. 

Effects from Lands and Realty 

The issuance of a right-of-way can change the physical Recreation Setting Characteristics of naturalness 

and remoteness, or effect developed recreation sites and trails, depending on the location of the corridor 

or development. In turn, the social and operational Recreation Setting Characteristics could also change. 

To avoid right-of-ways that could negatively affect the naturalness or remoteness of an area, the BLM can 

designate Right-Of-Way Avoidance Areas or Right-Of-Way Exclusion Areas. A right-of-way may not be 

entirely unavailable in an avoidance area but would not be permitted unless it is compatible with the 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

469 | Page

protected values of the given area. The BLM cannot grant within exclusion areas unless required to by 

law. 

Under all alternatives, in areas that the BLM does not designate as SRMAs or ERMAs, existing 

recreation opportunities and Recreation Setting Characteristics would be indirectly retained from the 

designation of Right-Of-Way Avoidance Areas and Right-Of-Way Exclusion Areas identified for other 

resources (e.g., wetlands, ACECs, and threatened and endangered species). 

There BLM would not create Right-Of-Way Avoidance Areas specifically to protect recreation under 

Alternative A. Alternatives A and B would allow for the most change in Recreation Setting 

Characteristics from right-of-ways. Alternatives C and D would have the most acres in both Right-OfWay Avoidance Areas and Right-Of-Way Exclusion Areas. Table 3-142 provides a breakdown of RightOf-Way Avoidance Areas and Right-Of-Way Exclusion Areas applied to RMAs by alternative. 

Table 3-142. Right-Of-Way Avoidance Areas and Right-Of-Way Exclusion Areas by Recreation 

Management Area type. 

Alternative SRMA 

(Acres) 

ERMA 

(Acres) 

ROW Avoidance Area 

(Acres) 

ROW Exclusion Area 

(Acres) 

No Action - 8,207 8,207 1,321 

Alt. A 18,543 - 18,543 7,075 

Alt. B 16,170 30,072 38,731 14,754 

Alt. C 58,960 367,403 416,617 17,010 

Alt. D 86,605 591,490 666,862 12,140 

Effects from Visual Resource Management 

In all action alternatives, the BLM would designate VRM class II to maintain the existing visual quality 

throughout the decision area and protect unique and fragile resource values such as those found in RMAs. 

Table 3-143 depicts the acres of VRM classes assigned to RMA by alternative. The physical Recreation 

Setting Characteristics of the other RMAs have been retained, and would continue to be retained, by the 

Class I and Class II designations, or have been somewhat impacted by Class III and Class IV 

designations. 

Table 3-143. Acres of Visual Resource Management Class by Recreation Management Area. 

Visual Resource 

Inventory Classes

No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Class I 22,165 - - - - 

Class II 125,220 17,814 52,661 142,848 200,022 

Class III 633,537 1,274 35,273 106,496 170,508 

Class IV 1,691,128 975 76,349 167,418 296,295 

Blank 6,812 2 11 55 327 

Totals 2,478,862 20,065 164,294 416,817 667,152 

Across all alternatives, areas designated as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I provide the most 

protection to the physical RSCs. The character of the landscape in VRM Class I or II areas are 

maintained, which retains the existing degree of naturalness. Moderate to major modifications to the 

character of the landscape could occur in areas designated as VRM Class III or IV. Visually evident 

effects may alter the RSC and at some levels impair the visitors’ recreation experience. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

470 | Page

At the implementation level, recreation projects in VRM Class I and Class II areas would mitigate for 

scenic values through appropriate design. Any changes to the landscape would need to repeat the basic 

elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the natural features of the landscape. Alternatives C 

(142,848 acres) and D (200,002 acres) have the largest amount of Recreation Management Areas assigned 

to VRM Class II. Alternatives A (17,814 acres) and B (52,661 acres) have the smallest amount of 

Recreation Management Areas assigned to VRM Class II.

Issues considered but not analyzed in detail 

How would BLM management affect significant caves? 

The Federal Caves Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 4301) defines a cave as significant if it meets at 

least one of the following criteria: size, mineral formations, endemic or other unusual species or 

subspecies, seasonally important habitat for non-endemic species or subspecies, archaeological or 

paleontological site, historical or religious significance, hydrologic connectivity to other caves or springs, 

unusual geologic strata or processes, recreationally important, or pristine in that human contact has been 

minimal or nonexistent. 

The BLM has designated five caves within the decision area as significant under this Act. All of these 

caves are in the Medford District: three in the Grants Pass Field Office and two in the Butte Falls Field 

Office. The size and extent of these caves are unknown. 

Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to apply current management to protect the resources 

associated with these caves and protect visitor safety. All alternatives would maintain conditions at 

significant caves, and there would be no meaningful difference among the alternatives.

How would BLM management affect public health and safety at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS)? 

The decision area includes a portion of one Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS): the Modoc Aerial 

Gunnery and Bombing Range (Modoc Range), which is located in Modoc County, California, and 

Klamath and Lake Counties, Oregon. The estimated acreage of the Modoc Range varies depending on the 

source of the information, but it covers between 623,328 and 2,872,000 acres in Southern Oregon and 

Northern California, most of which is outside of the planning area. The Modoc Range was constructed by 

the Navy in the 13th Naval District during World War II. Prior to the 13th Naval District operations at the 

site, the predominant land use was agricultural for forestry and livestock grazing. The Modoc Range was 

associated with the Naval Air Station, in Klamath Falls, and was used as a practice area for aerial 

gunnery, bombing, and strafing. Currently, the majority of the land comprising the Modoc Range is 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the 

BLM, and is mostly used for recreational purposes. 

The Army Corps of Engineers MODOC Aerial Gunnery and Bombing Range Site Inspection Report 

(2009) indicates that the BLM has two Munitions Response Sites within the planning area, which are 

potentially affected with munitions and explosives of concern. These sites were Navy bomb target areas 

that may present an explosive risk. The affected BLM-administered lands are located at two recreation 

sites: Gerber Lake Reservoir (937 acres) and Willow Valley Lake (649 acres). These lakes were used as 

practice bombing targets for approximately 15 months in the 1940s, with targets set at the center of the 

lakes. Munitions debris (non-explosive remnants) from practice bombs have been found on the shores of 

the lakes and on an island in Gerber Lake. Although the munitions used in bombing were practice, these 

rounds originally had spotting charges and other energetic components that could potentially represent an 

explosive hazard if they did not function properly upon impact. Until Unexploded Ordinance-trained 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Recreation and Visitor Services

471 | Page

technicians inspect the munitions, certify them as safe, and remove them from the site, all munitions are 

presumed to be a hazard. The Army Corps of Engineers has scheduled additional investigations at these 

two locations in 2021 to assess hazardous materials, explosives, and explosive remnants. Based on current 

information, the two sites on BLM-administered lands in the decision area are considered low risk 

compared to others in the FUDS Inventory, with a score of 6 out of 9 (with 1 being the highest risk and 9 

the lowest risk). However, the investigation and cleanup of the sites and the eventual remedy may affect 

recreational use over the long-term, depending on the risks identified. Discovery of munitions at any time 

may result in a change in the schedule to address these areas and an increase in the need for site access 

controls. 

Under all alternatives, the BLM would apply the same management to protect public health and safety in 

the portion of the Modoc Range within the decision area. All alternatives would maintain conditions at 

the Modoc Range, and there would be no meaningful difference among the alternatives that the BLM can 

discern at this scale of analysis with the information available to the BLM. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

472 | Page

Socioeconomics 

Key Points 

x BLM-administered lands provide a wide variety of market and non-market goods and services to 

the planning area such as timber, recreation, carbon storage, minerals, and source water 

protection. 

x The annual harvest value of timber, compared to $23 million in 2012, would increase under all 

alternatives (first decadal average), from $37 million under Alternative D to $135 million under 

Alternative C. 

x Using non-market valuation techniques the analysis estimates the 2012 value of recreation on 

BLM-administered lands at $223 million and the annual value of net carbon storage at $99 

million. Under all alternatives (first decadal average), the annual value of recreation would 

increase to $250 million. The annual value of net carbon storage would increase under all 

alternatives except Alternative C, under which it would fall to $55 million. Under Alternative D,

the value would be $233 million. 

x The BLM contributes economically to all parts of the planning area, triggered by the production 

and use of commodities such as timber and other forest products, personal and commercial use of 

BLM-administered lands, expenditures for personnel, materials, and services, and Federal 

payments to State and local governments. These contributions trigger effects that find their way 

into virtually every industry of the local economy. 

x In 2012, BLM management contributed 7,900 jobs and $355 million in earnings to the planning 

area, which is about 0.4 percent of the total jobs and earnings. Under the alternatives, these 

contributions would range from a low of 6,900 jobs and $304 million in earnings (Alternative D) 

to a high of 12,419 jobs and $584 million in earnings (Alternative C). 

x BLM management contributes the greatest share of local area employment and earnings in the 

Roseburg and Coos Bay Districts (from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent in 2012). Under Alternatives A, 

B, and D, these districts would experience losses in BLM-based jobs. 

x There is uncertainty regarding the source and amounts of future payments to counties from 

activities on BLM-administered lands. Payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act (SRS) have not been authorized beyond 2014. 

x SRS payments to counties totaled $38 million in 2012. Had payments in 2012 been based on the 

O&C Act formula, they would have been $12 million. Under the alternatives, assuming payments 

were based on the formula in the O&C Act, payments in 2018 would range from a low of $19 

million under Alternative D, to a high of $67 million under Alternative C. 

x Over the long-term (1969-2007), timber-based industries nationally exhibited low or negative 

growth rates with high volatility compared with the United States economy as a whole, indicating 

that these industries tend to be inherently volatile. Increases in timber industry activity in the 

planning area could bring additional exposure to greater economic instability. 

x Currently, cities in the northern part of the planning area generally have higher capacity and 

resiliency (ability to face changes and meet needs) compared to cities in the southern part of the 

planning area. Larger cities tend to have higher capacity and resiliency. Alternatives B and C 

would, overall, make the strongest contributions to community capacity and resiliency with 

positive benefits to nearly all communities. Alternative D would have the smallest effect on 

community capacity and resiliency. 

x Environmental justice analyses suggest that employment effects to low-income populations in 

Coos, Curry, Douglas, and Klamath Counties would be disproportionately negative under 

Alternatives A and D. Low-income communities and Tribes in these counties would be 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

473 | Page

vulnerable to these disproportionately negatively effects. Under Alternative B, employment 

effects would be disproportionately negative for Coos and Curry Counties. 

Background 

The analysis of socioeconomic resources has two broad emphases: economic growth and stability; and 

social capacity and resiliency. To address these topics, the BLM assessed the value of goods and services 

derived from BLM-administered lands, economic activity in the planning area, county payments, 

economic stability, the capacity and resiliency of communities, and environmental justice. The section 

also describes the cost to the BLM to implement the alternatives. 

Geography and Population 

The planning area contains nineteen counties in western Oregon. For several BLM districts, the district 

boundaries are generally consistent with county boundaries, with most of the area of each county in one 

BLM district. The planning area also contains the lands of seven Federally-recognized Indian Tribes 

(Map 3-5). 

 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

475 | Page

As of 2012, the planning areas’ population was approximately 3.4 million or 88 percent of the State’s 

total population (Table 3-144). The population of the twelve counties in the BLM’s Salem District is 

almost 2.5 million, almost 75 percent of the planning area population. All of the counties in the planning 

area have experienced some level of population growth from 1990-2000 and from 2000-2012. However, 

only four counties’ growth rates was higher than the State of Oregon since 2000 (12 percent): Linn, Polk, 

Washington, and Yamhill. All of these are in the BLM’s Salem District. Several counties have 

experienced very little recent growth (less than 2,600 people). These tend to be the more geographically 

isolated parts of the planning area: Clatsop, Tillamook and Lincoln counties in the northwest, Curry and 

Coos counties in the southwest, and Klamath County in the southeast. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

476 | Page

Table 3-144. Planning area population, 1990 to 2012. 

Geography Population Population Change, 

1990-2012

Population Change, 

2000-2012

1990 2000 2010 2012 Number % Number %

Oregon 2,842,321 3,421,399 3,831,074 3,836,628 994,307 35% 415,229 12%

Planning Area 2,535,122 3,033,622 3,387,980 3,393,160 858,038 34% 359,538 12%

Benton County 70,811 78,153 85,579 85,501 14,690 21% 7,348 9%

Clackamas County 278,850 338,391 375,992 377,206 98,356 35% 38,815 11%

Clatsop County 33,301 35,630 37,039 37,068 3,767 11% 1,438 4%

Columbia County 37,557 43,560 49,351 49,317 11,760 31% 5,757 13%

Coos County 60,273 62,779 63,043 62,937 2,664 4% 158 0.3%

Curry County 19,327 21,137 22,364 22,344 3,017 16% 1,207 6%

Douglas County 94,649 100,399 107,667 107,391 12,742 13% 6,992 7%

Jackson County 146,389 181,269 203,206 203,613 57,224 39% 22,344 12%

Josephine County 62,649 75,726 82,713 82,636 19,987 32% 6,910 9%

Klamath County 57,702 63,775 66,380 66,350 8,648 15% 2,575 4%

Lane County 282,912 322,959 351,715 351,794 68,882 24% 28,835 9%

Lincoln County 38,889 44,479 46,034 45,992 7,103 18% 1,513 3%

Linn County 91,227 103,069 116,672 116,871 25,644 28% 13,802 13%

Marion County 228,483 284,834 315,335 315,391 86,908 38% 30,557 11%

Multnomah County 583,887 660,486 735,334 737,110 153,223 26% 76,624 12%

Polk County 49,541 62,380 75,403 75,448 25,907 52% 13,068 21%

Tillamook County 21,570 24,262 25,250 25,254 3,684 17% 992 4%

Washington County 311,554 445,342 529,710 531,818 220,264 71% 86,476 19%

Yamhill County 65,551 84,992 99,193 99,119 33,568 51% 14,127 17%

Lands of Federally-Recognized Tribes Within the Planning Area

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

of Oregon (Coos County)

4 25 47 24 20 500% -1 -4%

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde 

Community of Oregon (Yamhill 

County)

57 55 434 473 416 730% 418 760%

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Reservation of Oregon 3,076 3,314 4,012 3,960 884 29% 646 19%

Coquille Tribe of Oregon (Coos 

County) See note 258 323 297 See note 39 15%

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Reservation (Lincoln and Polk 

Counties)

5 308 506 476 471 9420% 168 55%

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians 

of Oregon (Douglas County) 58 22 104 21 -37 -64% -1 -5%

Klamath Tribes, Oregon (Klamath 

County) See note 29 26 17 See note -12 -41%

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau; 1990 Census of Population and Housing Public Law 94-171 Data Age by Race and Hispanic Origin, 

(Official), http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/pl94/pl94data.pl (accessed 9-17-2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 1. 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 Census Restricting Data, Table DP05; American FactFinder; 

http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (July 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

DP05, S1901 and S1701; American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (July 2014). 

Notes:

In 1990, the Coquille Tribe and the Klamath Tribes did not have a legally established land base. The 1990 Census gives data for a 

Tribal Designated Statistical Area (TDSA) that is a much larger area than the 2012 Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Lands 

with approximately 5,500 American Indian and Alaska Native persons in the Coquille TDSA and approximately 1,850 in the 

Klamath TDSA. 

The County totals include the populations of lands of federally-recognized tribes, but the table shows them separately for 

clarification. 

The lands of seven Federally-recognized Indian Tribes range in size from a few dozen acres (i.e., the 

reservation and off-reservation lands for the Coos/Lower Umpqua/Siuslaw Tribes) to more than 18,000 

acres (the Warm Springs reservation is nearly 650,000 acres; of which approximately 18,000 acres are 

within the planning area). 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

477 | Page

Some of the Tribal lands had large population percentage increases between 1990 and 2012, but this is 

because the base population in 1990 was very low, or, in the cases of the Coquille Tribe and the Klamath 

Tribes, because the land base had not yet been established. Table 3-144 includes only the population 

living on Tribal lands and not the entire Tribal membership population, which may be considerably 

larger. 

Projected Growth 

Since 1950, Oregon’s population has increased at a faster pace than the U.S. population as a whole. 

Between 1950 and 2010 Oregon’s population increased by 150 percent, whereas the United States’

population increased by 104 percent. The 2007 to 2009 recession hit Oregon harder than many other 

states, reducing net migration and slowing Oregon’s population growth. As of 2012, Oregon’s growth rate 

was below the national growth rate. However, Oregon’s growth rate is expected to rise higher than the 

U.S. growth rate (Vaidya 2012). 

Between 2010 and 2030, the State’s Office of Economic Analysis projects that the population of the 

planning area will be approximately 4.2 million, an increase of approximately 832,000. The State projects 

that approximately 80 percent of this increase will be in the twelve counties in the BLM’s Salem District 

(State of Oregon 2012). The State does not currently prepare population projections for geographies 

below the county level, such as cities. 

Distressed Areas 

The State of Oregon Business Development Department conducts economic assessments to determine 

which counties, cities, communities, or other geographic areas qualify as “distressed.”

Pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 123-024-0031, the Department defines “distressed”

areas based on indicators that take into account unemployment rates, per capita personal income, change 

in average covered payroll per worker over 3 years and change in the county’s weighted average 

employment change over 2 years. As of March 2014, the Department identifies as distressed twenty-four 

of Oregon’s thirty-six counties (and all geographic areas within a designated county). Of the nineteen 

planning area counties, the Department identifies fourteen as distressed, and only Benton, Clackamas, 

Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill Counties are not identified as distressed (Business Oregon, 2014, 

contains the listing and the methodology). 

Within the non-distressed counties, the Department has identified the following cities and places as 

distressed: 

 Benton: Albany, Alpine CDP,66 Alsea CDP 

 Clackamas: Barlow, Estacada, Johnson City, Molalla, Oregon City, Sandy 

 Multnomah: Fairview, Gresham, Troutdale, Wood Village 

 Washington: Cornelius, Forest Grove 

 Yamhill: Amity, Carlton, Dayton, Lafayette, McMinnville, Sheridan, Willamina 

 

66 Census Designated Places (CDPs) are settled concentrations of population that identifiable by name but are not 

legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. State and local officials and the Census 

Bureau delineate CDPs cooperatively. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

478 | Page

Of these twenty-two cities and places, all but six meet the minority or income criteria for environmental 

justice. Socioeconomic Issue 6 - Environmental Justice contains more information. 

In 2012, the Oregon Secretary of State identified eight counties, all in the planning area, whose financial 

condition may indicate a higher risk of distress than other counties: Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, 

Josephine, Klamath, Lane, and Polk (Oregon Secretary of State 2012). 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect the supply, demand, and value of goods and services derived from 

BLM-administered lands? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

This analysis describes the socioeconomic contribution of the goods and services derived from BLMadministered lands in western Oregon under each alternative. Table 3-145 shows the categories of goods 

and services included in this analysis. 

Table 3-145. Goods and services derived from BLM-administered lands in western Oregon. 

Goods and Services Method of Valuation

Market Non-Market

Timber X

Recreation and Visitation X

Special Forest Products X X

Sustainable Energy Production X

Livestock Grazing X

Minerals X

Net Carbon Storage X

Source Water Protection X

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species X

Scenic Amenities X

Cultural Meaning X

Source: USDI BLM 2014 

BLM management activities affect the supply of the goods and services that BLM-administered lands 

provide, in terms of both quality and quantity. Changes in the supply interact with current and expected 

future demand for each good or service which affects the economic value of each good or service. The 

analysis expresses the value of each good or service in terms of market prices or in non-market values, as 

indicated in Table 3-145. 

General Methodology for Estimating Supply, Demand, and Value 

In this analysis, the BLM describes the past and current condition of each good and service, and 

incorporated the following information: 

x Supply of the good or service, in terms of both quantity and quality 

x Demand for the good or service 

x Market price or non-market value of the good or service
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

479 | Page

In determining value, the BLM considered both use and non-use values of goods and services. Use values 

arise from the consumption of a resource and are typically (though not always) revealed through market 

transactions. Market activity does not typically reflect non-use values associated with BLM-administered 

lands, so market prices are not available to reveal their value. In these cases, the BLM relied on nonmarket techniques to estimate or describe economic value. 

This methodology is consistent with Federal guidelines for conducting economic analyses (USDI BLM 

2005, 2013a, 2013b, CEQ 2013, EPA 2010). The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on 

analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 130-134). The BLM is reporting all values in 2012 

dollars unless otherwise noted. 

The supply description of each good or service relies on information from BLM resource programs; other 

sections in this chapter contain much of this information. To streamline the discussion, this section 

summarizes that information and refers to the appropriate section for more detail. 

Other sources of supply for forest-based goods and services exist in Oregon besides those available from 

BLM-administered land in the planning area. For example, the forestland on BLM-administered land in 

the planning area (approximately 2.4 million acres) accounts for approximately 8 percent of total 

forestland in Oregon (approximately 30.5 million acres, Oregon Department of Forestry, no date). The 

BLM-administered land in the planning area includes approximately 13 percent of the total number of 

acres in western Oregon in designated Wild and Scenic River areas and approximately 4 percent of 

designated Wilderness (TNS and WSC 2012). 

The demand assessment for each good or service relies on information from the BLM, the U.S. Forest 

Service, and economic and related literature, such as journal articles and professional reports. The types 

of information that describe demand vary by good or service, but generally includes user counts, permit 

counts, goods produced, patterns of use, and other evidence from people who directly or indirectly 

interact with the good or service. 

Methodology for Estimating Market Values 

The analysis reports both fair market values, as revealed by market prices, and BLM revenue as data are 

available. The BLM collects revenue from the harvest or use of many of the goods and services in Table 

3-145. Revenue is an indication of the value of the good or service, but may not capture the full market 

value of the good or service, for the following reasons: 

x The BLM permit or sale price (and thus collected revenue) is set below market value 

x The BLM does not collect revenue for all goods or services harvested or used in a particular 

category, in some cases legitimately, and in other cases because illicit harvest occurs 

The value assessment of each good or service relied on information from the BLM regarding permit and 

market prices, and, where BLM data does not reflect market prices, the assessment relied on external 

information about commodity prices. The data sources and methods of valuation of each market-based 

good or service are described in more detail below. 

Methodology for Estimating Non-market Values 

The BLM assessed the economic importance of some goods and services using non-market values (see 

Table 3-145). As the name implies, nonmarket goods and services are not traded in markets. As a result, 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

480 | Page

it is not possible to calculate how BLM actions could affect the values of these goods and services using 

market prices. Instead, when sufficient data are available, the analysis used non-market values to estimate 

their economic importance. If data are not available to estimate a dollar value, the analysis relied on other 

information to describe their economic importance, without monetary quantification. The BLM (USDI 

BLM 2013a) describes non-market values and methods of incorporating them in socioeconomic analyses 

for resource management plans. 

Two broad categories of non-market values exist: use values and non-use or passive use values. People 

enjoy use values when they make use of the environment, such as through fishing, hunting, boating, or 

bird watching. Unlike other use values (e.g., from the production of commodities), these activities are 

usually not captured through market transactions. Non-use values reflect value derived in a manner other 

than using natural resources. Existence value is a type of non-use value that describes the value that 

society places on the existence of a species, place, or habitat. For example, people may be willing to pay 

to protect a wilderness area, even though they have no plans to visit the area (King and Mazzotta 2000). 

In this analysis, the BLM did not attempt to estimate values for non-market goods and services on BLMadministered lands directly. Instead, the analysis relied on unit values from studies of similar goods and 

services, and applied the unit values as appropriate for goods and services on BLM-administered land. 

This technique, known as benefit transfer, provides a method for valuing non-market goods and services 

when data or resources are limited (EPA 2010). 

Where data describing the amount or unit value of goods and services are not available, the analysis used 

several types of information to indicate economic importance qualitatively: 

x Values of similar goods and services studied elsewhere 

x Surveys of people’s preferences and actions 

x Values of substitute goods and services 

Valuation Methodologies for Specific Goods and Services 

Timber 

Analysis of the economic value of timber harvested on BLM-administered land involved the input of 

economic and forestry data and modeling. The BLM developed data sets describing the costs of the 

various logging techniques and other costs associated with timber sales based on current data. Stumpage 

prices provided the basis for the timber revenue estimates. These prices rely on the long-term trend for 

timber prices in western Oregon. Appendix O contains more detail regarding the price projection 

methodology. The BLM developed a timber harvest model within the Woodstock software platform to 

project harvest volumes by grade, species type, district, and other parameters for each alternative, 

including the No Action alternative. The model outputs, all in 2012 dollars, provide detail on the harvest 

volumes, costs, and revenues in 10-year blocks. 

The BLM also developed a model to project the effects of changes in BLM harvests on private timber 

producers in the western Oregon timber market. 

Recreation and Visitation 

The assessment of the economic value of recreation on BLM-administered land in the planning area 

required consideration of the BLM’s recreation management under each alternative, the overall supply of 

recreation resources in the planning area, the user population, and how changes in supply could address 

scarcities that would increase usage and benefit. The BLM’s Recreation Management Information System 

(RMIS) provides estimates of visitor days and numbers of participants. The BLM combined this 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

481 | Page

information with spatial data on its own recreation areas and other public recreation access, as well as 

census data on population. In this way, the BLM identified the nearby populations that use BLM 

recreation resources and how these opportunities relate to other opportunities. The BLM also considered 

the estimates for total outdoor recreation activity in western Oregon using survey data from Oregon’s 

Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and use estimates and benefit estimates per 

visitor day and activity day developed by the U.S. Forest Service. 

The BLM considered all these data and calculated consumer surplus values, which represents the net 

economic benefit to a participant in recreation activity after deducting market-based costs associated with 

the activity. Consumer surplus values are non-market values. They do not represent dollars exchanged, 

but, rather, the amount of net benefit beyond expenditures that represent additional willingness-to-pay. 

To compare the alternatives, the BLM identified the acreage of Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) 

designated under each alternative. The BLM compared the overall and district-level change in total RMA 

acreage by RMA. The BLM then identified the change in RMA acreage within 30-minute and 60-minute 

proximities of twelve major communities in western Oregon. Recognizing that quality, accessibility, and 

(low) congestion all contribute to demand for recreation opportunities and resulting value, the BLM 

compared the changes in accessible RMA acreage, and the proportional relationships between these 

changes and estimates of current recreation-oriented areas. The BLM considered how these proportional 

changes in recreation acreage correspond to existing conditions and existing estimates of recreation value 

from BLM-administered land. The BLM applied the projections for growth and composition of outdoor 

recreation participation over the next 50 years to the consumer surplus values to estimate the net present 

value of outdoor recreation visitor-days to participants over that period. 

Special Forest Products 

This analysis focused on special forest products from forested areas. Non-forested areas may produce 

goods akin to these forest products that have value (e.g., sagebrush). However, the BLM assumed in this 

analysis that non-forested areas would remain non-forested under all alternatives, so there would be no 

change in the supply or value of these goods. 

The Forest Management section in this chapter describes the supply of special forest products in terms of 

acreage suitable for the production of Category I67 and Category II species. Category I species thrive in 

disturbed forest conditions, and Category I species rely on undisturbed forest conditions. This section 

reports acreages for two areas: the “coastal/north” areas (Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem Districts) and the 

“interior/south” areas (the Roseburg and Medford Districts, and the Klamath Falls Field Office). 

The analysis describes the demand for special forest products using data derived from the BLM harvest 

database, reviews of the literature, and interviews with BLM district staff. The harvest database reports 

quantity of special forest products collected by species, number of permits issued, and revenue collected. 

The analysis relied on interviews to understand the harvest database and better understand patterns of use 

and markets for special forest products. 

The analysis reports both market prices and BLM revenue to describe value of special forest products. 

The harvest database reports BLM-collected revenue for special forest products. The analysis 

supplemented this information with information from the literature on market prices for special forest 

 

67 These categories are not a formal designation but simply a way to characterize similar special forest products for 

ease of analysis. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

482 | Page

products. The literature indicates that BLM prices for special forest products are often below fair market 

value, so the analysis provides data for market values of special forest products when available. 

Sustainable Energy Production 

The BLM estimated the supply of sustainable energy resources within the decision area based on 

information provided in the Sustainable Energy section. The analysis describes the demand for 

sustainable energy using information from government reports and professional literature, as well as 

information from the BLM database on special forest products. Two categories of special forest products 

reported in the database are relevant for sustainable energy production: biomass and fuelwood. 

Information on the value of biomass energy production came from revenue data collected by BLM and 

from data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

Livestock Grazing 

The BLM estimated the supply of livestock grazing within the decision area based on information 

provided in the Grazing section in this chapter. The analysis describes the demand for livestock grazing 

using information about the utilization of available livestock grazing allotments. Information on the value 

of livestock grazing came from Federal grazing fees and from market prices for private and State 

livestock grazing fees and forage. 

Minerals 

The BLM estimated the supply of saleable minerals within the decision area for the affected environment 

and effects analyses based on information provided in the Minerals section. The economic analysis 

described the current demand for minerals using information from a BLM database of mineral material 

sales. The analysis relied on data included in the database about the value of each sale. The BLM sells 

mineral material at fair market value, so the analysis did not incorporate additional information about the 

market value of mineral materials. In this analysis, the BLM assumed that demand would not change from 

current conditions and that the BLM would continue to sell mineral materials at fair market value. 

Carbon Storage 

The BLM estimated carbon storage and emissions in the Climate Change section in this chapter. The 

carbon storage reported in that section is “net carbon storage” representing carbon stored less carbon 

emitted through wildfire, prescribed burning, decomposition, and through the lifecycle of wood products. 

Other sources of emissions (e.g., enteric fermentation) are minor and are discussed in Issue 2 of the 

Climate Change section. 

In this economic analysis, the BLM calculated the annual amount and value of net carbon storage based 

on the Climate Change section. To estimate value, the analysis used values developed by the U.S. 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Estimating SCC is complex, reflecting a 

variety of models and assumptions in climate science, ecology, and economics projected decades into the 

future, all involving uncertainties. The Interagency Working Group provides several estimates of SCC 

that are dependent on three variables: 

x The year emissions are expected to occur 

x The discount rate (2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent) 

x The estimated severity of future damages 

The Interagency Working Group estimates consider two scenarios of damage. The “Average” case 

reflects the average costs across climate models and socioeconomic scenarios. The “95th percentile” case 

reflects higher than average damages that might occur, but that have a probability of future occurrence of 

5 percent. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

483 | Page

To estimate the value of the stored carbon on BLM-administered land in 2012 for the affected 

environment, the analysis used the Interagency Working Group estimates for emissions in year 2015, a 3 

percent discount rate, and both the average and 95th percentile cases. According to the Interagency 

Working Group, the estimated social cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2015 in 2007 dollars 

is $37 (average ) and $109 (95th percentile case). These dollar values apply to carbon dioxide (CO2), but 

net stored carbon is estimated in terms of tons of carbon (C). The BLM analysis converted dollars per 

metric ton of CO2 to dollars per metric ton of C using a conversion factor of 3.67. The BLM converted 

dollar values to 2012 dollars using the GDP deflator. The final per ton values multiplied by metric tons of 

net stored carbon are $146.73 (average) and $432.22 (95th percentile case). The analysis presents both 

estimates to illustrate the uncertainty about SCC due to uncertainty of the damage caused by carbon 

emissions. However, they do not represent the full range of possible SCC estimates that would be based 

on other discount rates or cost assumptions. Of the two estimates presented, the BLM considers the 

“average” scenario to be more likely. 

To estimate the value of the effects of alternatives on net stored carbon, the analysis used a similar 

procedure. Using the results of the effects analysis presented in Issue 1 of the Climate Change section, the 

economic analysis calculated the marginal change in stored carbon between 2013 and 2023 and between 

2013 and 2113 by alternative. The estimated social cost per metric ton of CO2 for emissions in year 2017 

(the midpoint of the first decade) is $39 (average) and $116 (95th percentile) in 2007 dollars. These values 

were converted to dollars per metric ton of C and to 2012 dollars as described above, and were applied to 

the marginal change in net stored carbon over the first decade. After conversions to dollars per metric ton 

of C and to 2012 dollars, the estimated social cost per metric ton of C in year 2017 is $154.65 (average) 

and $459.96 (95th percentile). The estimated value of the marginal change over the 100-year period of 

analysis was calculated using the social cost per metric ton for emissions in year 2050 (the last year for 

which SCC is calculated by the Interagency Working Group). The estimated social cost per metric ton of 

CO2 for emissions in year 2050 is $71 (average) and $220 (95th percentile case) in 2007 dollars. After 

conversions to dollars per metric ton of C and to 2012 dollars, the estimated social cost per metric ton of 

C in year 2050 is $281.53 (average) and $872.36 (95th percentile case). 

Source Water Protection 

The BLM estimated the supply of land that produces water potentially used for drinking water in the 

AMS (USDI BLM 2013). The economic analysis describes the current demand for source water 

protection using information derived from agreements between the BLM and state and local governments, 

and spatial information developed by the Wild Salmon Center and the Nature Conservancy. Qualitative 

information on the value of source water came from the professional literature. In this economic analysis, 

the BLM assumed that the quantity and quality of the supply of water available for drinking would not 

change from current conditions and necessarily would meets all State and Federal drinking water 

standards. The Hydrology section contains more information on effects on water quantity and quality. 

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species 

The BLM estimated the current conditions and effects on forest structure and threatened and endangered 

species in Forest Management, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Rare Plants and Fungi. The economic analysis 

describes the demand and value for biodiversity and sensitive species using information derived from the 

professional literature, and laws and regulations governing environmental protection. Although the 

professional literature includes some quantitative estimates of willingness to pay for protection of species 

and their habitat, insufficient information is available at the scale of analysis to produce quantitative 

estimates of the specific economic value or changes in value that would result from the alternatives. 

Scenic Amenities 

The BLM estimated the supply of scenic amenities within the planning area based on information 

provided in the Visual Resource Management section in this chapter. The economic analysis derived 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

484 | Page

changes in supply under each alternative based on visual resource inventory acreage in each class of 

visual quality and visual resource management. The analysis describes the demand for scenic amenities 

and their value using information from professional, peer-reviewed literature. Insufficient information is 

available at the scale of analysis to produce quantitative estimates of the specific economic value or 

changes in value associated with scenic amenities that would result from the alternatives. 

Cultural Resources 

The BLM estimated the supply of cultural resources within the decision area based on information 

provided in the Cultural Resources section. The economic analysis describes demand for and value of 

cultural resources based on laws and regulations governing archaeological sites and cultural artifacts and 

descriptions of non-physical elements of cultural importance based on the framework for cultural

meaning outlined in the United Nations’ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Sarukhán and Whyte 2005). 

Insufficient information is available at the scale of analysis to produce quantitative estimates of the 

economic value or changes in value associated with changes in cultural resources by alternative. 

Affected Environment 

Timber 

Supply 

Western Oregon continues to be a national leader in the production of timber and timber products. The 

Timber and Socioeconomic sections of the Analysis of the Management Situation (USDI BLM 2013c, pp. 

2-98 to 2-99 and 2-120 to 2-128), and the Forest Management section in this chapter provide information 

on the overall market supply and conditions. The past 50 years have seen dramatic changes in timber 

harvest for western Oregon, particularly from Federal lands including BLM-administered land. Figures 3-

141 and 3-142 show the declines in both volume and, over the past 50 years, in prices. These changes 

provide the context for assessing the economic consequences of possible changes in timber management 

on BLM-administered lands. 

Figure 3-141. Western Oregon historical timber harvest, BLM and total (Source: Zhou and Warren 

2012). 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

19621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012

Western Oregon TImber Harvest 

(MMbf)

Year

BLM Harvest Total Harvest
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

485 | Page

Figure 3-142. Western Oregon historical stumpage prices, BLM and State/private(Source: Zhou and 

Warren 2012). 

Figure 3-141 shows both the declines in total harvest in western Oregon, starting first on private 

timberlands in the early 1970s and BLM-administered lands in the early 1990s. In the early 1960s, about 

20 percent of western Oregon’s timber harvest occurred on BLM-administered lands; this had dropped to 

an average of seven percent between 2008 and 2012. The nearly 85 percent drop in harvest on BLMadministered lands mirrors a similar drop on National Forest lands following the implementation of the 

1994 Northwest Forest Plan. Figure 3-142 shows stumpage prices representing private stumpage 

markets.68 The declines in stumpage prices of timber from BLM-administered lands reflect the higher 

logging costs and lower value log mixes associated with the predominance of thinning harvest, rather than 

regeneration harvest, under current implementation (see the Forest Management section in this chapter). 

Federal lands (including BLM-administered land and National Forests) in western Oregon make up 61 

percent of all timberland acreage, but have 73 percent of the growing stock in terms of volume (OFRI 

2012). This suggests on average Federal lands have more volume per acre than all timberlands in western 

Oregon. See the Forest Management section for detail on the BLM’s forest inventory conditions. 

Demand 

Figure 3-141 and 3-142 show how historical timber production and regional price trends tend to fluctuate 

with overall economic conditions, as, for example, prices and harvest levels declined during the 2007 to 

2009 recession repeating patterns of past recessions. 

Stumpage prices paid or bid for timber offered for harvest provide an indication of demand for BLM 

timber in western Oregon. Figure 3-141, in spite of its variability, shows an almost flat trend in real 

 

68 The stumpage price series shown is for western Oregon Department of Forestry sales and, like all federal sales, is 

limited to domestic markets only. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1962196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010

Stumpage Price ($/Mbf) 

Year 

BLM State/Private USFS
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

486 | Page

(inflation-adjusted) stumpage prices in western Oregon over the 50-year period of 1962 to 2011. The 

overall trend since 1962 is a 0.23 percent increase per year, which this analysis uses as the most 

appropriate representation of future prices (Haynes et al. 2007, Haynes 2008). The regional market 

includes other private and public timber producers, with private supply particularly dominating (77 

percent for the past five years). Since the end of the 2007 to 2009 recession, State, Forest Service, BLM, 

and private harvests are increasing, as prices recover towards the long-term trend. Prices for public 

harvests have been rising (Figure 3-142).

Demand for BLM timber supply is a function of a variety of factors associated with both the final demand 

for timber products, as well as competition with other supply sources. Potential timber buyers compare 

the species composition, timber quality, accessibility, and other harvest cost differences when comparing 

Federal, State, local, and private timber sources. Federal timber sales have restrictions prohibiting foreign 

export, which potentially reduces demand, particularly when foreign markets such as Asia are strong. 

A wide array of final market goods and services incorporate timber products; consequently, overall timber 

demand trends strongly with overall economic conditions. New housing starts are a particularly important 

component of this broad economic demand. In 2008, of the $6 billion in total wood product sales for the 

state of Oregon as a whole, $2.8 billion came from pulp and paper, $1.5 billion came from sawmills 

(lumber), followed by plywood, veneers, and other boards (OFRI 2012). 

Value 

At the BLM district level, harvests have increased in real value since 2012, although price per Mbf has 

generally declined since 2000 (Figures 3-143 and 3-144 and Table 3-146). Year-to-year value at the 

district level fluctuates as volume varies, within the overall context of generally increasing harvest 

volumes and total value for BLM-administered lands in western Oregon as a whole since 2001. For 

example, the Coos Bay District saw the greatest overall timber harvest volume and value in 2007, while 

typically, it is in the bottom half of districts by these measures in other years since 2000. Between 2009 

and 2014, the Salem District had the greatest timber volume and value, both in total and per Mbf. The 

Klamath Falls Field Office consistently had the lowest timber harvest volume and value, except for 2007 

when Medford was lower. The average value per Mbf for all western Oregon districts over the period 

2000 to 2014 was $148. The overall western Oregon BLM harvest value over that period was $322 

million. 




Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

491 | Page

Table 3-147. Current recreation acreage of BLM-administered lands by district/field office. 

District/Field Office Current Recreation-Managed 

Areas (Acres) 

Coos Bay 6,629 

Eugene 20,511 

Klamath Falls 67,933 

Medford 32,065 

Roseburg 6,984 

Salem 28,647 

Totals 162,770 

Source: BLM Recreation Management Area data, estimates prepared for RMP Alternative B. 

Demand 

The BLM projects overall participation levels to increase; reaching 16.5 million participants annually by 

2060 (see the Recreation section in this chapter). 

Population centers and surrounding access tend to be the primary factors for demand for outdoor 

recreation opportunities. Researchers consider site attributes and travel costs, including time, to be the 

primary factors for variation in demand from one site to another, and for decisions between recreation and 

other forms of leisure (Loomis and Walsh 1997). Western Oregon is nationally and globally recognized 

for providing excellent outdoor recreation opportunities, with extensive forests, rivers, and mountains, 

including access, facilities, and trails throughout. The northern Willamette Valley is the most heavily 

populated portion of the region, dominated by the Portland metro area (Figure 3-140 in Recreation). 

Recreation opportunities within proximity to these population centers experience the most demand, and 

consequently have the potential to provide the most value, when they provide the types of outdoor 

recreation of interest. Some of the highest participation levels for trail use on BLM-administered lands are 

within these proximities. 

Extending the analysis of travel distances and BLM-administered lands to other major population centers 

in western Oregon increases the coverage of BLM-administered lands within 60 minutes of travel. 

Proximities to population centers tend to correspond to BLM-administered lands with high recreation use 

(Map 3-6). While access is often quite difficult through rugged and mountainous areas, 45 percent of 

western Oregon is accessible within a 60-minute drive time from one of these population centers, and 56 

percent of the BLM-administered lands within this region fall within the 60-minute travel proximity. 

When considering the overall ownership shares of public lands within these travel proximities, the U.S. 

Forest Service is the largest landowner, at 48 percent, followed by the BLM at 34 percent (Table 3-148). 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

492 | Page

Table 3-148. Public land ownership shares in 60-minute driving distances from population centers. 

Community Other Local Government State of Oregon BLM FWS FS

Coos Bay 3% - 39% 46% 1% 12%

Corvallis 10% 4% 21% 49% 4% 12%

Eugene 2% 1% 4% 35% 1% 58%

Grants Pass - - 2% 80% - 18%

McMinnville 5% 5% 38% 19% 3% 30%

Medford - - 1% 46% - 53%

Newburg 1% 8% 58% 29% 4% 1%

Portland - 3% 30% 5% 1% 61%

Roseburg - - 1% 47% 0% 52%

Salem 1% 2% 7% 12% 2% 76%

Sandy 1% 3% 2% 6% 2% 85%

Tillamook 3% 4% 53% 12% - 27%

Totals 1% 2% 14% 34% 1% 48%

Total Acres 86,571 128,766 914,736 2,315,100 72,480 3,223,677

Value 

The most commonly used measure of value associated with outdoor recreation activity is consumer 

surplus, which represents the net benefit to the participant after deducting market-based costs associated 

with the activity (equipment, transportation, access fees, etc.).69 Consumer surplus is used to demonstrate 

the value, expressed in monetary terms, that participants experience but do not have to pay for. Consumer 

surplus values do not represent dollars exchanged, but, rather, the amount of net benefit beyond 

expenditures that represent additional willingness-to-pay. Expenditures such as equipment and 

transportation, while not directly representing value of the recreation site and activity itself, do reflect 

value to the recreation consumer. Issue 2 describes the effects of recreation expenditures on jobs and 

earnings. 

The Forest Service (Loomis 2005) provides regional estimates by recreation type for the net value 

(consumer surplus; Table 3-149). These estimates derive from a meta-analysis of individual studies to 

estimate average recreation consumer surplus by recreation type and region. These data represent the 

average amount participants would pay beyond their total costs for the activity. Therefore, roughly half of 

participants would receive less consumer surplus, and half would receive more. The ranges for values 

reflect differing estimates from different contexts. The ranges also demonstrate that differing conditions 

for recreation opportunities can have very different values to users. Some of the factors that might 

contribute to variation in value for an activity are the site and facility quality, the attractiveness of the 

physical characteristics, and the accessibility (travel time). Several factors drive variation in net benefit 

between individuals, including people’s differing preferences for amount and type of outdoor recreation 

activity. Participants can experience a range of values across participation visits themselves, with 

69 Consumer surplus is the commonly-used measure of value for recreation activity, because while equipment and 

travel expenses are determined in markets, recreation sites and access are not typically priced according to market 

forces. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

493 | Page

typically some level of diminishing returns with increased number of visits, up to the point where a 

participant decides not to make one more visit. Again, these data represent an average of all visit values. 

Table 3-149. Net economic benefit (consumer surplus) by activity, per user day (2012$). 

Activity Net Economic Benefit 

Minimum Mean Maximum 

Camping and Picnicking $9-$18 $76-$123 $169-$265 

Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM Roadways) $6 $24 $72 

Fishing $5 $52 $122 

Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, and Migratory Game Birds) $7 $54 $132 

Motorized Boating $15 $32 $76 

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Travel $48 $48 $48 

Non-motorized Boating $30 $33 $35 

Non-motorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, and Horseback Riding) $0-$37 $21-$62 $21-$153 

Non-motorized Winter Activities $57 $57 $57 

Snowmobile and other Motorized Winter Activities $13 $43 $147 

Specialized Non-motorized Activities and Events $2 $38 $148 

Swimming and Other Water-Based Activities $7 $32 $70 

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature Study $8 $86 $411 

Source: Loomis 2005. 

Notes: 

- All net economic benefit (consumer surplus) values reported in 2012$. Consumer surplus value does not represent actual 

financial transaction, but rather value experienced by the participant 

- Activity categories from RMIS reports were aggregated to match the BLM reporting categories shown above. These underlying 

categories were cross-referenced with corresponding categories from Loomis, 2005. Consumer surplus values associated with 

‘general recreation’ were applied those activities without representative values. 

‘Camping and Picnicking’ used values associated with ‘Camping’ and ‘Picnicking’. 

‘Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM Roadways)’ used values associated with ‘Sightseeing’. 

‘Fishing’ used values associated with ‘Fishing’. 

‘Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, and Migratory Game Birds)’ used values associated with ‘Hunting’. 

‘Motorized Boating’ used values associated with ‘Motorboating’

‘Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Travel’ used values associated with ‘Off-road vehicle driving’. 

‘Non-motorized Boating’ used values associated with ‘Floatboating/rafting/canoeing’. 

‘Non-motorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, and Horseback Riding)’ used values associated with ‘Backpacking’, ‘Hiking’, 

‘Horseback Riding’, and ‘Mountain biking’. 

‘Non-motorized Winter Activities’ used values associated with ‘Cross-country Skiing’. 

‘Snowmobile and other Motorized Winter Activities’ used values associated with ‘Snowmobiling’. ‘Specialized Non-motorized 

Activities and Events’ used values associated with ‘General Recreation’. These values therefore also represent a general 

recreation value that can be applied with specific type of activity is not identified. 

‘Swimming and Other Water-Based Activities’ used values associated with ‘Swimming’. 

‘Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature Study’ used values associated with ‘Sightseeing’ and ‘Wildlife Viewing’. 

The most common outdoor recreation activities, requiring the least equipment or specialized skill, have 

the greatest participation numbers, and, based on the values in Table 3-149, provide the greatest total net 

benefit; see, for example, Camping and Picnicking, and Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature 

Study. Outdoor recreation participants in 2013 on BLM-administered lands numbered approximately 10.8 

million participants. Note that visitor days are fewer than number of participants because visitor days are 

summed across users to full 12 hours of recreation activity. Therefore, if an individual’s recreation visit 

participation time is less than 12 hours, the data combine it with time from another participant. Based on 

the data Tables 3-149 and 3-150, and using the average (mean) value, recreation activity contributed 

approximately $223 million in net economic benefit gains to residents of and visitors to western Oregon. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

494 | Page

Table 3-150. Total 2013 visitor days, by activity, to all western Oregon BLM district/field offices, and 

net benefit estimates (consumer surplus) (2012$). 

Activity Number of

Visitor Days

Number of 

Participants

Total Net Benefit

(Consumer Surplus)

(Thousands of 2012$)

Camping and Picnicking 938,290 1,273,349 $111,728

Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM 

Roadways) 376,562 1,959,729 $9,020

Fishing 181,746 598,420 $9,528

Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, and 

Migratory Game Birds) 485,911 1,063,709 $26,122

Motorized Boating 41,843 97,622 $1,332

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Travel 272,792 826,256 $13,014

Non-motorized Boating 74,580 224,876 $2,454

Non-motorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, and 

Horseback Riding) 243,325 1,211,201 $9,558

Non-motorized Winter Activities 14,723 50,444 $842

Snowmobile and other Motorized Winter 

Activities 1,896 6,903 $81

Specialized Non-motorized Activities and 

Events 111,012 458,870 $4,244

Swimming and Other Water-Based Activities 106,537 424,376 $3,436

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature 

Study 385,596 2,564,574 $31,512

Totals 3,234,813 10,760,329 $222,872

Sources: Loomis 2005 and 2013 and USDI BLM 2014f. 

Notes: 

Activity categories provided in the BLM RMIS reports were cross-referenced with corresponding categories from Loomis, 2005. 

Consumer surplus values associated with ‘general recreation’ were applied those activities without representative values. 

A visitor day represents 12 visitor hours at a site or area. So, for example, 12 one-hour visits equate to one visitor day. As a result 

there are more participants than visitor days. Participants include both local and non-local people. 

Table 3-151 shows the breakdown by BLM district. The Salem and Eugene Districts have the highest 

visitor day counts and, consequently, the highest recreation values. 

Table 3-151. Total 2013 visitor days, by BLM district, and annual net benefit estimates (consumer 

surplus) (2012$). 

District/Field Office Number of Visitor Days

Total Net Benefit

(Consumer Surplus)

(Thousands of 2012$)

Mean

Coos Bay 272,757 $23,858

Eugene 914,175 $59,122

Klamath Falls 48,099 $3,243

Medford 462,463 $28,914

Roseburg 303,727 $20,681

Salem 1,233,592 $87,055

Totals 3,234,813 $222,872

Source: Loomis 2005 and 2013 and USDI BLM 2014f, applying activity-specific use of consumer surplus values. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

495 | Page

Special Forest Products 

Supply 

Special forest products include all non-timber products harvested or collected from BLM-administered 

lands in western Oregon. The BLM classifies these products into two broad categories. Category I 

products, such as Christmas trees, huckleberries, beargrass, pine cones, and some mushrooms (e.g., 

morels) grow in areas of disturbance. Timber harvesting, commercial thinning, and prescribed burning, 

create the types of disturbed conditions in which these products grow. Category II products, such as ferns, 

wild ginger, mosses, and some mushrooms (e.g., chanterelles), grow in undisturbed areas. Table 3-152 

identifies the special forest products found on BLM-administered lands for which the BLM issues 

permits, and the applicable category. 

Under current conditions, approximately 111,300 acres (11 percent) of forest on BLM-administered lands 

support Category I (disturbance-associated) products and 864,600 acres (89 percent) of forest on BLMadministered lands support Category II (disturbance-averse) products in the coastal/north area. 

Approximately 195,300 acres (16 percent) of forest on BLM-administered lands support Category 1 

products and 992,000 acres (84 percent) of forest on BLM-administered lands support Category II 

products in the interior/south area. Forest Management describes the distribution of Category I and 

Category II special forest products in more detail. 

Demand 

All the BLM district/field offices in the planning area report harvests of non-timber forest products. The 

BLM manages the collection of these products via a permit system, issuing permits to both commercial 

collectors and for personal use. District offices report that people seeking permits to harvest are primarily 

local, and many are immigrants or non-English speakers. However, the BLM does not systematically 

collect information about the origin or other characteristics of people who receive permits. 

Table 3-152 shows the quantity harvested of the special forest products for issued permits, for all 

products except biomass and wood products, which are addressed in other sections of Issue 1. The data 

reflect demand for these products, especially floral and greenery and mushrooms, but they likely 

underestimate the demand for several reasons: 

y In some cases, there is a limit or cap on the number of permits issued or on the quantity of goods 

harvested. For such goods, demand would be greater than indicated by quantity harvested. 

y Permittees may inaccurately report quantity harvested, resulting in these numbers either under or 

overestimating demand, though the tendency is likely toward underestimation. 

Some harvest may take place without a permit (illegal trespass), so that demand is not captured in BLM 

data. BLM law enforcement reports that trespass is a problem (Babcock 2014, personal communication). 

In 2012, the Roseburg District issued the most permits at 1,440, followed by the Eugene (1,152), Coos 

Bay (980), Medford (241), Salem (122) Districts, and the Klamath Field Office (94). 


Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

498 | Page

Demand 

Although BLM-administered lands in western Oregon provide some areas suitable for wind production, 

there is currently no demand for developing these areas, because their proximity to transmission capacity 

and centers of demand make development too costly under today’s economic conditions (Peter Broussard, 

BLM, personal communication, 2013). Currently, demand for generating energy via geothermal resources 

is limited by technology and a lack of infrastructure to convey energy to population centers. There is no 

current demand for solar energy in the decision area based on current solar generation technology. 

Markets for biomass fuel are close in proximity to the production areas, but other Federal, State, and 

private sources supply these markets. State and Federal mandates that require energy companies and 

communities to invest in renewable energy resources are driving investors to consider the energy 

resources available on BLM-administered lands, including those in western Oregon (USDI BLM 2014c). 

The BLM is actively working with communities and companies in western Oregon to develop 

information, infrastructure, and other resources to better-utilize biomass for renewable energy production 

(USDI BLM 2006 and 2010). Several co-generation facilities exist in western Oregon that utilize biomass 

to produce electricity, most commonly associated with existing sawmills. Timber companies and other 

partners are exploring opportunities for installing new generation capacity at existing sawmills, and 

building small-scale generation and heating projects for institutional facilities, such as schools (USDI 

BLM 2006). 

Utilization of biomass (using sold amounts as a proxy for utilization, and utilization to represent demand) 

from BLM-administered lands has varied over the last few years, ranging from almost 70,000 green tons 

in 2010 to less than 10,000 green tons since 2011. Incentives provided through the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 likely contributed to the peak in 2010. In 2012, among the district/field 

offices in the planning area, only the Klamath Falls Field Office reported production of biomass materials 

totaling 3,000 bone dry tons. All six districts reported issuing permits for fuel wood, amounting to 5,578 

green tons produced. Assuming 40 percent moisture content, this equals 3,347 bone dry tons. Thus, the 

total quantity of biomass utilized in 2012 was 6,347 bone dry tons. Based on a range of 7,600 to 9,600 

BTUs per pound, this quantity of biomass would produce about 96,000 to 122,000 million BTUs of 

energy. 

Value 

In 2012, the BLM received $1,500 in revenue from selling a permit for 3,000 bone dry tons of biomass. 

This equates to $0.50 per bone dry ton or about $0.03 per million BTUs. This transaction occurred in the 

jurisdiction of the Klamath Falls Field Office. The BLM also granted permits for the procurement of 

about 5,600 green tons of fuel wood across all six districts, and received in exchange about $30,700 in 

revenue. Assuming that the average moisture content of the biomass is 40 percent, this equates to about 

$9 per bone dry ton or about $0.5 to $0.6 per million BTUs. Data are unavailable to quantity the amount 

or value of biomass from BLM-administered lands that timber companies and paper mills utilized to 

produce energy. 

Grazing 

Supply 

Three of the BLM administrative units in the planning area report active grazing: the Coos Bay District, 

the Medford District, and the Klamath Falls Field Office. The Grazing section in this chapter provides 

detail on the current and historic supply of grazing resources. In 2012, the decision area had 

approximately 23,000 active AUMs (animal unit months; Table 3-153).
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

499 | Page

Table 3-153. Grazing, number of permittees, forage, market value, and BLM revenue, 2012. 

District/

Field Office 

Number of 

Permittees 

Number of 

Allotments 

Leased 

Active 

AUMs1,2

Billed 

AUMs1,2

Market Value 

Based on 

Private Forage 

Price 

($16.80/AUM) 

Market Value 

Based on 

State Forage 

Price 

($8.48/AUM) 

BLM 

Revenue 

Based on 

Federal 

Grazing Fee 

($1.35/AUM) 

Coos Bay 4 4 23 23 $386 $195 $31 

Eugene - - - - - - - 

Klamath Falls 63 83 12,762 9,432 $158,458 $79,983 $12,733 

Medford 43 50 10,255 6,878 $115,550 $58,325 $9,285 

Roseburg - - - - - - - 

Salem - - - - - - - 

Totals 110 137 23,040 16,333 $274,411 $138,512 $22,051 

Sources: Grazing section of Chapter 3, USDI BLM 2014b, USDI BLM 2014e. 

Notes: 

1

An animal unit month is the amount of forage required to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a 

month on lands in western Oregon. Active AUMs is a measure of the amount of forage available on land designated for grazing 

in a given year. 

2 An active AUM is a measure of the amount of forage available in a given year. A billed AUM is the amount of forage actually 

used. 

Demand 

Demand for grazing permits on BLM-administered lands is from private land owners in the vicinity of 

and adjacent to BLM-administered rangelands, whose property the BLM has recognized as having 

preference for the use of public grazing privileges. Public rangelands are made available for grazing 

through a system of permits and leases tied to particular areas (allotments) and quantities of forage. In 

2012, there were 110 permittees leasing 137 allotments (Table 3-153). 

Value 

The Federal government sets the Federal grazing fee annually, which applies to BLM- and Forest Serviceadministered lands in the 16 western states. The fee is adjusted based on a formula set by Congress in the 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 and modified by subsequent presidential executive orders. 

While the fee takes into account market factors, such as production costs and beef prices, the price is not 

set in an open market, so may not reflect the actual value of the right to graze animals on BLMadministered land. 

The Federal grazing fee in 2012 was $1.35 (USDI BLM 2013, USDI BLM 2014d). By law, the fee cannot 

fall below $1.35 per AUM, and cannot increase or decrease more than 25 percent year-over-year (Vincent 

2012). Since 2004, the fee has ranged from $1.35 to $1.79. The BLM collected approximately $22,000 in 

revenue for the AUMs within the decision area in 2012 (Table 3-153). 

Disputes persist about the extent to which Federal grazing fees actually reflect “fair market value.” (USDI 

BLM 2013). The average price of private forage on land in the western United States in 2011 was $16.80 

per AUM (USDI BLM 2013). The grazing fee on State trust lands in Oregon in 2012 was $8.48 per AUM 

(Oregon Department of State Lands 2012). The price of an AUM on BLM-administered land may not 

compare directly to grazing fees for private land, because private grazing fees may include other services, 

such as fencing and water infrastructure that BLM allotments do not provide. State grazing fees may 

provide a better comparison, although differences in proximity, density of forage, and herd security 

between state trust and BLM-administered lands may still factor into a lower average value associated 

with using BLM-administered lands for grazing. The actual value of an AUM on any given BLM-
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

500 | Page

administered allotment may have a different value to the livestock producer, depending on characteristics 

other than quantity of forage. 

Rangeland provides a broad range of goods and services. See the recreation and biodiversity subsections 

of this issue for discussion of the value of other goods and services associated with rangeland. 

Minerals 

Supply 

BLM-administered lands include approximately 2.5 million acres that provide mineral resources to the 

public. These lands include saleable, locatable, and leasable mineral resources. 

x Saleable Minerals. The primary saleable mineral resources associated with BLM-administered 

lands in western Oregon are sand, gravel, and crushed stone, referred to collectively as “mineral 

material.”

x Locatable Minerals. Locatable minerals in western Oregon include precious metals (e.g., gold, 

silver, nickel, mercury, and uranium), nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar and gemstones) and 

uncommon variety minerals (certain limestone and silica). 

x Leasable Minerals. Leasable minerals in western Oregon include oil, gas, coalbed natural gas, 

or coal. 

Those interested in mineral development have access to a large majority of BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area. Currently, approximately 13 percent, or 319,000 acres, of BLM-administered lands are 

closed to salable-mineral exploration, and approximately 4 percent, or 98,400 acres, are closed to 

locatable-mineral exploration. None of the BLM-administered lands are closed to leasable-mineral 

exploration. Minerals provides more detail on the supply of mineral resources. 

Demand 

Demand for minerals on BLM-administered lands comes from several sources: commercial (e.g., timber 

companies), governmental agencies utilizing materials for government projects with free use permits, and 

individuals looking for mineral resources (mostly locatable minerals) primarily for personal use or 

enjoyment. All these types of demand have the potential to generate economic benefits. This section 

focuses on demand from larger-scale mineral production. There are no current leases for oil, gas, or coal 

on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, and limited activity related to locatable minerals. The 

BLM does not collect information about the quantity of locatable minerals removed from mining claims. 

There are over 1,000 developed quarries for saleable minerals on BLM-administered lands in western 

Oregon. In 2012, producers removed approximately 35,555 cubic yards of mineral material from these 

quarries, primarily crushed and specialty stone. Approximately 85 percent was from the Roseburg District 

(Table 3-154). Between 2005 and 2012, producers removed on average about 25,000 cubic yards in the 

Medford, Roseburg, and Eugene Districts. The most common uses for these minerals are road 

construction and resurfacing, and building other surfaces for use during logging operations. Recreation 

(e.g., boat ramps) and conservation (e.g., stream improvements) activities use some material. The 

relatively close proximity of the source of saleable minerals to road, logging, and recreational 

construction projects on BLM-administered lands helps reduce the costs of these projects. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

501 | Page

Table 3-154. Saleable minerals, market value, and revenue, 2012. 

District/Field Office 

Mineral Material Removed 

from BLM-administered 

Lands (Cubic Yards) 

Market Value and 

Revenue to BLM 

Coos Bay - - 

Eugene 27 $188 

Klamath Falls - - 

Medford 5,285 $3,584 

Roseburg 30,243 $15,141 

Salem - - 

Totals 35,555 $15,328 

There were 1,045 active mining claims for locatable minerals on BLM-administered lands in western 

Oregon in 2013, an increase of 25 percent since 2005 (USDI BLM 2013). Most of the increase is in the 

Medford District, where claims increased by 200, or about 30 percent. 

Value 

Federal law authorizes the BLM to sell saleable mineral materials at fair market value. Prices for mineral 

material are set by district rate sheets, or by appraisal for larger or specialized quantities. The price per 

cubic yard in 2012 ranged from $0.50 to $10.00 per cubic yard. The Eugene and Roseburg Districts 

charged $0.50 per cubic yard for most sales while the Medford District charged $3.00 per cubic yard for 

most sales. The market value to the BLM in 2012 was approximately $15,300 (Table 3-154).The value of 

locatable minerals would also be based on their market value. However, the BLM does not collect 

information on production from these claims. 

The value of recreational mining, where people participate for the experience as much or more than the 

prospect of earning income, is partially captured in the Recreation section of Issue 1. The BLM does not 

explicitly track user days for recreational mining, but some of these users are likely captured in the data 

for other recreational activities (e.g., hiking or motorized travel). 

Carbon Storage 

Supply 

The Climate Change section in this chapter describes the current conditions regarding climate change and 

carbon storage for the decision area. Forests in the decision area are a sink for carbon, fixing more carbon 

above- and below ground than they emit. The BLM-administered lands in the planning area store an 

estimated 373 teragrams of Carbon (Tg C) (1 Teragram is equivalent to 1 million metric tons. The carbon 

density, the amount of carbon per acre, varies by office with Klamath Falls having the lowest density and 

Eugene the highest. Each year the net amount of carbon stored in forests changes, with some being 

released through fire, decay, and other processes, and some being fixed through growth. In 2012, the 

forests in the decision area fixed and stored a net total of about 673,000 metric tons of carbon. 

Demand 

Across the world, many individuals, businesses, and governments recognize a need to address climate 

change through greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation, to avoid costs associated with climate change 

now and in the future. Some markets exist where greenhouse gas producers pay dollars for so-called 

“carbon offsets” or “carbon credits.” However, there is no active trading market in western Oregon, and 

the BLM does not participate in these markets. Among individuals and groups, demand exists to maintain 

existing carbon sinks and increase opportunities for carbon storage in western Oregon, but a funding 

mechanism to achieve this does not exist. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

502 | Page

Value 

Absent a market for carbon, this section addresses the value of carbon storage from a social perspective, 

where the value of carbon storage is derived from nonmarket valuation techniques such as avoided cost 

and avoided risk. The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the anticipated future damages from 

greenhouse gas emissions. According to an Interagency Working Group convened by the Council of 

Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget to analyze the social cost of carbon, SCC 

“is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change.”

(Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government 2013) The Interagency 

Working Group revised its estimates of the SCC in 2013. 

Combining the BLM estimates of the amount of carbon stored in forests in the decision area with the 

most recent average SCC estimates at the three percent discount rate, yields a value of carbon stored 

annually by forests in the decision area of approximately $99 million (Table 3-155). Using estimates that 

reflect higher risk of damage (the 95th percentile), yields a value of about $291 million. 

Table 3-155. Quantity of total carbon stored on BLM-administered lands, estimated annual carbon stored, 

and estimated value (2012$). 

District/Field 

Office

Stock of 

Stored 

Carbon

(Million 

Metric Tons)

Estimated 

Annual Carbon 

Storage 

(Million Metric 

Tons)

Value of Estimated 

Annual Stored 

Carbon (Millions)

Average1 95th

Percentile1

Coos Bay 61.21 0.17 $24 $73

Eugene 61.12 0.16 $24 $70

Klamath Falls 8.92 0.01 $1 $3

Medford 98.13 0.03 $4 $11

Roseburg 65.95 0.08 $11 $33

Salem 77.69 0.23 $34 $101

Totals 373.02 0.67 $99 $291

Source: USDI BLM and Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon 2013. 

1 Values are based on SCC estimates converted from per metric ton of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to per metric ton of Carbon (C) and 

converted to 2012$, as described in the methodology at the beginning of this section. Both the average and 95th percentile 

scenarios reflect a 3 percent discount rate.

Source Water Protection 

Supply 

The BLM-administered lands in western Oregon capture, filter, and convey water that people in 

communities across western Oregon drink. There are approximately 20,400 miles of streams and rivers 

and 218,000 acres of lakes, ponds, and wetlands on BLM-administered lands (USDI BLM 2013). In 

2011, the BLM and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality signed a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) that documents the efforts that both agencies will take for “managing and 

controlling point and nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution from BLM-managed lands in the State of 

Oregon.” (Oregon DEQ and USDI BLM 2014, p. 1). Specific to the BLM’s Resource Management Plans, 

the MOU states that RMPs will identify and include best management practices (BMPs) to control nonpoint sources of pollution (NPS), to the “maximum extent practicable” (Oregon DEQ, no date, p. 1; 

Oregon DEQ 2014). The Hydrology section in this chapter discusses the quantity and quality of water 

produced from the decision area. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

503 | Page

Demand 

Approximately 80 percent of Oregonians depend on drinking water from public water systems. These 

public water systems draw surface water and groundwater from areas designated to protect the quality of 

drinking water. There are approximately 80 source water watersheds in the planning area with varying 

amounts of BLM-administered lands. According to the Atlas of Conservation Values, 73 percent of the 

BLM-administered lands in western Oregon are in areas the Oregon DEQ identifies as drinking water 

protection areas (TNC and WSC 2012). The Oregon DEQ and the Oregon Health Authority have 

identified the source water areas in the State and conducted inventories of sources of contamination 

(USDI BLM 2013, p. 2-44). Source water areas for many public water systems encompass lands with 

multiple ownerships and varying forest management policies where BLM-managed land is often a 

minority portion of the total watershed. Many BLM-administered lands in these watersheds occupy 

headwaters locations miles upstream from surface water sources (D. Carpenter, personal communication, 

2014). 

Value 

The economics literature on water-treatment costs includes a growing number of studies that find a 

relationship between the quality of forest cover in source-water areas, and treatment costs for utilities that 

source from these areas. These studies conclude that greater and higher quality forest cover helps reduce 

treatment costs (Freeman et al. 2008, USDA FS 2000, Earth Economics 2012, World Resources Institute 

no date). Utilities manage water systems to address sources of risk to drinking water supplies. To the 

extent that forest management practices influence the risk of threats to a watershed’s integrity and its 

ability to provide clean drinking water, those changes would generate benefits or create costs for utilities 

(Freeman et al. 2008, USDA FS 2000, Earth Economics 2012, World Resources Institute no date). 

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species 

Supply 

The BLM-administered lands in western Oregon include habitats and species of biodiversity importance. 

Important habitats include old-growth forests, wetland and riparian areas, and habitats contained in Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and Outstanding Natural Areas (ONA). Important species 

include rare plants and fungi, various species of land animals, fish, and insects (e.g., northern spotted owl, 

marbled murrelet, coho calmon). Thirteen Federally-listed and one candidate plant species exist in the 

planning area. The BLM documented nine of these species on BLM-administered lands (USDI BLM 

2013, p. 2-66). The Atlas of Conservation Values includes maps of species of concern and critical habitats 

for listed species on BLM-administered lands (The Nature Conservancy and Wild Salmon Center 2012). 

Wildlife, Rare Plants and Fungi, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern contain information on the 

supply or prevalence of specific species. Many of these species are found in Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC), including Research Natural Areas that contain areas for ecological and 

environmental studies and preserves of gene pools of typical and endangered plants and animals. 

Demand 

Markets do not exist for the biodiversity aspects of habitats and species. However, evidence of demand 

exists elsewhere. Biologically diverse habitats provide biophysical functions that people depend on for 

survival. Individuals and households express their demand for habitats and species through survey 

responses. Society as a whole expresses demand through laws protecting threatened or endangered 

species and the habitats they depend on. 

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) describes the importance of biodiversity to the 

biophysical functions that people depend on: 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

504 | Page

“Biodiversity—the diversity of genes, populations, species, communities, and ecosystems—

underlies all ecosystem processes. Ecological processes interacting with the atmosphere, 

geosphere, and hydrosphere determine the environment on which organisms, including people, 

depend. Direct benefits such as food crops, clean water, clean air, and aesthetic pleasures all 

depend on biodiversity, as does the persistence, stability, and productivity of natural systems.”

(MEA 2005, p. 79) 

The biodiversity within forest- and water-related ecosystems supports a range of fundamental ecosystem 

services that people depend on including: 

x Waste disposal 

x Soil formation 

x Nitrogen fixation 

x Bioremediation of chemicals 

x Crop and livestock breeding 

x Biological control of pests 

x Pollination 

(Pimentel et al. 1997, Krieger 2001) 

People and households express their demand for habitats and species through their response to survey 

questions. The economics literature contains numerous reports and articles in academic journals that 

describe studies of individual and household willingness to pay to protect habitats and species. Examples 

include, Pascual and Muradian (2010), Loomis and White (1996), Hagen et al. (1992), Loomis and 

Gonzalez-Caban (1998), Bulte and Van Kooten (1999), Rubin et al. (1991), Moskowitz and Talberth 

(1998), Spies and Duncan (2008), Loomis et al. (2014). The Value subsection below includes values from 

a number of these studies. 

Society expresses demand for biodiversity and related habitats and species when voters or their elected 

representatives pass laws protecting threatened or endangered species and the habitats they depend one. 

For example, when the U.S. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, it recognized, “... that 

our rich natural heritage is of ‘esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our 

Nation and its people.” (USDI FWS 2013) According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the purpose 

of the act is to, “protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.”

(USDI FWS 2013) The State of Oregon has laws similar to the ESA and maintains its own list of 

threatened and endangered species separate from the species on the Federal ESA lists (Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife no date). 

Value 

The BLM identifies important values that areas provide including historic, cultural, or scenic; fish and 

wildlife resources; and natural processes or systems (USDI BLM 2013c, p. 2-14). Because people rely on 

these ecosystem services from forestlands, they also have economic value (Pimentel et al. 1997, Balmford 

et al. 2002, Farber et al. 2002, and, Pascual and Muradian 2010). The economic literature on this topic 

includes a number of studies that estimate the value of biodiversity and sensitive species in different 

contexts. Loomis et al. (2014) summarized the average values that sample households in the United States 

place on protecting threatened and endangered species, by species group, see Table 3-156. In general, the 

average value takes into account the range of household values from zero to the highest values. 

Researchers typically apply the average value to all households in a study area. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

505 | Page

Table 3-156. Willingness to pay (WTP) values per household, by species. 

Species Group Average Annual WTP 

(2006 Dollars) 

Birds $42 

Fish $105 

Mammals $17 

Marine Mammals $40 

Source: Loomis et al. 2014. 

The literature also includes studies of sample households’ average willingness-to-pay for some, but not 

all, of the threatened and endangered species present in the planning area (Table 3-157), and to protect 

old-growth habitat (Table 3-158). 

Table 3-157. Annual willingness to pay (WTP) values per household, by species. 

Species Average Annual WTP 

(2006 Dollars) 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalis) $1181

Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) Unknown5

Fisher (Pekania pennanti) $172

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos canadensis) $422

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) $422

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) $611

Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) Unknown5

Red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) $163

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) $422

Steller’s sea lion (Eumetopics jubatus) $761

Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) $422

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydras editha taylori) Unknown5

Gray wolf (Canis lupus nubilus) $201

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) $1814

Sources: 

1: See Martín-López et al. 2008, and references therein. 

2: No species-specific studies exist; representative values from Loomis et al. 2014 used. 

3: White et al. 1997. Note that the value reported above was not calculated for the red tree vole, specifically, but for a different 

vole species. 

4: Ericsson et al. 2007. 

5: No studies exist to estimate the WTP for invertebrate species, such as butterflies. However, Diffendorfer et al. (2013) 

calculated that U.S. households value monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) at approximately $4.78–$6.64 billion—a level 

similar to many endangered vertebrate species. 

Table 3-158. Annual willingness to pay (WTP) values per household to protect old-growth habitat. 

Source Average Annual WTP 

(2012$) 

Rubin et al. (1991) $65 

Moskowitz and Talberth (1998) $64 - $192 

Loomis et al. (1994) $128 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

506 | Page

The studies that produced the dollar amounts in Table 3-157 and in Table 3-158 differ in their location 

and year conducted, demographic characteristics of study populations, approach, methods, questions 

asked, and in some cases include values for multiple and overlapping goods or services. Extrapolating 

these results to an accurate total value for the planning area is not possible given these variables. 

Nevertheless, the findings confirm, that, on average, households in the United States value threatened and 

endangered species. For illustrative purposes, the BLM estimated the value of bird species in the planning 

area using the latest estimates of willingness-to-pay from Loomis et al. (2014). A number of important 

bird species and their habitats exist in the planning area including eagles, marbled murrelet, and northern 

spotted owl. Multiplying the average household willingness-to-pay estimate for bird species from Loomis 

et al. (2014), $47 (2012$) by the number of households in the planning area, approximately 1.3 million 

(U.S. Bureau of the Census 2014b), yields an estimated value of approximately $63 million (2012$).

Scenic Amenities 

Supply 

The BLM categorizes the BLM-administered land into one of four classes based on the relative quality of 

visual resources. Visual Resource Inventory Class I indicates those areas with the highest scenic quality. 

The other three classes indicate varying levels of scenic quality, sensitivity, and distance to features. Over 

half of the land in the decision area is Class IV, which is the category of lowest visual resource quality. 

About a quarter of the land (about 553,000 acres) is Class II and another quarter is Class III (about 

578,000 acres. Less than 1 percent of land in the decision area is Class I. Visual Resource Management 

contains more detail. 

Demand 

People care about scenic amenities for a variety of reasons. Much of the demand for scenic amenities 

comes when people engage in recreation. It is difficult to separate the demand for visual experience from 

the rest of the recreation experience, and the demand for recreation activities, such as motorized and nonmotorized travel largely captures the demand for scenic amenities in the decision area. Scenic amenities 

are important to non-recreationists, including those who live or work nearby BLM-administered lands and 

have views of public property. 

Value 

This section focuses on the value to private property owners with views of BLM-administered lands. The 

recreation section includes the scenic amenity value from recreation-based activities. Economic modeling 

demonstrates what common observation suggests: private property with a good view sells at a premium, 

compared to property without (Garrod et al. 1997, Malprezzi 2002). The value of the premium is highly 

variable, and depends on the larger geographical and social context of the property. Studies have found 

premiums for views associated with residential properties ranging from insignificant but positive to 1 

percent to 89 percent of the price of a home (Behrer 2010). Most studies find the premium of a view is 

comparable to the premium added by a fireplace or a pool. The economic literature suggests that the price 

premium is more relevant for higher-valued residential properties and property with a primary purpose of 

recreation. 

Cultural Meaning 

Supply 

The BLM-administered lands in the planning area contain over 2,400 recorded cultural resource sites, 

including sites that are pre-historic, historic or, multi-component (i.e., possessing both historic and pre-
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

507 | Page

historic components). Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources provides additional detail on 

cultural resources. The BLM-administered lands also provide intangible cultural services. The 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defines cultural services as including “nonmaterial benefits people 

obtain through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic 

experiences” (Sarukán and White 2005). 

Demand 

Visitation to specific sites, organized activities on and related to BLM administered lands, and individual 

interaction with specific resources demonstrate demand for the cultural resources. Demand also exists 

among populations who may not visit BLM-administered lands or interact with resources directly, but 

hold their existence to be important to maintain their cultural identity, for example. 

BLM district/field offices reports document many examples of demand for cultural resources. Three of 

many examples are: 

x The Coos Bay District promotes and facilitates access to the Cape Blanco Lighthouse, which is 

the oldest lighthouse in Oregon. In 2012, 20,000 visitors toured the lighthouse. 

x In the Roseburg District, BLM staff collaborated with the Umpqua National Forest to conduct a 

Passport in Time public archaeology project. Other examples of demand include school-age 

children attending the School Forestry Tour and Creek Week. 

x Between 1996 and 2012, the Salem District conducted 392 public education and interpretative 

programs focusing on cultural resources, which involved 17,833 people. 

Nine Federally-recognized Tribes have lands or interests within the planning area. Tribal members 

express their demand and value for cultural resources in the ways they use and protect resources that have 

cultural importance to them. In some cases, uses are consumptive, as when Tribal members collect and 

consume wild plants as food or medicine. In other cases, uses are non-consumptive, as when accessing a 

location for ceremonial or sacred purposes. Tribes are also engaged in active management and protection 

of resources on BLM-administered lands (USDI BLM 2013). 

Society also expresses demand for the protection of prehistoric and historic sites and artifacts through the 

laws and regulations passed to protect them, including the National Historic Preservation Act (which also 

created a Historic Preservation Fund to survey, document, and protect cultural resources), the 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and 

others (USDI National Park Service 2014). 

Value 

The economics literature includes studies that describe the economic importance of cultural meaning or 

sense of place. Some studies estimate values based on spending by visitors to cultural sites, other studies 

estimate the value people place on protecting cultural sites or heritage, even if they never plan to visit 

these locations. These studies also describe a site’s resources or attributes that contribute to cultural 

meaning, such as uniqueness, historical significance, or spiritual meaning (Snyder et al. 2003, de la Torre 

(ed.) 2002, and Dumcke and Gnedovsky 2013). Given the challenges of estimating the economic value of 

an intangible such as cultural heritage or sense of place, these studies provide insights into the importance 

people and societies place on these resources, rather than into a precise measure of economic value. 

Cultural meaning contributes to the overall economic value of the goods and services from BLMadministered lands, though it is not possible to characterize all aspects of cultural meaning in the 

monetary language of economics. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

508 | Page

The net economic benefit of recreation captures the value of some aspects of cultural meaning, as the 

cultural importance of an activity may be mixed with its recreational value. For example, family members 

may visit the Cape Blanco Lighthouse because it is the oldest lighthouse in Oregon, and hike or picnic 

while there. It is difficult to parse out the value they attribute to their day of recreation versus their interest 

in the lighthouse; there may be a premium they would place on their experience compared to another 

destination, but there is no applicable research to determine what this premium is. 

Similarly, the value people place on the existence of sensitive species, such as salmon and the northern 

spotted owl may be supported or enhanced by the cultural meaning people ascribe to these species. The 

economic studies underlying the values reported in Table 3-157 do not parse the cultural aspects of value 

from other reasons why people ascribe value to the existence of these species. 

The nonmarket values reported elsewhere in this section also do not capture the value of the cultural 

meaning indigenous people derive from the natural environment. Across the Pacific Northwest, for 

example, the tribal way of life is intertwined with the ecosystem that supports the many resources tribes 

have used for thousands of years. In many cases, the rhythm of life and social organization revolves 

around the annual life cycle of plants, animals, and fish found on BLM-administered lands. These 

relationships are impossible—and inappropriate—to capture with a monetary measure, but they are 

important to these groups’ economic well-being. Cultural meaning is perhaps more valuable from an 

economic perspective than other resources because the resources that have cultural importance are 

irreplaceable. 

Summary 

Table 3-159 summarizes the economic value of goods and services reported in the sections above. These 

estimates represent different metrics for estimating value, including market revenue, consumer surplus 

and willingness to pay, and avoided costs. They are not strictly comparable and their sum should not be 

interpreted as a total value. The monetary estimates capture only a part of the total economic value of the 

goods and services provided by BLM-administered lands because they do not include the value of goods 

services that are not monetizable given available data, such as source water protection, biodiversity, 

scenic amenities, and cultural meaning. 

Table 3-159. Summary of economic value of goods and services derived from BLM-administered lands 

in western Oregon, 2012. 

Good or Service Type of Valuation Economic Value in 2012

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species Qualitative Not Monetized

Carbon Storage Non-Market $99 million

Cultural Meaning Qualitative Not Monetized

Energy Production Market $0.032 million

Grazing Market $0.022 million

Minerals Market $0.015 million

Recreation Non-Market $222.8 million

Scenic Amenities Qualitative Not Monetized

Source Water Protection Qualitative Not Monetized

Special Forest Products Market

BLM Revenue: $0.2 million;

Market Value Low $0.4 million,

Market Value High $6.5 million

Timber Market $20.8 million (Harvest Value)
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

509 | Page

Environmental Effects 

Timber 

Table 3-160 shows the total harvest volumes under the different alternatives, including both the 

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) and non-ASQ harvest. These total harvest volumes change over time 

because of changes in the amount of non-ASQ harvest (see the Forest Management section in this chapter 

for explanation of non-ASQ volume). 

Table 3-160. Annual total BLM harvest volumes over time by alternative. 

Alternative MMbf (Short Log Scale) 

2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113 

No Action 399.6 391.6 380.2 364.5 341.2 286.9 

Alt. A 248.6 243.7 245.2 244.3 252.2 294.9 

Alt. B 331.7 322.9 315.5 302.7 300.9 288.6 

Alt. C 555.0 548.7 541.1 532.7 524.4 588.0 

Alt. D 180.0 179.8 179.4 178.9 184.5 244.4 

These harvest volumes derive from the vegetation (Woodstock) model that also provides several other 

measures useful in describing value differences among the alternatives and effects on BLM districts. 

These include gross revenues, costs, and net revenues. Based on these data, the BLM calculated the net 

worth of the various alternatives. As a caution, the gross revenue figures include logging costs and BLM 

adjustments to sale costs so that they are only a proxy for the actual revenues (harvest value) that the 

government would receive under the alternatives. 

The ten-year timber gross revenues would be highest for all time periods under Alternative C, and lowest 

for all time periods under Alternative D (Figures 3-145 and 3-146). Gross revenues would be generally 

stable across the 10-year periods, although Alternatives A, B, and D fluctuate similarly while Alternative 

C differs, rising in the fourth decade, for example. For the first decade (2014-2023), total revenues would 

range from a low of approximately $843 million under Alternative D to a high of $2.8 billion under 

Alternative C (Table 3-161) These variations result from the timing of harvests of high value timber 

versus low value thinning harvests, and differences in the costs of harvest techniques. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

510 | Page

Figure 3-145. Timber gross revenue over time, by alternative, and 10-year period. 

Note: Year represents last year of 10-year period, and values are the 10-year sum. Source: Based on calculations using the 

Woodstock Model. 2012$. 

Figure 3-146. Gross revenue, total costs, and net revenue, by alternative, 2014 to 2023 ($ Millions). 

Source: Based on calculations using the Woodstock Model. 2012$.

No Action

Alt. A

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

2014 to 2023 2024 to 2033 2034 to 2043 2044 to 2053 2054 to 2063

Total Gross Revenue (2012$)

10-Year Time Period

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

-$1,000,000,000

-$500,000,000

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

2012$

Gross Revenue Total Costs Net Revenue
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

511 | Page

Table 3-161. Gross revenue, total costs, and net revenue, by alternative, 2014 to 2023 ($ Millions). Alt. 

District/Field Office 

Gross Revenue 

Totals 

(2014-2023) 

Total Costs 

(2014-2023) 

Net Revenue 

Totals 

(2014-2023) 

Net Present 

Value Over 50 

Years 

(2014-2063) 

No Action 

Coos Bay $370 $125 $245 $478 

Eugene $426 $143 $283 $591 

Klamath Falls $35 $18 $17 $41 

Medford $470 $171 $299 $612 

Roseburg $396 $142 $254 $522 

Salem $345 $119 $226 $458 

Totals $2,042 $718 $1,324 $2,701 

Alt. A 

Coos Bay $226 $84 $143 $327 

Eugene $285 $97 $188 $437 

Klamath Falls $12 $1 $11 $24 

Medford $203 $51 $152 $286 

Roseburg $144 $51 $93 $182 

Salem $330 $101 $229 $498 

Totals $1,200 $385 $815 $1,755 

Alt. B 

Coos Bay $236 $91 $145 $307 

Eugene $381 $133 $248 $574 

Klamath Falls $30 $4 $26 $54 

Medford $322 $36 $286 $557 

Roseburg $221 $78 $142 $300 

Salem $432 $137 $295 $637 

Totals $1,622 $479 $1,142 $2,428 

Alt. C 

Coos Bay $533 $178 $355 $724 

Eugene $742 $237 $505 $1,150 

Klamath Falls $39 $14 $25 $55 

Medford $364 $85 $279 $558 

Roseburg $480 $155 $324 $647 

Salem $662 $200 $462 $1,016 

Totals $2,821 $871 $1,950 $4,151 

Alt. D 

Coos Bay $103 $30 $73 $171 

Eugene $210 $45 $164 $391 

Klamath Falls $20 $7 $13 $29 

Medford $155 $31 $124 $227 

Roseburg $110 $31 $79 $166 

Salem $244 $68 $177 $422 

Totals $843 $212 $630 $1,406 

Costs and net revenue correspond proportionally to the alternatives. For example, Alternative C would 

have the greatest gross and net revenues, while Alternative D would have the least (Figure 3-146). Net 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

512 | Page

revenues for the 2014 to 2023 period would be approximately $630 million under Alternative D, and 

approximately $2 billion under Alternative C. 

The discounted net present value of the alternatives for the 50-year period (2014 to 2063) (i.e., the value 

if all the revenue were realized in 2012) would range from approximately $1.4 billion under Alternative D 

to approximately $4.1 billion under Alternative C (Table 3-161 and Figure 3-147). The net present value 

would greatest for the Salem District under Alternatives A, B, and D, and greatest for the Eugene District 

under Alternative C. 

Figure 3-147. Net present value over 50 years (2014 to 2063) by office and alternative. 

Note: The values are in base 2012$ using a discount rate of 4 percent. 

The Forest Management section in this chapter details the differences in value of logs harvested in terms 

of grade over time, by alternative. These differences help explain the differences in net present value 

among the alternatives. Alternative C would have its highest value harvests early in the timeframe, while 

Alternative D would have its highest value harvests at the end of the timeframe. Discounting results in 

more heavily weighing benefits in the present than in the future. 

Logging costs per thousand board feet (Mbf) would vary by office and by alternative (Figure 3-148). 

These costs would change as harvest prescriptions differ among alternatives, the biggest difference being 

the extent of thinning versus regeneration harvests. Costs in the Klamath Falls Field Office would be 

particularly low during the first time period relative to other offices under Alternatives A and B, and more 

in line with other offices under Alternatives C and D. In contrast, the Coos Bay District would have the 

highest costs per unit, but they would be approximately $40 lower per Mbf under Alternative D. Across 

all offices, in the first five decades, Alternatives B and D would have the highest per unit costs, while 

Alternative A would have the lowest. Among all the alternatives, Alternative D would have the lowest 

gross revenues, costs, and net revenues, (Figure 3-148).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Net Present Value over 50 Years 

(2012$) Millions

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

513 | Page

Figure 3-148. Cost per volume by office by alternative, 2014 to 2023 (2012$). 

Note: Costs are in short log units, in 2012$. 

Stumpage prices (the value of standing timber) for the first decade would be lowest for the Klamath Falls 

Field Office and highest on average for the Medford District during the first 10-year period (Figure 3-

149). The Roseburg District would have the highest prices under Alternative C. Alternative C would have 

the highest overall stumpage prices ($324/Mbf) averaged across all offices, and Alternative D would have 

the lowest ($277/Mbf). Stumpage prices rise back to their long term trends levels by 2018 and afterwards 

rise at their long-term real rate of increase of 0.23 percent (see Value discussion in Affected 

Environment). Stumpage prices would differ among alternatives and across time as a function of changes 

in the mix of log grades and average logging costs. Log mixes change over time both as a function of 

timber inventory changes and the differences in prescriptions for harvest, such as oldest first and extent of 

thinning. 

Figure 3-149. Stumpage price by office by alternative, 2014 to 2023 (2012$). 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Cost Per Volume (2012$/Mbf) 

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Stumpage Price (2012$/Mbf) 

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

514 | Page

Note: Prices are in short log units.

The differences in log grade composition help explain the variation in market value of timber harvests by 

alternative. Grade 1 contains logs that are generally sawlogs or peelers. As such, they represent the 

highest value log mixes and proportional changes in that mix are reflected in differences in stumpage 

prices both over time and among alternatives. Table 3-162 shows the differences in proportion of Grade 1 

logs by alternative over time. Among the alternatives, Alternative C would have the greatest share of 

Grade 1 logs early in the harvest timeframe, declining to nearly the lowest share by the end of the 

timeframe. Discounting weighs early harvests as more valuable than later harvests in the economic 

calculation of net present value. Conversely, Alternative D would have the lowest proportion of Grade 1 

logs early in the timeframe, and the highest at the end. Stumpage prices are higher for higher grade logs, 

so the patterns in stumpage price would change over time, as Alternative C would shift to lower grade 

logs and vice versa for Alternative D (Table 3-163). Logging costs do not fluctuate with log grade as 

dramatically as stumpage prices, but rather reflect the different harvest practices by alternative such as 

extent of thinning versus final harvest for a site. 

Table 3-162. Timber Grade 1 proportion over time, by alternative. 

Alternative 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

No Action 24% 16% 16% 12% 10% 14%

Alt. A 15% 14% 6% 8% 8% 1%

Alt. B 18% 10% 6% 6% 12% 18%

Alt. C 21% 19% 12% 9% 9% 2%

Alt. D 13% 12% 7% 8% 18% 21%

Table 3-163. Timber stumpage prices over time, by alternative. 

Alternative 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

No Action $310.4 $287.8 $309.7 $311.8 $302.3 $317.4

Alt. A $301.6 $300.6 $312.1 $300.2 $306.8 $264.8

Alt. B $292.9 $283.6 $314.4 $308.1 $337.9 $350.2

Alt. C $324.0 $323.4 $320.7 $339.8 $309.3 $264.8

Alt. D $277.0 $271.7 $295.7 $284.8 $332.3 $351.1

Table 3-164 shows total harvest values computed as the product of the harvest quantities from Table 3-

160 and the stumpage prices from Table 3-163. These represent estimates of returns to the government 

derived from timber harvested from BLM-administered lands in western Oregon and may be compared to 

the harvest values in Table 3-146- $20.8 million in 2012. The estimates are considerably higher than the 

value in 2012, because both timber harvest volumes and values would be higher under the alternatives. 

Table 3-164. Total harvest values by alternative 2023 to 2113 (2012$). 

Alternative Average Annual Harvest Value $ Millions (2012$) for Selected Decades

2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2113

No Action 93.0 84.5 88.3 85.2 77.4 68.3

Alt. A 56.2 54.9 57.4 55.0 58.0 58.6

Alt. B 72.9 68.7 74.4 69.9 76.3 75.8

Alt. C 134.9 133.1 130.1 135.8 121.7 116.8

Alt. D 37.4 36.6 39.8 38.2 46.0 64.3
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

515 | Page

Market Impacts of Changes in BLM Harvests 

The above discussion of the impacts of changes in BLM harvests does not take into account the potential 

responses of other non-BLM timberland owners.70 In the case of increases in BLM harvests, there would 

be reductions in private harvests as timberland owners adjust their harvest downwards as prices fall. Both 

of these results could reduce the potential job and revenue expectations from increases in the BLM 

harvest (as presented under Issue 2 Environmental Effects). For example, the BLM might expect the full 

employment impacts associated with an increase in harvest, but the net change in employment would be 

reduced by reductions in private harvests. At the same time, expected revenues would be less than 

expected, as stumpage prices are reduced by the net increase in harvest volumes. 

The BLM estimated the expected economic responses to increases in timber supply associated with 

increases in BLM timber harvests using a model of western Oregon timber markets (Table 3-165). 

Appendix O includes a detailed description of the model. The analysis assumed full implementation of 

each alternative prior to the mid-point of the first decade, so that harvest levels have risen to their 

expected levels by 2018. 

Table 3-165. Market impacts on other timberland owners by BLM alternative in 2018 (2012$) long log 

scale table. 

Alternative 

BLM 

Harvest 

Volume 

(MMbf) 

BLM 

Harvest 

Change 

Relative 

to 2012 

(MMbf) 

Stumpage 

Price 

(Per Mbf) 

(Resulting 

from 

Alternatives) 

Total 

Western 

Oregon 

Harvest 

(All 

Producers) 

(MMbf) 

Stumpage 

Price 

Difference 

(Per Mbf), 

Alternatives 

versus 2012 

Change in 

Total 

Western 

Oregon 

Harvest 

(MMbf) 

Alternatives 

versus 2012 

Change in 

Stumpage 

Price, 

Alternatives 

versus 2012 

(%)

Change 

in 

Harvest 

Volume, 

Total 

Western 

Oregon 

Harvest 

(%) 

Estimated 

Change in 

Private 

Harvest 

(MMbf)1 

Reference 

Data (2012) 144.3 $177.3 3,354.2 

No Action 281.0 136.7 $168.2 3,453.0 $-9.1 98.8 -5% 3% -37.9 

Alt. A 172.4 28.1 $175.4 3,374.5 $-1.9 20.3 -1% 1% -7.8 

Alt. B 230.2 85.9 $171.6 3,416.2 $-5.7 62.1 -3% 2% -23.8 

Alt. C 390.9 246.7 $160.9 3,532.5 $-16.4 178.3 -9% 5% -68.4 

Alt. D 123.9 -20.4 $178.6 3,339.5 $1.4 -14.7 1% <-1% 5.6 1

 BLM harvest change relative to 2012 minus change in total western Oregon harvest. 

Notes: The price per Mbf is based on actual market prices, see Table 3-146. These prices are lower than the stumpage values 

used in the vegetation modelling, see Table 3-163 and discussion. 

The model expresses volumes and prices in long log scale as that is the common log scale in western 

Oregon. In short log scale, the changes in BLM harvests and prices are as shown in Table 3-166. 

 

 

70 There are four broad types of timberland ownerships: Forest Service; other public, which in western Oregon 

includes the BLM, the State of Oregon, and various counties; forest industry; and non-industrial private forests. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

516 | Page

Table 3-166. Harvests and prices by BLM alternative in short log scale. 

Alternative Harvest (MMbf) Price (per Mbf)1

No Action 399.6 $118.3

Alt. A 248.6 $121.7

Alt. B 331.7 $119.1

Alt. C 555.0 $113.3

Alt. D 180.0 $123.0 1 Prices are in 2012 $ and converted from long to short log scale using a conversion factor of 1.435. 

Under all of the alternatives other than Alternative D, the BLM harvest would increase relative to 2012 

levels, between 28 and 247 MMbf. This upward shift in the supply curve would lead to lower stumpage 

prices (between one and nine percent) and reductions in private harvests (between approximately eight 

and 68 MMbf), as timberland owners adjust their harvest downwards as prices fall. For example, under 

the No Action alternative, stumpage prices would fall by $9.10 (2012$) per thousand board feet (five 

percent), while the total western Oregon harvest would expand by approximately 99 million board feet (3 

percent), as private timberland owners would reduce their harvest by approximately 37.9 million board 

feet. Both of these effects would reduce the potential expectations for an increase in BLM harvest. The 

BLM considered this likely market reduction effect in the economic activity analysis (jobs and earnings) 

below in Issue 2. 

These results illustrate the extent that private timberland owners respond to changes in stumpage prices 

associated with the increased changes in BLM harvest flows. The drop in stumpage prices may also lead 

to lower expectations about timber as a capital asset among private timberland owners and reduced 

market incentives for practices that contribute to sustained yield management. 

Markets are constantly changing, and once a change is introduced in one region, timberland owners, 

producers, and consumers in other regions all react to those changes, reducing the impacts in the first 

region as production changes in other regions. Analysis of the time dimension of these market impacts 

suggest that they diminish over the following decade, so that market adjustments are only prevalent in the 

first two decades of any projections.71

Recreation and Visitation 

The alternatives define differences in areas designated and developed for recreation purposes, in some 

cases targeted at one or more specific activities such as mountain biking or OHV use. Variation in total 

acreage in Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) is substantial, as Alternative A in total would have 

approximately 12 percent the area under Alternative B,72 (Table 3-167). Alternative C would be 

approximately 2.5 times the area of Alternative B, and Alternative D would be four times Alternative B. 

Acreages in the individual districts follow these area-wide orderings by alternative, although while the 

71 For examples of this diminishing price effect of changes in harvest, see Table 41 in Haynes et al. 2007. The 

USDA FS 2005 RPA timber assessment update. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-699. Portland. OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 212 p. 

72 Under the No Action alternative, all BLM-administered lands in the decision area are allocated to RMAs, and the 

management of RMAs described in the 1995 RMPs differs from current definitions and policy. Therefore, the 

assumptions about the benefits of RMA management under the action alternatives are not applicable to the RMAs 

under the No Action alternative. Alternative B represents an approximate continuation of the current recreation 

management, but consistent with current definitions and policy for RMAs. Therefore, the economic benefits of 

RMA management under Alternative B best approximates the economic benefits under the No Action alternative. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

517 | Page

Klamath Falls Field Office would have the most acreage under Alternative B, Medford would have the 

most acreage among all other alternatives. Recreation and Visitor Services contains more detail on the 

differences in the RMAs. 

Table 3-167. BLM Recreation Management Area acres by alternative. 

District/Field Office No Action1

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Coos Bay 6,629 468 6,629 15,258 21,359 

Eugene 20,511 104 20,511 24,211 34,967 

Klamath Falls 67,933 598 67,933 97,293 216,134 

Medford 32,065 17,199 32,065 181,991 267,404 

Roseburg 6,984 166 6,984 41,493 42,916 

Salem 28,647 1,515 28,647 56,567 84,371 

Totals 162,770 20,050 162,770 416,812 667,151 1 Per Table 3-147, this table uses the acres in Alternative B as the best approximation for the No Action alternative. 

Acreages include all RMAs, both Special and Extensive. 

An important differentiator among the alternatives is designation of some RMAs for exclusion of 

particular recreation activities, for example, excluding activities (e.g., OHV use) that might disrupt other 

activities (e.g., hiking). The closures identify areas that would be designated for more rustic and natural 

recreation opportunities (Table 3-168). The primary activity targeted for closures would be target 

shooting, followed by OHV use. Closure acreages correspond proportionally to RMA total acreages by 

alternative. 

Table 3-168. Recreation opportunities, acres restricted within the decision area. 

Recreation Opportunities No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Equestrian Use 8,828 1,048 8,828 49,414 63,620 

Mountain Bicycling 13,814 1,248 13,814 57,490 75,402 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use 49,969 17,517 49,969 87,261 105,474 

Overnight Camping 18,006 829 18,006 60,205 66,611 

Target Shooting 41,681 18,236 41,681 66,407 135,464 

Note: Per Table 3-147, this table uses the acres in Alternative B as the best approximation for the No Action alternative. 

Acreage is an important characteristic for recreation areas, but trail mileage is as well. The RMAs do not 

yet define trail miles, but extrapolating from available trail miles per acre of RMA under current 

conditions allows an approximation of the number of trail miles that would be available under each 

alternative. Currently, there are approximately 395 miles of identified trail miles on BLM-administered 

lands in western Oregon. This could increase to 1,000 miles under Alternative C, or to 1,600 miles under 

Alternative D (Table 3-169). Some RMAs would be more conducive to greater or lesser trail densities. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

518 | Page

Table 3-169. Potential trail miles in RMAs. 

District/Field Office No Action

(Miles)

Alt. A

(Miles)

Alt. B

(Miles)

Alt. C

(Miles)

Alt. D

(Miles)

Coos Bay 35 2 35 81 114

Eugene 46 - 46 54 78

Klamath Falls 29 - 29 42 92

Medford 146 79 146 831 1,221

Roseburg 39 1 39 230 238

Salem 100 5 100 197 294

Totals 395 49 395 1,012 1,619

Source: USDI BLM, estimated from trail densities by district. Table uses Alternative B as the best approximation for the No 

Action. 

Demand for recreation determines the value for the recreation designations by alternative. That is, if there 

is no demand, there is no participation and use, and therefore there is no recreation value. Demand for 

outdoor recreation, as discussed earlier, relates particularly to individual preferences, proximity and 

accessibility. Recreation opportunities that are close to population centers experience the most 

participants and visitor-days, and consequently the most value, all else equal. While many factors can lead 

to variation in value of a visitor-day, the number of visitor-days is the primary factor the BLM utilizes to 

estimate the economic value of recreation areas. Accessibility and congestion are two fundamental factors 

that, when they improve, will improve the quality and therefore value of a visitor-day. Focusing on 

elements of RMA designation that are close to communities, thereby increasing the availability and 

accessibility of recreation opportunities while reducing congestion provides the most fundamental basis 

for estimating increases in value. The increase in value can manifest as both higher value for visits that 

would have occurred anyway, as well as increased visitor-days. Focusing on opportunities close to 

communities provides the strongest basis for estimating increases in value, and therefore, potentially, an 

underestimate by not including visitation outside of those community proximities. 

When considering the RMA acreages under the alternatives in terms of proximity to the target population 

centers in western Oregon, the overall acreage accessible within 30-minute and 60-minute driving 

distances under each alternative track with their overall RMA acreage (Table 3-170). Moving out from 

30-minute distances to 60-minute distances increases the accessible recreation area by more than double, 

and increases to five or six fold under Alternatives B, C, and D. While all districts would see increased 

RMA acreage with increased total RMA acreage progressively from Alternative A through D, Grants 

Pass and Medford would experience the highest increase in accessible RMA acreage under Alternatives C 

and D (Figure 3-150). 

Table 3-170. RMA acreage by driving proximity from population centers in western Oregon.1

. 

Drive-Time No Action (Acres) Alt. A (Acres) Alt. B (Acres) Alt. C (Acres) Alt. D (Acres)

30-Minute 12,473 5,849 12,473 52,232 56,814

60-Minute 60,893 13,070 60,893 252,005 311,855 1

 Major population centers include Coos Bay, Corvallis, Eugene, Grants Pass, McMinnville, Medford, Newburg, Portland, 

Roseburg, Salem, Sandy and Tillamook. 

Table uses Alternative B as the best approximation for the No Action alternative. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

519 | Page

Figure 3-150. RMA acreage by driving proximity of western population centers, 30 and 60 minutes. 

Note: No Action would be the same as Alternative B. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

RMA 30-Minute Driving Proximity (Acres)

Alt. A Alt. B/No Action Alt. C Alt. D

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

RMA 60-Minute Driving Proximity (Acres)

Alt. A Alt. B/No Action Alt. C Alt. D
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

520 | Page

Increased recreation opportunities do not necessarily result in proportionate increases in participation and 

visitor days. The BLM currently provides approximately one-third of all public land within an hour’s

driving distance of the major population centers. If the BLM-administered areas close to such 

communities were improved to provide more and better recreation opportunities, the additional demand 

could be substantial. Because of population growth and increasing interest in outdoor recreation, 

participation numbers and visitor days are both expected to increase over time (see Recreation). Ignoring 

this across-the-board increase in demand and resulting use and value, if visitation increased proportionally 

to acreage of the RMA by alternative within the 60-minute driving distances of western Oregon’s major 

population centers, the average annual net benefit would additionally increase. 

At the land use plan level, the BLM will not define specific recreation improvements for the RMAs under 

the alternatives. Therefore, it is not possible to develop a precise estimate of changes in visitor-days and 

types of recreation by alternative. However, BLM is increasingly developing recreation opportunities in 

response to demand. Therefore, the visitation rates for new recreation resources could be greater than 

those for current resources. For example, the BLM’s trail network at Sandy Ridge is experiencing use 

levels unprecedented in the region. With the current trend in improvement for design and desirability of 

the BLM’s recreation resources, the number of visitors could continue to increase. The overall increase in 

population and preferences for outdoor recreation further bolster the potential for visitation to increase. 

Based on the projections for increases in participation across the BLM’s recreation activity categories, 

annual consumer surplus values provided by outdoor recreation would increase over the next 50 years. By 

2023, the consumer surplus value estimate would increase from $222 million to $250 million (Table 3-

171) This assumes visitor-days would increase proportionally to participants, and the trends through 2060 

would extend through 2063. Summing the annual values discounted at four percent starting in 2014 for 50 

years results in over $5 billion in consumer surplus value (Table 3-171). If visitor-days and the quality of 

visits increased with the increased RMA acreage these values could be even greater under Alternatives C 

and D. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

521 | Page

Table 3-171. Consumer surplus value projections. 

Activity

Total Net Benefit (Consumer Surplus) 

(Thousands of 2012$) 

2012 2023

2014-2063 

Projected 

Net Present 

Value1

Camping and Picnicking $111,728 $125,472 $2,734,077 

Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM Roadways) $9,020 $10,153 $221,473 

Fishing $9,528 $10,529 $227,700 

Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, and Migratory Game 

Birds) $26,122 $27,286 $573,829 

Motorized Boating $1,332 $1,550 $34,337 

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Travel $13,014 $14,504 $314,916 

Non-motorized Boating $2,454 $2,766 $60,383 

Non-motorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, and Horseback 

Riding) $9,558 $11,042 $243,710 

Non-motorized Winter Activities $842 $1,021 $22,998 

Snowmobile and other Motorized Winter Activities $81 $91 $1,990 

Specialized Non-motorized Activities and Events $4,244 $4,790 $104,616 

Swimming and Other Water-Based Activities $3,436 $3,950 $86,983 

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature Study $31,512 $35,712 $781,460 

Totals $222,872 $250,131 $5,408,472 1 Four percent discount rate. 

Sources: Table 3-150; Table 3-126 in Recreation. 

Special Forest Products 

Land area suitable for the production of Category I (disturbance-associated) and Category II (disturbanceaverse) special forest products would vary by alternative and over time. In both the coastal/north and 

interior/south regions, across all alternatives, the acres suitable for the production of Category I goods 

would not exceed one-quarter of the total acreage in the decision area, whereas at least three-quarters of 

the acres in the decision area would support production of Category II goods. Over time and across all 

alternatives, the acreage suitable for Category I products would peak from 2033 to 2053 and diminish 

after 2063. Alternative A would provide the fewest acres suitable for the production of Category I 

products and would have the least variation over time in both the coastal/north and the interior/south 

regions. In the coastal/north region, Alternative C would provide the most land suitable for Category I 

harvests. In the interior/south areas, Alternative B would provide the most harvestable land for Category I 

products. See the Forest Management section in this chapter for a detailed presentation of the effects of 

each alternative on special forest products. 

As the acres of land suitable for the production of Category I and Category II products shift by 

alternative, the supply of each type of special forest product would change. Decreases in Category I acres 

would translate to increases in Category II acres, resulting in an increase in the supply of special forest 

products that thrive in undisturbed landscapes and a decrease in those that grow in disturbed landscapes. 

This has the potential to affect the marginal value of products in both categories, especially where there 

would be large changes in supply. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

522 | Page

Both Category I and Category II lands include some higher value and some lower value products. 

Mushrooms, floral and greenery, and Christmas trees are the groupings of products that people harvest in 

the greatest quantity and, thus, produce the most revenue for the BLM. Category I and Category II

landscapes both supply floral, greenery, and mushrooms, whereas only Category I lands supply Christmas 

trees. Based on the BLM’s available data, it is not possible to quantify how changes in the acres suitable 

for the production of Category I and Category 2 goods would affect the overall value of special forest 

products produced by BLM-administered lands in western Oregon. However, even Alternatives B and 

Sub-alternative C, which would have the highest conversion of land from disturbed to undisturbed 

characteristics, would result in relatively small changes and would likely have a small effect on the 

overall supply, and thus the value, of each category of special forest product in the decision area. 

Sustainable Energy Production 

Energy production from solar and geothermal resources would not vary across alternatives, for two 

reasons: 1) the alternatives would only modestly impact the availability of any of these resources for 

development, and, 2) the development of these resources is constrained not by supply but by lack of 

demand related to market conditions, and limited infrastructure and conveyance capacity to population 

centers. The Sustainable Energy section in this chapter discusses these limitations in more detail. The 

supply of BLM-administered land available for granting a right-of-way for wind development and 

transmission corridors would decrease across all alternatives (although all alternatives would decrease the 

acres excluded for development, they would increase the acres in avoidance areas). Alternative D would 

have the greatest decrease, and Alternative A the least. If demand for these resources aligns with the 

characteristics of the supply on BLM-administered lands in the future, these restrictions would limit the 

potential economic value of this resource. 

The supply of biomass would vary across alternatives, so the potential for energy production from 

biomass would also vary. Biomass production is a direct function of timber harvest, so the alternatives 

with greater timber harvest would produce greater amounts of biomass. Alternative C would produce the 

most biomass. Alternative D would produce the least amount of biomass. 

The value of biomass depends on demand. Under today’s market conditions, woody biomass is not cost 

competitive with fossil fuels (White 2010). This may change as technology evolves, fossil fuel prices 

increase, and infrastructure develops to utilize woody biomass close to where it is produced. If these 

developments occur, the value of woody biomass from BLM-administered lands would increase. 

Grazing 

The supply and value of grazing would not change by alternative, except under Alternative D, which 

would eliminate grazing. The No Action alternative, and Alternatives A, B, and C, would have no impacts 

on active or billed AUMs relative to current conditions, and would also have no impact on BLM revenues 

from grazing, so that the BLM would continue to receive about $22,000 per year from grazing fees. 

Alternative D, which has no grazing, would reduce active and billed AUMs to zero, and, consequently, 

would also reduce BLM revenues from grazing to zero. 

Minerals 

As of 2012, mineral revenues to the BLM were minor (approximately $15,000) and would not change by 

alternative. Under the alternatives, the acres open to saleable mineral entry would increase slightly 

relative to current conditions. Approximately 13 percent of BLM-administered lands are currently closed 

to salable-mineral exploration. That percentage would decline to 9 to 11 percent under the action 

alternatives. The acres that would be closed under each alternative would be small relative to the acres 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

523 | Page

open to production, and the areas that would be closed are not suitable for quarry development. The 

closure of these areas under any alternative would not appreciably affect the quantity or value of saleable 

mineral materials derived from BLM-administered lands. 

The alternatives would decrease by a small amount the number of acres open to locatable-mineral 

exploration. Currently, this type of mineral exploration can happen on 96 percent of BLM-administered 

lands. The action alternatives would reduce this percent to 88 to 90 percent. The closure of these areas 

under any alternative would not appreciably affect the quantity or value of locatable minerals derived 

from BLM-administered lands. 

The alternatives would have no effect on the acres of BLM-administered land open to leasable-mineral 

exploration. The alternatives would have no effect on the acres of BLM-administered land open to 

leasable-mineral exploration. 

Carbon Storage 

Table 3-172 shows the marginal change in net carbon storage and value by alternative for the first decade 

of the analysis (2013-2022) and for the entire period of analysis (2013-2113). The amount of stored 

carbon, and value of stored carbon, would increase across all alternatives in the first decade and over 100 

years. Alternative C would result in the lowest increase and Alternative D would result in the highest 

increase. By 2113, the differences among alternatives would become more pronounced, with most carbon 

stored and the highest value under Alternative D. Alternative C would store the least amount and have the 

lowest value. 

Table 3-172. Value of carbon storage by alternative, 2012$. 

Alternative 

Marginal 

Change in 

Stored Carbon 

2013-2022 

(MMT) 

Value of Stored Carbon 

2013-2022 

Marginal 

Change in 

Stored Carbon 

2013-2022 

(MMT) 

Value of Stored Carbon 

2013-2113 

SCC 

Average 3% 

(Millions) 

SCC 95th

Percentile 3% 

(Millions) 

SCC 

Average 3% 

(Millions) 

SCC 95th

Percentile 3% 

(Millions) 

No Action 8.5 $1,314.6 $3,909.7 200.0 $56,293.9 $174,436.9 

Alt. A 11.6 $1,794.0 $5,335.6 222.3 $62,574.7 $193,899.2 

Alt. B 10.7 $1,650.2 $4,907.8 206.1 $58,025.3 $179,801.9 

Alt. C 3.5 $545.9 $1,623.7 152.9 $43,039.7 $133,366.2 

Alt. D 15.1 $2,327.5 $6,922.4 243.2 $68,469.9 $212,166.4 

Sources: Carbon storage amounts come from the Climate Change section. Values are from Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Carbon (2013), using estimates from 2017 for the first period and 2050 for the entire 100 years, a 3 percent 

discount rate, and adjusted to 2012$. For more detail on these calculations, see the methods section. 

MMT- Million metric tons, SCC-Social cost of carbon 

Emissions from activities included in the alternatives but not incorporated into the net carbon storage 

number (e.g., biomass combustion, mineral production, and livestock grazing) would further offset net 

carbon storage, though the amount of these emissions is small compared to the emissions that are already 

reflected in the net carbon storage values reported above. Emissions from all sources would be highest 

under Alternative C and lowest under Alternative D. Therefore, the net carbon storage and associated 

value would be highest under Alternative D and lowest under Alternative C. 

Source Water Protection 

The BLM would continue protecting the value of source water in the planning area across all alternatives. 

The alternatives would maintain current water-quality conditions primarily by relying on the natural 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

524 | Page

filtration and temperature-control services provided by Riparian Reserves that surround streams and other 

water bodies, and by employing best management practices (BMPs). The Riparian Reserve would shade 

streams, prevent temperature increases, and minimize or prevent sediment runoff from harvest activities. 

In addition, BLM would employ preventative BMPs along forest roads and in harvest areas. These 

preventative measures would minimize forest-management risks affecting drinking water and treatment 

costs, and would maintain DEQ’s water quality criteria and standards. Also, the BLM would continue 

working with local watershed associations and community water supply agencies to minimize the 

potential impacts of activities on BLM-administered lands, such as timber sales, on water supplies. 

Biodiversity and Sensitive Species 

To the extent that an alternative would degrade the quality of, or reduce the supply of, habitats or 

populations of sensitive species, it would negatively affect resources that households in the region and the 

United States value. Conversely, alternatives that would protect the quality of, or increase the supply of

habitats or populations, would protect or positively affect resources that households’ value. 

In general, Alternatives A and C would result in less increase in the acreage of structurally-complex 

forests than other forests, and thus would support less of an increase from current levels of biodiversity 

resources and values. The No Action alternative and Alternatives B and D would yield more of an 

increase in structurally-complex forests than Alternative A and C. See the Forest Management section for 

more information on these differences. Data are unavailable to estimate the magnitude of the change in 

economic value these changes in forest complexity would have. 

x All of the action alternatives would increase the potential for habitat loss for the Oregon 

silverspot butterfly, relative to the No Action alternative. The action alternatives would degrade 

or negatively affect a resource that households’ likely value given available research. However, 

habitat for this species on BLM-administered lands constitutes less than 1 percent of the habitat in 

the planning area, limiting any potential economic effect. 

x All of the alternatives, including the No Action alternative, would sustain populations of bald and 

golden eagles. This would protect the economic values associated with these populations. 

x The No Action alternative would lead to the continued loss of habitat for the fisher, while all of 

the action alternatives would increase fisher habitat in 50 years. Thus, the No Action alternative 

would diminish the well-being of people who care about the fisher. Data are not available to 

quantify the extent to which households would be willing to pay to protect the fisher or its habitat. 

All other action alternatives would result in an increase in fisher habitat over time and their 

associated values. 

x All the alternatives, including the No Action alternative, would slightly reduce nesting habitat for 

the marbled murrelet (by one to four percent) in the first decade, but, by the second decade, the 

amount of high quality nesting habitat would surpass current amounts and would continue 

increasing in the later decades. Thus, all alternatives would protect values associated with 

marbled murrelets over the long-term. 

x Under all alternatives, BLM would increase the amount of northern spotted owl habitat over time. 

Such actions would help protect the values that households place on this resource. 

x None of the alternatives would have any measurable effects on populations or habitats of sagegrouse, gray wolf, streaked horned lark, wolverine, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, Fender’s blue 

butterfly, or Steller’s sea lion or their value. 

Scenic Amenities 

The total acres in each visual resource class would vary across alternative. As acres shift from lower to 

higher classes (i.e., become more disturbed), the potential for reductions in the value associated with 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

525 | Page

scenic amenities, such as decreases in property values would increase. The potential change in economic 

value would be greatest in areas adjacent or within view of residences, businesses, and communities 

where the visual quality would decrease from an undisturbed to a disturbed quality. Alternative D would 

protect the most acres in Visual Resource Management Classes II and III and protect the fewest in Class 

IV. Alternatives B and C would protect the fewest (a similar amount) of acres in Classes II and III and 

place the most acres in Class IV. These effects largely describe management objectives. Economic values 

would only be affected when actual changes in the quality of the aesthetic landscape occurred. 

Cultural Meaning 

While the Cultural and Paleontological Resources section of this document analyzed the potential of each 

alternative to adversely affect cultural resources, the great majority of potential adverse impacts would be 

prevented through pre-disturbance surveys. In general, however, alternatives A and D are the least likely 

to result in potential adverse impacts to cultural and paleontological resources because they allow for the 

type of ground disturbing activity most likely to disturb cultural and paleontological resources on the least 

amount of acres within the decision area. Alternatives B and C would have a greater potential adverse 

impacts. Such impacts could potentially reduce the supply or quality of cultural resources, and possibly 

harm resources that people and societies hold important and would prefer to protect their continued 

existence. Pre-disturbance surveys and subsequent protection of sites would protect the economic values 

that people and societies place on these resources. 

In addition to disturbing cultural resources, the alternatives would also affect levels of culturally 

important biological resources, as discussed above in Special Forest Products and Biodiversity and 

Sensitive Species. As the alternatives would reduce the supply of these resources, impacting the wellbeing of people who hold them important, whether or not they interact directly with them, via harvest, 

viewing, or other purposes. As described above, the alternatives would affect each type of biological 

resource differently. A particular alternative has the potential to reduce the supply of some cultural 

resources while at the same time increasing the supply of others. These effects would have varying 

impacts on individuals’ experience of sense of place, spiritual enrichment, and cognitive development. At 

the broad landscape scale of this analysis, it is not possible to determine or estimate with meaningful 

accuracy the overall effects on the value of cultural meaning under the different alternatives. 

Summary 

Table 3-173 summarizes the effects of the alternatives and on the value of goods and services that BLMadministered lands in western Oregon supply. It shows the market and non-market values in 2012. For 

goods and services where effects are monetizable (e.g., timber), the table shows the monetary value of the 

good or service over the period of analysis associated with each alternative. For goods and services where 

data limited the analysis of the monetary value of the effect, the table shows the expected direction of 

change in value for each alternative. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

526 | Page

Table 3-173. Table summary of effects on economic value of goods and services derived from BLMadministered lands in Western Oregon. 

Good/Service Type of 

Valuation

Economic 

Value in 

2012

Impact by Alternative

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Biodiversity 

and Sensitive 

Species

Qualitative Not 

Monetized

-

Lower 

valueless 

increase 

associated with 

less increase in 

structurallycomplex 

forest.

Higher 

increase 

associated with 

more increase 

in structurallycomplex 

forest.

Less increase 

associated with 

less increase in 

structurallycomplex 

forest.

Higher 

increase 

associated 

with more 

increase in 

structurallycomplex 

forest.

-

Diminished economic well-being associated with less butterfly 

habitat. Economic values associated with species generally 

protected or enhanced in the long run.

Carbon Storage Non-Market

($ millions) $99 $131.4 $179.3 $165.0 $54.6 $232.8

Average per year 2013 - 2022

Cultural 

Meaning Qualitative Not Monetized

Value of cultural sites and artifacts protected across all alternatives.

Overall effect on cultural meaning impossible to assess at the present scale of 

analysis.

Energy 

Production Market $0.032 million

Value of energy production across all alternatives limited by lack of demand.

Supply of biomass would increase; 

Supply of land available for wind/ROW development would decrease.

Grazing Market $0.022 

million No change in supply or value of grazing.

No grazing 

would reduce 

value to $0.

Minerals Market $0.015 

million

Small change in acres available for quarry development would not likely be 

large enough to change quantity or value of minerals produced.

No change in value of locatable or leasable minerals.

Recreation Non-Market 

($ millions) $222.8 $250.1 (Consistent under all alternatives)

Scenic 

Amenities Qualitative Not Monetized

Potential 

77% 

reduction in 

VRI Class II 

could reduce 

value of 

aesthetic 

resources

Potential 75% 

reduction in 

VRI Class II 

could reduce 

value of 

aesthetic 

resources

Potential 82% 

reduction in 

VRI Class II 

could reduce 

value of 

aesthetic 

resources

Potential 82% 

reduction in 

VRI Class II 

could reduce 

value of 

aesthetic 

resources

Potential 90% 

reduction in 

VRI Class II 

could reduce 

value of 

aesthetic 

resources

Source Water 

Protection Qualitative Not Monetized No change under any alternative.

Special Forest 

Products Market

BLM 

Revenue: $0.2 

million; 

Market Value 

Low $0.4 

million, High 

$6.5 million

Changes in supply of lands suitable for the production of Category 1 and 

Category 2 species produce relatively small changes and would likely have a 

small effect on the overall supply, and thus the value, of each category of 

special forest product in the planning area.

Timber Market

($ millions) $20.8 $93.0 $56.2 $72.9 $134.9 $37.4

Average per year 2013 - 2022

Issue 2 

How would the alternatives affect economic activity in the planning area derived from BLM-administered 

lands? 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

527 | Page

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM developed two sets of economic models to portray economic conditions in the planning area 

and to estimate the contributions or effects of BLM management. The first set included seven multicounty models organized around BLM districts to estimate the effects of BLM resource programs and 

expenditures. The BLM delineated all district model areas, which often cover multiple counties, based on 

the economic connections to resource processing, visitor spending, and agency expenditures rather than 

on the acreage of BLM-administered land. Except for the Salem District, a single model represents each 

district. The Salem District covers a very large and economically diverse portion of northwestern Oregon, 

and therefore required two distinct models to separate economic effects occurring in the urban Portland 

area from those occurring in more rural areas (i.e., the counties either inside or outside the Portland 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), OMB 2013). District model areas include the following counties: 

x Coos Bay Coos, Curry 

x Eugene Lane 

x Klamath Falls Klamath 

x Medford Jackson, Josephine 

x Roseburg Douglas 

x Salem-Other Benton, Clatsop, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, Tillamook 

x Salem-Portland MSA Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, Yamhill 

The second set of model areas aligns with individual counties to capture best the local effects triggered by 

local government spending of Federal payments. Both sets of models covered the entire planning area. 

Planning area effects are the sum of either BLM district models and/or individual county models that 

cover the same geographic area. All models built and run for the analysis utilized the IMPLAN® 

modeling system (MIG, Inc. 2014), which include proprietary data sets. Employment and earnings results 

from both sets of models includes the sum of all direct effects triggered by spending or production, plus 

supply chain (indirect) effects in supporting industries and other (induced) effects from industry 

employees spending payrolls. 

Public and private data for 2012, the most recent year for which all economic data were available, 

provided the foundation for all economic models. In addition to proprietary IMPLAN® data sets, the 

district models use public and private forest and wood products industries data provided by the Oregon 

Forest Resources Institute (OFRI 2012). The BLM customized both the district and county models with 

State and local government employment data publically available from the Oregon Employment 

Department (OED 2014). All models included information on employment, earnings, production levels, 

organizational spending, and prices. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the BLM defined employment as the average number of full-time and 

part-time jobs reported monthly over an entire year. Earnings includes total payroll cost of employees, 

including such payments as wages, salaries, bonuses, health insurance and other benefits, retirement 

contributions, and payroll taxes. Given lags in data availability, jobs, and earnings in 2012 (expressed in 

2012 dollars) represent current conditions in the planning area. 

The BLM’s management of public lands triggers economic effects in three ways: output production from 

resource management programs, agency expenditures, and Federal payments to local governments. 

Program outputs include timber harvest, special forest products, recreation (including wildlife and fishbased), minerals, and grazing. Program expenditures include all operational expenses (personnel, 

facilities, and overhead) plus resource-specific expenses to accomplish such activities as watershed 

restoration, fuels reduction, and transportation management. Federal payments include all funds received 

by counties, such as payments in lieu of taxes (PILT), mineral royalties, and O&C payments or their 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

529 | Page

Affected Environment 

Area Employment and Earnings 

The Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) for the RMPs for Western Oregon summarizes historic 

and trend data for employment, unemployment, and earnings in the planning area, (USDI BLM 2013, pp. 

104-108). When the BLM published the AMS, the most recent year available for these data was 2011. 

Data for 2012 are now available and used throughout this section to represent current conditions. Table 3-

174 shows current total employment and earnings for each of the model areas. Appendix O includes 

tables with employment and earnings by industry. 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

531 | Page

Since 2001, total employment in the planning area has grown by 7.2 percent. However, since 2007, which 

was the peak of economic activity before the 2007 to 2009 recession, employment is down by 3.3 percent. 

Generally, throughout the planning area, district model areas show positive employment growth since 

2001 ranging from 2.7 percent in the Coos Bay area to 9.8 percent in the Salem-Portland MSA area. 

Klamath Falls (-2.7 percent) and Roseburg (-3.9 percent) are still down from their 2001 levels. All model 

areas are down from their peak in 2007, ranging from the deepest low in Roseburg (-10.7 percent) to a 

very modest low in Salem-Portland MSA (-0.1 percent). 

The two Salem District model areas account for 1.5 million jobs, or two-thirds of all employment in the 

planning area. At 1.1 million jobs in the Salem-Portland MSA model area and 0.4 million in the SalemOther (non-MSA counties) area, these two are the largest economies in the planning area. The largest two 

industries in the two Salem District model areas, Health and Social Services and Governments, supply 

238,000 jobs, or 21 percent of total employment in the Salem-Portland MSA area, and 112,000 jobs, or 

31 percent in non-MSA counties. The next largest industries, Retail Trade and Manufacturing, each 

provide over 100,000 jobs or nine percent in the Salem-Portland MSA area. In non-MSA counties, these 

same two industries account for nearly 38,000 jobs (11 percent) and 26,000 jobs (7 percent), respectively. 

Manufacturing, Governments, Health and Social Services, and Professional Services account for 48 

percent ($31 billion) of all earnings within the Portland-MSA. Among the non-MSA counties, 

Governments, Health and Social Services, Manufacturing, and Retail Trade tally over $8.5 billion, or 55 

percent, of all earnings. Total payrolls in these two model areas provide over 80 percent of all earnings in 

the planning area. 

The five BLM District model areas from Eugene south have a pattern that is similar to the non-MSA 

counties within the Salem District. The top four sectors for employment are Governments, Health and 

Social Services, and Retail Trade followed by Manufacturing. Only in the Klamath Falls model area does 

a different industry—Agriculture rather than Manufacturing—make it into the top four. Earnings follow 

the employment pattern in all five model areas. Earnings by public sector employees lead in all areas 

except Eugene, where Health and Social Services payrolls are the largest in the area and exceed 

government payrolls by two percent. Retail Trade exhibits the lowest earnings of the top four industries, 

except in the Medford area where Manufacturing trails Retail Trade. 

The recreation industry is well-represented throughout western Oregon. While recreation participants 

spend money in many retail and service sectors, the BLM uses only two sectors in this analysis as an 

indicator of the visitor services or recreation industry: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Services, and 

Accommodation and Food Services. These two sectors are especially aligned with both visitors from out 

of the area (e.g. accommodations) as well as local residents who engage in recreation (e.g., recreation 

services, food services). These two sectors account for over 187,000 jobs (10 percent) and $4.1 billion of 

earnings (4 percent) throughout the planning area. The two Salem District model areas supply threequarters of all jobs and 80 percent of all payrolls in these sectors within the planning area. In the central 

and southern model areas, Medford and Eugene stand out with over 16,000 jobs each (9 percent and 11 

percent, respectively) and from $300 to $342 million in payrolls (4 percent and 5 percent, respectively). 

Since 2001, visitor service or recreation industry employment in the planning area has grown by 19.8 

percent. Since 2007, planning area employment in this industry is up by 2.4 percent. Generally, 

throughout the planning area, district model areas show positive growth since 2001 ranging from 9.0 

percent in the Coos Bay area to 26.5 percent in the Salem-Portland MSA area. Two areas are still down 

from their 2001 levels - Klamath Falls (-3.3 percent) and Roseburg (-2.8 percent). All model areas but one 

are down from their peak in 2007, ranging from the deepest low in Klamath Falls (-14.8 percent) to a very 

modest low in Eugene (-0.2 percent). The sole model area with growth in this industry is Salem-Portland 

MSA with 6.8 percent. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

532 | Page

The forest products industry is important throughout the planning area and of particular interest for public 

land resource management in western Oregon. Tables 3-175 and 3-176 provide employment and earnings 

information for detailed sectors within the larger forest products industry. In both of the Salem model 

areas, Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry is the largest employer within the forest products 

industry. This detailed sector includes private firms that provide services such as estimating timber, 

fighting forest fires, controlling forest pests, and planting seedlings for reforestation. It also includes firms 

that support agricultural production through planting crops, cultivating services, and vineyard cultivation. 

Firms that provide only forestry support could not be statistically separated from those that provide 

agricultural support. As a whole, this sector provides nearly 11,000 jobs (0.7 percent) and $295 million in 

earnings (0.4 percent) across both model areas. 

The forest products industry in the non-MSA counties of the Salem District includes all types of wood 

fiber harvesting and processing. In terms of employment, the industry supplies over 24,000 jobs with 

payrolls exceeding $1.3 billion (about two percent of total jobs and earnings). In the areas south of the 

Salem District, Forestry & Logging, Sawmills & Wood Preservation, and Veneer, Plywood, 

Reconstituted, and Engineered Wood Products are the three major elements of the forest products 

industry. In addition, the Eugene area has several firms that manufacture pulp and paper products. Total 

forest products industry employment ranges from a low of about 2,000 in the Klamath Falls area (6 

percent of area total) to a high of 5,300 in the Eugene area (3 percent of area total). Similarly, earnings 

range from $151 million in the Klamath Falls area (13 percent of area total) to a high of $368 million in 

the Eugene area (5 percent of area total). 


Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

535 | Page

Table 3-177, below, displays the share of employment and earnings by both timber-related and 

recreation-related industries to total employment and earnings in each BLM district model area. One or 

both of these industries are particularly important to four model areas: Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and 

Klamath Falls. The recreation-related industry is strongest in Coos Bay and Medford where employment 

sums to 11 percent of area jobs and payrolls sum to over 5 percent of area earnings. The timber-related 

industry is most robust in Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Klamath Falls, where employment ranges from 6.2 to 

8.5 percent of all area jobs and payrolls range from 10.1 to 13.1 percent of all earnings. 

A shrinking of the wood products manufacturing industry has been evident in the planning area since 

2001, the industry contracted by -39.3 percent between 2001 and 2012. Since 2007, when many Oregon 

industries were at peak employment, planning area employment in this industry is down by -31.8 percent. 

All district model areas show negative growth since 2001 ranging from -43.9 percent in the Salem-Other 

area to -16.5 percent in the Coos Bay area. All areas except Coos Bay show negative growth at greater 

than -30 percent. No model area experienced a peak of industry employment in 2007. Statewide, 

employment in this industry is down by -33.6 percent since 2007 and -40.8 percent since 2001. 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

537 | Page

There are large differences between compensation for timber-related jobs compared to recreation-related 

jobs in western Oregon. The average forest products industry job-holder earns approximately $58,000 

while the average recreation-based employee earns approximately $22,000, roughly a third of timberrelated industries (Table 3-176 and tables in Appendix O). Note that recreation includes two industries; 

Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Services, and Accommodation and Food Services). 

Contributions by BLM Management to Local Economies 

Through its management of Oregon & California (O&C), Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR), and other 

public lands, the BLM contributes economically to all parts of the planning area, triggered by: 

x The production and use of basic commodities, such as timber, forage, minerals, and other forest 

products derived from BLM-administered lands 

x Personal and commercial use of BLM-administered lands, such as for recreation, solitude, 

education, and reflection 

x Local agency expenditures for personnel, materials, and services; and 

x Federal payments to state and local governments, such as payments made under the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, that are also 

spent on personnel, materials, and services. 

The presentation of BLM contributions differs from the preceding presentation of area industry totals in 

Tables 3-173 through 3-177. Tables 3-178 through 3-183 illustrate the various dimensions of BLM 

contributions in 2012, including the sum of direct, indirect, and induced effects the BLM contributions 

trigger as they ripple throughout each model area. Direct effects are those in industries either processing 

BLM resource outputs (e.g., sawmills) or selling goods and services to public land users (e.g., outfitter 

and guide services) and to government agencies using Federal funds (e.g., office supplies). Indirect effects 

are those in local supply chains that support local firms producing direct goods and services. Finally, 

induced effects are those triggered by workers in either direct or indirect firms who spend a portion of 

their paycheck locally. Thus, the BLM contributions trigger effects that find their way into virtually every 

industry of the local economy. 




Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

542 | Page

Table 3-182. Employment and earnings in O&C counties generated by BLM-based Federal payments, 

2012 (jobs, millions of 2012$). 

County

Secure Rural Schools Program1

Title I and III Title II Total

County Government Private Sector Private Sector County-wide

Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings

Benton 6 $0.5 3 $0.1 1 $0.1 10 $0.6

Clackamas 8 $0.7 5 $0.2 3 $0.1 15 $0.9

Columbia 6 $0.5 2 $0.1 2 <$0.1 10 $0.6

Coos 31 $1.6 9 $0.3 4 $0.1 44 $2.1

Curry 15 $0.9 5 $0.1 3 $0.1 23 $1.1

Douglas 133 $7.4 41 $1.4 12 $0.7 185 $9.4

Jackson 86 $3.1 30 $1.1 26 $0.8 141 $4.9

Josephine 56 $4.0 24 $0.8 11 $0.4 91 $5.2

Klamath 11 $0.6 5 $0.2 2 $0.1 17 $0.8

Lane 50 $4.4 29 $1.0 14 $0.4 92 $5.8

Lincoln 1 $0.1 1 <$0.1 - <$0.1 2 $0.1

Linn 11 $0.9 4 $0.1 2 $0.1 17 $1.1

Marion 4 $0.3 2 $0.1 1 <$0.1 8 $0.5

Multnomah 2 $0.1 1 $0.1 1 <$0.1 4 $0.2

Polk 7 $0.5 2 $0.1 2 $0.1 12 $0.7

Tillamook 2 $0.2 1 <$0.1 1 <$0.1 4 $0.2

Washington 1 $0.1 1 <$0.1 1 <$0.1 2 $0.1

Yamhill 3 $0.2 1 <$0.1 - <$0.1 4 $0.2

Totals 434 $26.1 163 $5.6 85 $3.0 682 $34.8 1 Based upon Secure Rural Schools program payments received and spent by local governments in calendar year 2012. 

Note: Clatsop County is not included on the table. Included within the larger economic analysis area, Clatsop County has a small 

amount of BLM-administered lands, but does not have O&C or CBWR lands. Consequently, BLM-based Federal payments to 

Clatsop County are very small and generate a positive, but very minor effect on the county economy. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

543 | Page

Table 3-183. Employment and earnings in O&C counties generated by BLM-based Federal payments, 

2012 (jobs, millions of 2012$). 

County 

PILT Program1 (BLM Acreage Only) All BLM-based Federal Payments 

County 

Government 

Private 

Sector County-wide County-wide Jobs 

County-wide 

Earnings 

Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Total 

Share of 

County 

Total2

Total 

Share of 

County 

Total2

Benton - - - - - - 10 <0.1% $0.6 <0.1% 

Clackamas - - - - - - 16 <0.1% $0.9 <0.1% 

Columbia - - - - - - 10 0.1% $0.6 0.1% 

Coos 2 $0.1 1 - 3 $0.1 47 0.2% $2.2 0.2% 

Curry - - - - - - 24 0.2% $1.2 0.3% 

Douglas 3 $0.2 1 - 4 $0.2 189 0.4% $9.6 0.5% 

Jackson 3 $0.1 1 - 4 $0.1 145 0.1% $5.0 0.1% 

Josephine - - - - - - 91 0.3% $5.2 0.4% 

Klamath 1 $0.1 - - 2 $0.1 19 0.1% $0.9 0.1% 

Lane 1 $0.1 1 - 2 $0.1 93 0.1% $5.9 0.1% 

Lincoln - - - - - - 2 <0.1% $0.1 <0.1% 

Linn - - - - - - 18 <0.1% $1.1 0.1% 

Marion - - - - - - 8 <0.1% $0.5 <0.1% 

Multnomah - - - - - - 4 <0.1% $0.2 <0.1% 

Polk 1 $0.1 - - 1 $0.1 13 0.1% $0.7 0.1% 

Tillamook - - - - - - 4 <0.1% $0.2 0.1% 

Washington - - - - - - 3 <0.1% $0.2 <0.1% 

Yamhill - - - - - - 4 <0.1% $0.2 <0.1% 

Totals 13 $0.7 5 $0.2 17 $0.9 699 <0.1% $35.7 <0.1% 1

 Based upon Payments in Lieu of Taxes program payments received and spent by local governments in calendar year 2012. 

Note: Clatsop County is not included on the table. Included within the larger economic analysis area, Clatsop County has a small 

amount of BLM-administered lands, but does not have O&C or CBWR lands. Consequently, BLM-based Federal payments to 

Clatsop County are very small and generate a positive, but very minor effect on the county economy. 

2

 Percentages calculated by dividing table total for each county by comparable total employment or total earnings for the same 

county (provided in project record). 

Economic contributions of BLM programs and payments total 7,900 jobs and over $350 million of 

earnings across the entire planning area. Total employment contributions range from a low of 240 jobs 

and $9.3 million of earnings in the Klamath Falls area (0.8 percent of area totals for each) to a high of 

1,500 jobs and over $66 million of earnings in the Medford area (1.0 percent and 1.2 percent of area 

totals, respectively). Employment contributions from the timber program exceed all other programs in the 

planning area as a whole and in two of the model areas, Salem-Other and Coos Bay. Like employment, 

earnings contributions from the timber program exceed all other programs in the planning area and in the 

same model areas noted above, but also in the Eugene and Roseburg areas. 

Expenditures by recreation participants on BLM-administered lands provide the largest employment 

contributions in the Salem-Portland MSA, Eugene, and Roseburg areas. In the Salem-Portland MSA, 

recreation-based jobs are approximately double those triggered by Timber Harvest and Processing. In the 

Eugene area, recreation-based jobs exceed timber-based jobs by about 10 percent. In the Roseburg area, 

these jobs exceed timber-based jobs by about 4 percent. Expenditures by the BLM provide the largest 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

544 | Page

employment and earnings contributions in the Medford and Klamath Falls areas. Jobs triggered through 

spending by recreation participants exceed those triggered through either BLM or local government 

spending in all model areas, except Medford and Klamath Falls where they are slightly smaller than 

contributions triggered by agency spending. 

As a share of total area employment and earnings, BLM contributions as a whole range from lows of less 

than 1 percent in the Salem, Eugene, and Klamath Falls areas to highs of about 3 percent in the Roseburg 

and Coos Bay areas. Contributions in the Medford area are about one percent. While all contributions to 

local economies are important, economists often consider those that approach five percent of the total 

economy—as is the case for Roseburg and Coos Bay— as central to the economic well-being of an area. 

The use and management of BLM-administered lands trigger direct, indirect, and induced effects 

touching every industry as they work their way throughout the local economies. Across the entire 

planning area, BLM management of public lands mostly affects Agriculture, Governments, 

Accommodation and Food Services, and Manufacturing. BLM management affects Agriculture more than 

other industries because of logging and forestry support sectors, but also because personal spending by 

worker households, regardless of the industry they work in, affects the agriculture industry. BLM payrolls 

and local government payrolls funded by Federal payments primarily affect the Governments sector. 

Recreation spending and personal spending by workers and their households affect Accommodations and 

Food Services. Finally, the forest products industry has a primary effect on Manufacturing. The leading 

industries for earnings are consistent with those for employment, with one exception; low wages and 

salaries in Accommodations & Food Services make this industry generally rank last among the top four 

industries across the planning area and in each of the model areas, whereas it ranks third in the top four 

for jobs. Appendix O contains detailed tables showing employment and earnings across all industries. 

Tables 3-179 and 3-180 provide a more detailed look at BLM contributions to the forest products 

industry. Because the BLM harvest in 2012 yielded neither very large nor very small logs, the sawmill 

and logging sectors see most of the direct contributions rather than the Veneer and Plywood sectors. 

Sawmill and Logging account for 63 percent of all industry employment and 69 percent of all earnings. 

Other than Klamath Falls, every area shows total employment in these two sectors ranging from 85 to 250 

jobs and $5.4 to $16.0 million in payroll. The largest employment and earnings contributions for the 

forest products industry occur in the Coos Bay and Douglas model areas. BLM harvest contributes 3.2 

percent of employment and earnings to the entire industry across the planning area, but it is especially 

vital to Coos Bay and Roseburg. In Coos Bay, 13 percent of industry jobs and payrolls depend on BLM 

harvest and in the Roseburg area, the share is 7 percent. These large shares demonstrate the important role 

that BLM timber harvest plays in these two areas of southern Oregon. 

Table 3-181 provides detail into BLM contributions to two recreation-related industries in western 

Oregon (Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation Services, and Accommodation & Food Services). While the 

BLM-related contribution to these sectors is primarily affected by recreation participant spending, other 

BLM activities contribute as well. Across the planning area, spending by recreation visitors as well as 

local households receiving earnings from BLM-based economic activities result in over 1,600 jobs and 

$40 million of earnings in these two recreation-related sectors. The Salem-Portland MSA area led all 

areas with over 450 jobs and $12.7 million in payrolls in these sectors, followed by Eugene, Roseburg, 

Medford, Coos Bay, Salem-Other, and finally Klamath Falls. BLM-managed lands in the planning area 

accounts for about one percent of all jobs and earnings in these two recreation-related industries. The 

contribution is particularly important in the Roseburg area where BLM-managed lands contribute 8.0 

percent of industry jobs and 9.3 percent of industry earnings. In Coos Bay, the contribution is 4.6 percent 

of industry jobs and 5.3 percent of industry earnings. As a share of the total planning area, BLM-managed 

lands contribute about 0.1 percent of all jobs and less than 0.1 percent of all earnings. Contributions to the 

Roseburg and Coos Bay areas range from 0.3 to 0.6 percent. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

545 | Page

Federal Payments 

Federal payments are an important contributor to local governments, providing funds for a variety of 

public services. Local government spending of Federal payments to employ personnel and purchase 

materials and services generates jobs and income. Eighteen counties in Oregon contain either O&C or 

CBWR lands, and therefore receive Federal payments under the Secure Rural Schools and SelfDetermination Act (as amended). Each of these counties also receives Federal payments under the 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act. Socioeconomics Issue 3 discusses Federal payments to local governments 

and their contribution to public services funding. Tables 3-182 and 3-183 identify the contribution of 

SRS and PILT payments to each of the eighteen counties’ economies. 

Tables 3-182 and 3-183 estimate the contribution of BLM-based payments spent in 2012 that support 

both public and private sector payrolls. County governments spend SRS Title I and III payments directly; 

they have full discretion in the use of these funds, often using them for public safety and related services. 

Title II payments are directed by local resource advisory committees for resource-improvement projects 

on public lands in the area. In 2012, SRS payments contributed over 680 jobs and nearly $35 million in 

earnings to local economies throughout the planning area. Douglas and Jackson Counties have the largest 

employment effect with well over 100 jobs, followed by Lane and Josephine with over 90 each. Because 

each local government sets its own employment compensation rates, county rankings by earnings differ 

somewhat from those by employment. In terms of total county government payroll, Douglas County leads 

all counties, followed by Lane, Josephine, and Jackson Counties. PILT payments are typically much 

smaller than SRS payments, and thus generate small contributions to local economies. Across all of 

western Oregon PILT payments provide 17 jobs and $0.9 million of earnings. All BLM-based Federal 

payments combined contribute nearly 700 jobs and $35.7 in earnings across the entire planning area. As a 

share of total employment and earnings, these estimates accounted for under 0.1 percent for the entire 

planning area and for each district model area. 

Environmental Effects 

This section describes the employment and earnings effects of the No Action and action alternatives. 

Changes in timber harvest are the primary influences on projected future BLM-based employment and 

earnings in local economies in the planning area. This is because changes by alternative for other 

resources are either unavailable or very small. For recreation the BLM projects area-wide increases in 

recreation visits, but it is difficult to project these changes by alternative or by district. Further, there 

would be modest to no changes in mineral revenues across alternatives, and the grazing program is small. 

Data in the tables in this section show effects for the year 2018—the mid-point of the first decade in the 

Woodstock timber management model—as an appropriate point for comparison of economic effects 

among alternatives. 

Table 3-184 shows economic effects by alternative for the entire planning area by BLM program, timberrelated industry, and recreation-related industry. With respect to total effects (i.e., direct, indirect, and 

induced) all the alternatives except for Alternative D would result in an increase in jobs and earnings 

compared to 2012 figures based on Current-Modified. The difference across alternatives is substantial, 

ranging from 6,915 jobs and $304 million in earnings under Alternative D up to 12,419 jobs and $584 

million in earnings in Alternative C. Under Alternative D, the BLM timber program would account for 35 

percent of all jobs and 40 percent of earnings.73 Alternative D would result in a 15 percent reduction in 

jobs and earnings compared to Current-Modified. The shares would be highest under Alternative C with 

51 percent of all jobs and 52 percent of earnings, a 120 percent increase over Current-Modified. The 

 

73 Percentages may be calculated from the tables. For example 2,454 divided by 6,915 = 35%; $121.0 divided by 

$304.2 million = 40%. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

546 | Page

timber program under Alternatives A, B, and No Action would range between 40 percent and 47 percent 

of all BLM-based effects. Compared with Current-Modified, No Action would be a 68 percent increase, 

Alternative A would be a 9 percent increase, and Alternative B would be a 41 percent increase. 

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

548 | Page

Change in total timber volume (including both ASQ and non-ASQ volume) is the most influential factor 

affecting economic consequences of the timber program under the different alternatives, but composition 

of log sizes is also important. Logs of 24 inches or more (peeler logs) generate about three times more 

direct employment than smaller sawlogs. Logs less than 8 inches (roundwood) generate the least direct 

employment. Across the decision area, harvests in 2012 (243 MMbf) were 96 percent sawlogs with only 3 

percent peeler logs and 1 percent roundwood. Under the No Action alternative (400 MMbf) and 

Alternatives A (249 MMbf), B (332 MMbf), and C (555 MMbf) harvests would have more volume than 

current, but peeler logs would account for 15 to 24 percent of total harvest. Roundwood would be steady 

across these alternatives at 13 to 14 percent of total volume. Given harvest volumes that would be greater 

than current and a mix of log sizes that would generate more employment than current, these alternatives 

show greater positive job and income effects. Under Alternative D (180 MMbf) harvests volumes would 

be less than current, but they would include a mix similar to the other alternatives. 

As the BLM timber harvest changes, market forces prompt private timberland owners to adjust their 

harvest volumes. The BLM anticipates that in 2018 private timberland owners would either increase their 

harvests modestly (6.4 MMbf short log under Alternative D) or decrease their harvests in varying 

amounts (-43 MMbf short log under the No Action alternative, -8.9 MMbf short log under Alternative A, 

-27 MMbf short log under Alternative B, and -78 MMbf short log under Alternative C). See the 

discussion of market consequences in Socioeconomics Issue 1. The employment and earnings effects 

shown in Table 3-184 incorporates these market implications. 

Under all alternatives except Alternative D, the BLM recreation program would remain the second largest 

generator of jobs among all BLM-based effects. Under Alternative D it would rank first among programs. 

The BLM’s projections of recreation visits are limited to area-wide increases over time that do not vary 

by alternative. Therefore, the analysis treated the increases proportionally across all areas and constant 

across all alternatives. Consequently, economic effects by district area would also be constant across all 

alternatives in 2018 (3,000 jobs and $93 million of earnings). Because of relatively low wages in the 

service and retail industries, the recreation program would rank either second or third among all BLM 

programs with respect to earnings. 

Across all alternatives, BLM expenditures would continue to be an important generator of jobs and 

income across the planning area, regardless of the alternative (Table 3-184). Jobs resulting from this 

spending would range from about 1,300 under Alternative D to more than 2,200 under Alternative C. 

Employment effects under Alternative A would be similar to Current-Modified, while those under 

Alternatives B and No Action would be 250 to 400 jobs greater than Current-Modified. The timber 

program would be the primary determinant of BLM budgets in this part of the analysis, with the timber 

program budget changing proportionally with harvest volume, using a fixed rate of $200 per Mbf. The 

BLM assumed that non-timber portions of BLM district budgets would be unchanged from current across 

all alternatives (see Socioeconomics Issue 7).

Payments to counties under the formula in the O&C Act would generate about 200 jobs under Alternative 

D. Under Alternative C, payments would generate over 700 jobs, and, under the other alternatives, from 

300 to 500 jobs. Alternative D would result in very similar numbers of jobs as those generated under 

Current-Modified. Earnings would follow the pattern of jobs, ranging from about $10.7 million under 

Alternative D to $38.8 million under Alternative C. 

Employment in timber-related industries would range from about 1,100 jobs under Alternative D to 2,900 

jobs under Alternative C. Job counts under every alternative except D would increase compared to 

Current-Modified. Forestry, logging, & support activities would continue to see the largest number of 

workers among timber-related industries. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

549 | Page

Recreation-related industries include Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation Services as well as 

Accommodation and Food Services. Typically, while these industries are aligned with spending by 

recreation participants, all BLM programs, not just recreation, affect economic effects in these industries. 

For example, local ranchers who earn a living by running livestock on BLM-managed lands may spend a 

portion of their income in the food service industry. Nonetheless, these industries offer a good indicator of 

recreation-based effects. Because wages in these industries are typically low, total earnings triggered by 

BLM management range from a low of 30 percent of those triggered by timber harvest under Alternative 

C to a high of 77 percent under Alternative D. 

Table 3-185 shows total job and labor income effects by BLM district model area and by alternative. 

Except for the Medford District, Alternative C would have the largest employment and earnings increases 

across all district model areas and for the planning area as a whole. In the Medford District, the No Action 

alternative would have the largest employment and earnings increases. Alternative C’s employment and 

earnings effects would be 20 percent greater than the No Action alternative, the next largest alternative. 

Alternative C would 68 percent larger than Current-Modified (12,419 versus 7,403 jobs). Alternative D 

would trigger smaller effects, a reduction from Current-Modified by 7 percent. 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

551 | Page

The Eugene District model area would experience the largest effects across all action alternatives, while 

the Medford area would have the largest effects under Current-Modified and under the No Action 

alternative. Distribution of timber harvest across the areas primarily accounts for the differing effects. 

Spending by recreation participants in addition to timber processing are the chief reasons why the SalemPortland MSA area shows relatively large effects across all alternatives. 

Table 3-186 provides a more detailed view of selected timber- and recreation-related industries by district 

model area. Coos Bay ranked first for economic effects of processing BLM timber in timber-related 

industries in 2012 (363 jobs and $20.8 million in earnings), but would fall behind other model areas under 

the No Action alternative and under all the action alternatives. The Medford area would lead all areas 

under No Action, but the Eugene area would lead all areas in 2018 under all action alternatives. In all 

cases, the Klamath Falls area would experience the smallest economic effects. The same relationship 

among areas holds for employment as well as earnings. 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

553 | Page

By virtue of large recreation participant numbers, the Salem-Portland MSA area would continue to have 

the largest economic effects of any of the model areas from recreation-related industries regardless of the 

alternative. The Klamath Falls area would continue to experience the smallest effect. As noted above, 

total earnings in recreation-related industries triggered by BLM management are substantially smaller 

than those triggered by the BLM’s timber harvest. Only in the Salem-Portland MSA would recreationrelated earnings exceed timber-related earnings (except under Alternative C). 

Appendix O includes tables showing detailed economic effects by district model area and by alternative. 

Effects of Alternatives in Relation to the Broader Economic 

Context in Western Oregon 

In the future, social and economic change in the planning area will result from the combined actions of 

many individuals, businesses, governments, and other organizations. A vast number of decisions made by 

thousands of individuals, businesses, and governments over the next decade will affect growth and change 

in population and employment with consequences for housing, and transportation. For economic effect 

purposes, it is impossible to account for and project the effect of all such decisions separately. However, 

standard projections of population and employment that carry forward the economic momentum observed 

in current conditions and trends are a measure of how the economy is likely to develop, given known or 

reasonably foreseeable development. This section of the effects analysis takes such an approach by using 

an interpolation of employment in 2018 based on county-level forecasts by the Oregon Employment 

Department (Krumenauer and Turner 2014). These projections account for reasonably foreseeable levels 

of economic growth and enable an analysis that considers the cumulative effects of the draft alternatives 

in the context of the broader western Oregon economy. 

The BLM assumed, for purposes of this part of the analysis, that the State forecasts capture the effects of 

BLM management under the No Action alternative (i.e., the 1995 RMPs as written)74 but do not capture 

the effects of Alternatives A through D. 

According to the State’s projections, the planning area as a whole will experience 8.5 percent growth in 

employment between 2012 and 2018 (Table 3-187). The State attributes this growth to continuing 

recovery from the 2007 to 2009 recession, particularly for the construction industry; a growing health care 

sector, due in part to an aging population; and the need for replacement workers due to baby boomer 

retirements. However, growth will vary substantially among the district areas. Jobs in the Portland-MSA 

and Eugene areas will increase by over 9 percent, Salem-Other, Roseburg, and Medford by about 8 

percent, and Klamath Falls by 6.6 percent. Forecasts for the Coos Bay area indicate job losses of over 

7,000 jobs, a decrease of 17.5 percent in the 6-year period. 

 

74 Harvest volumes, the major driver of job and income effects in this analysis, have been consistent with 1995 

RMPs. However, the administrative vehicles for offering timber have become more diverse in recent years. These 

vehicles, such as permits and stewardship sale contracts, are used to offer an increasing share of total timber volume. 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

555 | Page

Under the No Action alternative, BLM-based contributions to the planning area in 2018 would account 

for 0.5 percent of all employment (10,298 divided by 2,124,018). The share of employment by district 

area would range from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent in the Salem district areas to 3.4 percent and 3.7 percent 

in the Roseburg and Coos Bay areas, respectively. 

Table 3-187 shows how each action alternative would affect total employment compared to the No 

Action alternative. Under Alternative A, BLM-based employment would drop by 2,300 jobs compared to 

No Action. Most of the reduction would occur in the Medford area, followed by drops in Roseburg, 

Eugene, and Coos Bay. In contrast, the two Salem district model areas combined would experience very 

modest increases in jobs (about 100). Under Alternative B, declines in BLM-based employment would 

still occur, but would be moderated somewhat compared with Alternative A, (i.e., a loss of approximately 

1,100 jobs). Medford, Roseburg, and Coos Bay would see the largest reductions, while the two Salem 

district models would see greater increases compared with Alternative A. Under Alternative C, 

employment would increase compared to the No Action alternative in aggregate across the planning area 

and in each model area except Medford, which would see a loss of approximately 360 jobs. Compared 

with the No Action alternative, Alternative C would offer the largest gains (or least reductions for 

Medford) of any action alternative. In contrast, Alternative D would prompt the biggest reductions of 

BLM-based jobs of any alternative. Compared with No Action, Alternative D would reduce employment 

across the planning area by approximately 3,400 jobs, a third of which would occur in the Medford area. 

Roseburg, Eugene, and Coos Bay would all experience reductions of 600 to 700 jobs. 

The number of jobs affected is an important consideration, but the share of BLM-based employment to 

total employment puts such changes in context. Under all alternatives, the Salem and Klamath Falls areas 

retain a small share of total area BLM-based employment (less than one percent). In the Eugene and 

Medford areas, BLM-based employment would range from 0.8 percent to 1.7 percent of total area 

employment. Thus while Medford is vulnerable to some of the largest changes in BLM-based jobs, the 

employment is not a large share of area employment. 

BLM-based jobs changes would have the largest effects in Coos Bay and Roseburg. Under Alternatives 

A, B, and D, Coos Bay would not only experience a relatively large job loss across the economy (7,000 

jobs from 2012 to 2018, or 17 percent of 2012 employment), but BLM-based jobs would accentuate job 

losses by another 600 jobs. Under the No Action alternative, BLM-based jobs in Coos Bay would account 

for 3.7 percent of all jobs, but that share would drop in half to 1.9 percent under Alternative D. 

Alternative C would increase the share to 4.8 percent. Effects in Roseburg would not be as severe as those 

in Coos Bay. Job reductions in the Roseburg area under Alternatives A, B, and D would reduce BLMbased shares from 3.4 percent under No Action to 2.2 percent, 2.6 percent, and 2.0 percent, respectively. 

State projections show Roseburg area employment increasing by 4,000 jobs over the next six years, and 

thus any reductions in BLM-based employment would moderate projected increases. Under Alternative 

C, BLM-based employment in Roseburg would increase to 3.8 percent of total employment. 

Issue 3

What would be the effect of alternatives on payments distributed to counties from activities on BLMadministered lands? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The Federal Government makes, or has made, four types of payments to counties based on BLMadministered lands in the planning area: 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

557 | Page

As an example of the complexity, one of the provisions in the PILT formula is subtracting certain Federal 

payments made the prior year from the current year’s PILT payment. This provision, however, does not 

currently apply to all Federal payments tied to O&C lands. For example, the PILT does not require 

offsetting prior years SRS payments when calculating PILT payments for lands administered by the BLM 

(Corn 2014). The percentage of total Federal acres eligible for PILT payments attributed to BLMadministered acres in the O&C counties varies from approximately 5 percent for Multnomah County, to 

approximately 97 percent for Polk County (USDI 2014). Even though SRS payments derived from BLMadministered O&C acres are exempt from PILT calculations, payments tied to other Federal acres in these 

counties are not. 

Given the complexity of the PILT formula and the challenges of estimating future offsetting Federal 

payments, the BLM did not include PILT payments in its analysis of the effects of the management 

alternatives on payments to counties. 

Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands 

Similar to PILT, the complexity and uncertainty around Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR)-based payments 

make it impossible for the BLM to project credibly the specific payments from these lands over time at 

the scale of this western Oregon planning effort. Rather than direct payments of timber receipts according 

to the O&C Act formula, the 1939 Coos Bay Wagon Road Act created an in lieu of tax payment program 

for the CBWR lands. The CBWR lands occur only in Coos and Douglas Counties. Under this payment 

program, the BLM collects receipts for timber sold from the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands and uses them 

to pay in lieu of taxes an amount that is based on the established method of taxation used in the State of 

Oregon for other lands of similar character in the state. Currently the State of Oregon utilizes a Forest 

Land Class method for forestland taxation and assigns maximum assessment values based on stateestablished productivity classes. The Oregon Department of Revenue publishes the assessment values 

annually. The Coos and Douglas County tax assessors also establish tax rates on an annual basis. The tax 

rate established by the county assessors is the tax rate that is paid on the State of Oregon established 

taxable value for the CBWR lands. 

 

The CBWR-based payments depend not only on the receipts for timber sold from CBWR lands, but also 

on assessment values and tax rates which would change over time. In 2013, CBWR payments totaled 

approximately $337,635 (USDI BLM 2014g). It is likely that the relative amount of these CBWR-based 

payments will generally follow the revenues to the counties derived from the O&C lands. 

Effects Analysis 

The BLM’s analysis of the effects of management alternatives on payments to counties used the outputs 

from the vegetation model that describes how alternatives would affect harvest volumes and stumpage 

prices. The vegetation model produces data on total harvest volume, but county payments use commercial 

sales volume, a subset of total harvest volume. The BLM estimated commercial sales volume at 75 

percent of total harvest volume, based on data from the actual 2012 harvest. 

Likewise, the vegetation model provides stumpage prices per thousand board feet measured in long logs, 

while payments to the U.S. Treasury and O&C counties use thousand board feet of short logs. The BLM 

converted those prices to short log basis and then subtracted costs per thousand board feet for road 

maintenance, slash management, and other actions that support timber harvests. The vegetation model 

produces all price outputs in 2012 dollars. This facilitates comparisons of prices and stumpage values 

across alternatives and time. For example, the model estimates stumpage prices in 2018 for the No Action 

alternative of $310.41 per thousand board feet. Even though the estimate represents a stumpage price in 

2018, the dollar values are in 2012 dollars. That is, the price estimates do not include an inflation factor 

for estimates at different years in the future. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

558 | Page

The BLM calculated stumpage values by multiplying harvest volumes by stumpage prices, and calculated 

payments to counties in 2018 and in 2028 (mid points of the first two decades) using the O&C payment 

formula described above. The BLM assumed that the distribution formula among the counties would 

remain as it was in 2012. 

The BLM selected these two periods because they provide estimated payments up to 14 years in the 

future that allow comparisons with what payments would have been in 2012. Estimating the amounts and 

sources of county payments beyond these years would be overly speculative. 

Background 

To compensate counties for foregone property tax payments on the O&C lands owned by the Federal 

Government, Congress passed the Oregon and California Lands Act of 1937, which mandated that the 

counties receive a percentage of the receipts from the timber harvested and sold from the O&C acres. 

Congress amended the 1937 Act in 1956 and in 1976. Currently, counties receive 50 percent of the 

stumpage value of commercial timber harvested and sold from the O&C acres. Of the remaining 50 

percent, the Federal Government spends 25 percent in the counties to help maintain and develop the O&C 

acres, and the remaining 25 percent goes to the U.S. Treasury. 

According to the O&C Act, counties can use their O&C payments at their discretion and do so by 

providing county services mandated by the State of Oregon (Johnson 2009; USDI BLM 2014b). These 

services include sheriff’s patrols, regulating and financing county and local roads, solid waste disposal, 

education, circuit courts, a county assessor, and a district attorney (Johnson 2009, includes a complete list 

of mandated county services). 

The O&C payment formula remained largely unchanged until the early 1990s. In response to declining 

timber harvests and payments to counties in the 1980s, Congressional budget appropriations for 1991, 

1992, and 1993 included a “floor” payment equivalent to the average of payments from 1986 through 

1990 (USDI BLM 2014b). In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA), Congress 

included a safety-net payment also based on the average of payments for 1986 through 1990. In 1994, 

counties received 85 percent of this amount. In 1995 through 1999, payments to counties declined by 3 

percent each year. The OBRA effectively decoupled payments to counties from current timber harvests 

on BLM-administered lands. Congress repealed the OBRA and passed the SRS in 2000. Like the OBRA, 

the SRS based payments to counties on an average of harvests from previous years. The 2000 SRS used 

the three highest harvest years between 1986 and 1990. Initially set to expire in 2006, Congress continued 

reauthorizing the program on an annual basis (Adams and Gaid 2008). Congress passed a one-year 

reauthorization of the SRS program on October 2, 2013, at 95 percent of the 2012 amount (USDA FS

2014). Counties use the SRS payments in the same way they used O&C payments—to pay for state 

mandated services including public safety, county roads, and education (Tuchmann and Davis 2013). 

As described below under Affected Environment, payments to counties have declined substantially since 

2003. Counties have dealt with these declines in different ways. Some tried funding vital services such as 

public safety by passing property tax levies. Others considered sales taxes and/or outsourcing services 

such as libraries and public health. Some have also reduced staff, or limited or ended services. A sampling 

of reports describing the financial hardships and challenges that some of the O&C counties currently face 

include: Mortenson 2012a, Mortenson 2012b, Zheng 2013a, Zheng 2013b, and Mapes 2014a. As noted 

above (Socioeconomics Background), in 2012 the Oregon Secretary of State identified a total of eight 

counties, all in the planning area, whose financial condition may indicate a higher risk of distress than 

other counties. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

559 | Page

The Governor’s Task Force on Federal Forest Payment and County Services (Governor’s Task Force, 

2009) noted the concerns for counties of ending of the SRS program: 

“Many of these hard hit counties looked beyond deep reductions in services and the depletion of 

their reserves to the likelihood of an unprecedented and unmanageable fiscal crisis within two to 

four years after the cessation of Federal forest payments. Only a belated reauthorization of these 

payments by the Federal Government in October 2008 averted a crisis which, compounded by the 

effects of the current recession, could have forced the collapse of as many as nine ‘crisis counties’

over the next several years.” (Governor’s Task Force 2009, p. 4). 

The Task Force concluded that county governments and residents had limited ability to make up the lost 

Federal payments. For example, the Task Force estimated that increasing property taxes and adding taxes 

such as a lodging tax and real estate transfer tax—if enacted by voters—would only recover between 8 to 

24 percent of lost Federal payments (Governor’s Task Force 2009). 

The inability of some O&C counties to provide public safety services in the face of declining Federal 

payments is a major concern for county and State officials. Josephine County released dozens of inmates 

in 2012 because of budget cuts. In early 2014, Polk County announced it would no longer provide 24-

hour sheriff patrols because of budget reductions. Residents in these and other O&C counties rejected 

public-safety tax measures over the previous years (Templeton 2013, Mapes 2013b, Zheng, 2013a). In 

response to these developments, the Oregon Legislature passed a bill that would allow the governor to 

impose certain taxes, but only with the approval of county officials. These taxes would fund public safety 

services. Under the bill, the State would match the taxes paid by county residents (Mapes 2013a, 2013b). 

The BLM and the Forest Service provide additional background information on the history of payments 

to counties from activities on Federal lands (USDA FS 2014, USDI BLM 2014b). 

Affected Environment 

Table 3-188 shows the recent historical trend in SRS payments. From a high of approximately $117 

million in FY 2007, payments declined to approximately $38 million in FY 2012, an approximately 68 

percent decline. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

560 | Page

Table 3-188. SRS payments to counties, 2003 to 2012. 

County FY 2012 SRS 

Distributions

FY 2010 SRS 

Distributions

FY 2007 SRS 

Distributions

FY 2003 SRS 

Distributions

Benton $771,004 $2,381,408 $3,255,508 $3,116,768

Clackamas $1,057,665 $4,703,493 $6,429,918 $6,155,895

Columbia $712,608 $1,745,801 $2.386,600 $2,284,891

Coos $2,333,965 $5,626,088 $7,691,152 $7,363,379

Curry $1,442,516 $3,093,288 $4,228,685 $4,048,471

Douglas $10,719,614 $21,342,441 $29,176,221 $27,932,820

Jackson $5,455,997 $13,279,952 $18,154,381 $17,380,697

Josephine $5,512,586 $10,237,513 $13,995,209 $13,398,776

Klamath $1,073,616 $1,983,094 $2,710,992 $2,595,458

Lane $5,247,157 $12,940,962 $17,690,964 $16,937,029

Lincoln $127,952 $305,091 $417,076 $399,301

Linn $1,237,384 $2,237,337 $3,058,556 $2,928,209

Marion $518,109 $1,237,315 $1,691,474 $1,619,389

Multnomah $248,900 $923,749 $1,262,813 $1,208,996

Polk $898,016 $1,830,549 $2,502,455 $2,395,808

Tillamook $220,123 $474,587 $648,785 $621,135

Washington $142,145 $533,910 $729,883 $698,777

Yamhill $272,785 $610,183 $834,152 $798,603

Totals $37,992,142 $85,486,761 $116,864,821 $111,884,403

Source: USDI BLM 2014g. 

Not all counties rely on SRS payments to the same extent. Table 3-189 shows FY 2012 SRS payments 

and payments as a percentage of total county revenues and of each county’s general or discretionary fund. 

Of the counties in the planning area, Coos, Curry, Douglas, and Josephine rely most heavily on Federal 

payments as measured by percentage of their total county revenues. However, expressing payments as a 

percentage of total county revenue does not demonstrate the importance of Federal payments to some of 

the counties. This is because Federal payments are part of the counties’ discretionary or general fund, 

which is a subset of total county funds. Table 3-189 shows that for the four counties cited above, Federal 

payments account for between 25 and 82 percent of general fund revenues. 

Table 3-189. SRS payments and county revenues. 

County FY 2012 SRS Distribution SRS Payment as a Percent 

of County Revenues

SRS Payment as a Percent 

of General Fund

Benton $771,004 0.8% 3.4%

Clackamas $1,057,665 0.3% 0.8%

Columbia $712,608 1.4% 2.4%

Coos $2,333,965 11.0% 82.3%

Curry $1,442,516 8.9% 25.5%

Douglas $10,719,614 11.4% 69.9%

Jackson $5,455,997 1.7% 9.0%

Josephine $5,512,586 8.1% 59.0%

Klamath $1,073,616 1.8% 8.4%

Lane $5,247,157 2.2% 6.8%

Lincoln $127,952 0.1% 0.4%

Linn $1,237,384 1.5% 4.9%
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

561 | Page

County FY 2012 SRS Distribution SRS Payment as a Percent 

of County Revenues 

SRS Payment as a Percent 

of General Fund 

Marion $518,109 0.2% 0.7% 

Multnomah $248,900 - 0.1% 

Polk $898,016 1.8% 5.4% 

Tillamook $220,123 0.6% 1.5% 

Washington $142,145 - 0.1% 

Yamhill $272,785 0.5% 1.0% 

Totals $37,992,142 - -

Source: USDI BLM 2014g; County budget data available at each county’s website, respectively. 

As described above under Analytical Methods, the BLM estimated the impacts of the proposed 

management alternatives on county payments using the formula in the O&C Act as amended. As the 

starting point for this analysis, the BLM calculated what the counties would have received in 2012 if 

payments had been based on the O&C Act. Table 3-190 shows the 2012 SRS payments that counties 

received ($38.0 million) and the 2012 payments the counties would have received based on the O&C Act 

formula (approximately $11.7 million). The total 2012 O&C payment would have been approximately 31 

percent of the SRS payment ($11.7 million divided by $38.0 million). The amount each county would 

have received is based on its percent of the total assessed value of all O&C lands, as shown in the table. 

For example, Benton County would have received $328,733 based on 2.81 percent of $11,698,670. 

Table 3-190. County payments in 2012, actual payments and payments based on O&C Act formula. 

County 2012 SRS Payment 

(Actual) 

2012 Payment, Under O&C 

Act Formula 

Percent of Total O&C 

Lands Payment 

Benton $771,004 $328,733 2.81% 

Clackamas $1,057,665 $649,276 5.55% 

Columbia $712,608 $240,993 2.06% 

Coos $2,333,965 $690,222 5.90% 

Curry $1,442,516 $427,001 3.65% 

Douglas $10,719,614 $2,930,517 25.05% 

Jackson $5,455,997 $1,833,182 15.67% 

Josephine $5,512,586 $1,413,199 12.08% 

Klamath $1,073,616 $273,749 2.34% 

Lane $5,247,157 $1,786,387 15.27% 

Lincoln $127,952 $42,115 0.36% 

Linn $1,237,384 $308,845 2.64% 

Marion $518,109 $170,801 1.46% 

Multnomah $248,900 $127,516 1.09% 

Polk $898,016 $252,691 2.16% 

Tillamook $220,123 $65,513 0.56% 

Washington $142,145 $73,702 0.63% 

Yamhill $272,785 $84,230 0.72% 

Totals $37,992,142 $11,698,670 100.00% 

Sources: USDI BLM 2014g; Babcock 2014; Output from vegetation model. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

562 | Page

Environmental Effects 

Table 3-191 shows commercial harvest volumes, stump price, stump value, and total payment to O&C 

counties based on 50 percent of stump value, by alternative for 2018 and for 2028. Table 3-192 shows the 

breakdown by county for each alternative. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

563 | Page

Table 3-191. Total payments to O&C counties by alternative in 2018 and 2028. 

Year

Commercial 

Harvest Volume 

(Thousand Board 

Feet, Short Log)a

Stumpage Price per 

Thousand Board 

Feet Short Log, 

2012$ 

Stumpage Value 

(Harvest Volume u

Stumpage Price), 

2012$ 

Area-wide 

Payments to 

O&C Counties, 

2012$ 

No Action 

2018 299,667 $310.41 $93,018,783 $46,509,392 

2028 293,698 $287.81 $84,529,383 $42,264,692 

Alt. A 

2018 186,461 $301.59 $56,234,740 $28,117,370 

2028 182,762 $300.64 $54,946,390 $27,473,195 

Alt. B 

2018 248,744 $292.91 $72,859,670 $36,429,835 

2028 242,196 $283.63 $68,694,703 $34,347,352 

Alt. C 

2018 416,244 $324.04 $134,880,041 $67,440,021 

2028 411,550 $323.42 $133,101,547 $66,550,773 

Alt. D 

2018 135,034 $277.02 $37,407,288 $18,703,644 

2028 134,881 $271.69 $36,646,367 $18,323,183 a

 The vegetation model produces data on total harvest volume, but county payments use commercial sales volume, a subset of 

total harvest volume. The BLM estimated commercial sales volume at 75 percent of total harvest volume, based on data from the 

actual 2012 harvest. 

Source: BLM based on results of vegetation model and O&C payments formula. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

564 | Page

Table 3-192. Payments to O&C Counties by alternative for 2018 and 2028 (2012$). 

County

2012

Payment, 

Under

O&C Act 

Formula

Analysis 

Year No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Benton $328,733 2018 $1,306,914 $790,098 $1,023,678 $1,895,065 $525,572

2028 $1,187,638 $771,997 $965,161 $1,870,077 $514,881

Clackamas $649,276 2018 $2,581,271 $1,560,514 $2,021,856 $3,742,921 $1,038,052

2028 $2,345,690 $1,524,762 $1,906,278 $3,693,568 $1,016,937

Columbia $240,993 2018 $958,093 $579,218 $750,455 $1,389,264 $385,295

2028 $870,653 $565,948 $707,555 $1,370,946 $377,458

Coos $690,222 2018 $2,744,054 $1,658,925 $2,149,360 $3,978,961 $1,103,515

2028 $2,493,617 $1,620,918 $2,026,494 $3,926,496 $1,081,068

Curry $427,001 2018 $1,697,593 $1,026,284 $1,329,689 $2,461,561 $682,683

2028 $1,542,661 $1,002,772 $1,253,678 $2,429,103 $668,796

Douglas $2,930,517 2018 $11,650,603 $7,043,401 $9,125,674 $16,893,725 $4,685,263

2028 $10,587,305 $6,882,035 $8,604,012 $16,670,969 $4,589,957

Jackson $1,833,182 2018 $7,288,022 $4,405,992 $5,708,555 $10,567,851 $2,930,861

2028 $6,622,877 $4,305,050 $5,382,230 $10,428,506 $2,871,243

Josephine $1,413,199 2018 $5,618,335 $3,396,578 $4,400,724 $8,146,754 $2,259,400

2028 $5,105,575 $3,318,762 $4,149,160 $8,039,333 $2,213,441

Klamath $273,749 2018 $1,088,320 $657,946 $852,458 $1,578,096 $437,665

2028 $988,994 $642,873 $803,728 $1,557,288 $428,762

Lane $1,786,387 2018 $7,101,984 $4,293,522 $5,562,836 $10,298,091 $2,856,046

2028 $6,453,818 $4,195,157 $5,244,841 $10,162,303 $2,797,950

Lincoln $42,115 2018 $167,434 $101,223 $131,147 $242,784 $67,333

2028 $152,153 $98,904 $123,650 $239,583 $65,963

Linn $308,845 2018 $1,227,848 $742,299 $961,748 $1,780,417 $493,776

2028 $1,115,788 $725,292 $906,770 $1,756,940 $483,732

Marion $170,801 2018 $679,037 $410,514 $531,876 $984,624 $273,073

2028 $617,064 $401,109 $501,471 $971,641 $267,518

Multnomah $127,516 2018 $506,952 $306,479 $397,085 $735,096 $203,870

2028 $460,685 $299,458 $374,386 $725,403 $199,723

Polk $252,691 2018 $1,004,603 $607,335 $786,884 $1,456,704 $403,999

2028 $912,917 $593,421 $741,903 $1,437,497 $395,781

Tillamook $65,513 2018 $260,453 $157,457 $204,007 $377,664 $104,740

2028 $236,682 $153,850 $192,345 $372,684 $102,610

Washington $73,702 2018 $293,009 $177,139 $229,508 $424,872 $117,833

2028 $266,268 $173,081 $216,388 $419,270 $115,436

Yamhill $84,230 2018 $334,868 $202,445 $262,295 $485,568 $134,666

2028 $304,306 $197,807 $247,301 $479,166 $131,927

Totals $11,698,670 2018 $46,509,392 $28,117,370 $36,429,835 $67,440,021 $18,703,644

2028 $42,264,692 $27,473,195 $34,347,352 $66,550,773 $18,323,183

Source: USDI BLM, based on results of vegetation model and O&C payments formula. 

The total payment in 2012 under the O&C Act formula would have been approximately $11.7 million. 

Under all the alternatives, payments to counties in 2018 and in 2028 would exceed this amount. Payments 

under Alternative C would be the highest, approximately $67 million in 2018. Payments under 

Alternative D would be the lowest among the alternatives, at approximately $18.7 million, but would still 

be 60 percent above what the 2012 payment would have been. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

565 | Page

Across all alternatives payments would be slightly lower (from 2 to 9 percent) in 2028 compared to 2018 

reflecting lower non-ASQ-based timber revenues in the second decade (see Issue 1 above). Table 3-192 

shows the distribution of total O&C payments to each county, by alternative, for 2018 and 2028, along 

with estimated O&C payments in 2012, had county payments been based on the O&C formula that year. 

Payments to individual counties under all alternatives exceed what the counties would have received in 

2012. The difference in payments would be substantial for many counties. For example, Polk County 

would have received approximately $253,000 in 2012 under the O&C formula but would receive 

approximately $404,000 in 2018 under Alternative D and approximately $1.5 million under Alternative C 

(in 2012$); these figures would be the high and low payments to Polk County that year. See the 

discussion of the earnings and employment effects of these payments in Issue 2 (Table 3-180). 

Issue 4 

How would the alternatives contribute to economic stability in the planning area? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Growth and stability are classic goals of economic development. Historic growth rates of employment 

and earnings offer an indication of economic growth in the planning area, while the volatility of these 

rates offer insights into the economic stability of both communities (geographic areas) and industries 

(business groups). Long-term growth rates express fundamental economic shifts or trends for geographic 

areas and industries. Issue 2 discusses short-term trends that may not represent fundamental economic 

shifts. 

This issue presents an analysis of the cumulative effects on economic stability of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land management on BLM-administered lands and 

non-BLM-administered lands. 

For the purposes of this issue, geographic areas are the same BLM district model areas defined under 

Issue 2 for which historic economic data exist and which function as economic units. Industries are 

business groups defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis for which the same historic economic data 

exist (BEA 2014). 

Using historic data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2014), the BLM estimated the 

magnitude and volatility of growth rates for all employment and earnings—inclusive of all industries—in 

all seven economic model areas within the planning area. The BLM also estimated comparable rates for 

those industries that BLM management of timber and recreation most affects. Other resources the BLM 

manages have very small effects, as shown in the contribution analysis (See Issue 2). Employment 

comprises all wage and salary workers. Earnings include total payroll compensation for the same workers. 

Growth rates are an average of year-over-year changes covering six national business cycles (1969-2007), 

the longest period for which complete data are available. The coefficient of variation of these annual 

growth rates indicates volatility; this is a generally accepted metric in the finance and economic 

disciplines. Stability is the inverse of volatility. Thus, highly volatile growth rates indicate long-term 

instability, while modest to low volatility of growth rates indicates long-term stability. 

The BLM computed growth rates for resource-related industries nationally rather than for the planning 

area alone in order to understand the inherent and historic volatility of resource-based industries, 

independent of public land management policies and budgets. Observing characteristics of these 

industries nationally minimizes the influence that past public land policies in western Oregon may have 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

566 | Page

had on local resource industry behavior. It therefore offers a better representation of the industries when 

analyzing the impacts of future land management alternatives. 

To provide a common reference point, the BLM calculated growth rates and volatility for the United 

States economy as a whole over the same time period. The BLM then indexed growth rates and volatility 

for both BLM district model areas and national industries to the United States economy. Thus, an index 

>1.00 indicates higher growth rates or volatility compared with the United States economy, an index 

<1.00 indicates lower growth rates or volatility, and an index of 1.00 indicates a match with the United 

States economy. 

Affected Environment 

Table 3-193 presents long-term growth rates and their volatility for employment and earnings for the 

United States as a whole, for the seven model areas in western Oregon, and for selected resource-related 

industries nationally. Timber-related industries include Forest and Wood Products (logging and primary 

wood manufacturing) and Paper Manufacturing (pulp, paperboard, and related paper or container 

industries). Recreation-related industries include Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Services (excluding 

museums, zoos, historical sites, and nature parks) and Accommodations; and Eating & Drinking Places. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

567 | Page

Table 3-193. Growth and volatility of employment and earnings by geographic area and selected 

resource-related industries over six United States business cycles, 1969-2007. 

Geographic Area or 

Resource-related Industry 

Employment (Jobs) Earnings (2012$) 

Growth Rate Growth 

Volatility Growth Rate Growth Volatility 

Average 

Annual 

(%) 

Indexed 

to U.S. 

Indexed 

to U.S. 

Average 

Annual 

(%) 

Indexed 

to U.S. 

Indexed 

to U.S. 

Geographic Area 

United States 1.82% 1.00 1.00 2.97% 1.00 1.00 

BLM District Model Area 

Coos Bay 1.33% 0.73 2.86 1.55% 0.52 3.72 

Eugene 2.42% 1.33 1.61 3.01% 1.01 1.83 

Klamath Falls 1.19% 0.66 2.80 1.82% 0.61 2.88 

Medford 3.28% 1.80 1.07 3.95% 1.33 1.42 

Roseburg 1.81% 1.00 2.16 2.16% 0.73 2.99 

Salem-Other 2.43% 1.34 1.18 3.32% 1.12 1.37 

Salem-Portland MSA 2.57% 1.41 1.15 3.71% 1.25 1.15 

U.S. Industry 

Timber-Related 

Forest and Wood 

Products Industries 0.42% 0.23 15.50 1.36% 0.46 6.15 

Paper Manufacturing -0.91% -0.50 3.77 0.74% 0.25 5.14 

Recreation-Related 

Arts, Entertainment, 

and Recreation Services 3.85% 2.12 0.85 5.41% 1.82 1.12 

Accommodations 2.24% 1.23 1.59 3.50% 1.18 1.56 

Eating and Drinking 

Places 3.64% 2.00 0.83 3.63% 1.22 0.96 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014. Employment includes all wage and salary workers. Earnings includes total payroll 

compensation for the same workers. Data were available and adjusted for inflation over six U.S. business cycles spanning 38 

years. 

Table 3-193 shows that between 1969 and 2007 (six business cycles), United States employment grew at 

an average annual rate of 1.8 percent, while earnings grew at 2.97 percent (net of inflation). As a rule, 

earnings growth that exceeds employment growth suggests increases in employee productivity over the 

long term. 

Among BLM district model areas, Salem-Portland MSA, Salem-Other (non-MSA counties), and Eugene 

had similar growth rates for employment and earnings. All of these areas exceeded the national growth 

rate by up to 40 percent for employment and up to 25 percent for earnings. For example, SalemPortland’s average annual employment growth rate was 2.6 percent, 41 percent higher than the average 

annual rate for the United States of 1.8 percent. However, these areas also exceeded national volatility of 

employment and earnings growth by 15 to 80 percent, which indicates instability. Growth rates in the 

southern half of the planning area mostly lagged behind the United States. Klamath Falls had the lowest 

growth rates of any model area (1.2 percent). In addition, Klamath Falls’ volatility of employment (2.80 

percent) and earnings growth (2.88 percent) greatly exceeded those of United States economy. Coos 

Bay’s volatility was also very high. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

568 | Page

High volatility, or instability, is typically characteristic of commodity-based economies (Carter et al.

2011). The Medford area is an exception to the general pattern for southwestern Oregon. This area 

experienced the highest employment and earnings growth rates in western Oregon accompanied by 

modest to high stability. Growth and stability in the Medford area may result from its position as a strong 

regional service center coupled with a well-balanced economy. 

National industries related to timber and recreation demonstrate a wide range growth and volatility 

characteristics. Over six United States business cycles, the Forest and Wood Products Industries have 

grown slowly and show a very high level of volatility (or instability). These commodity-based industries 

are subject to the highs and lows of business cycles not only in the United States, but also internationally. 

Employment volatility has been 15 times higher and earnings volatility 6 times higher than the United 

States economy. Paper Manufacturing has shown a negative growth rate for employment coupled with a 

very modest positive rate for earnings. This disparity suggests strong improvements in productivity driven 

by technology advances. Volatility for both employment and earnings is high in Paper Manufacturing, but 

not as high as in the Forest and Wood Products Industries. 

Recreation-related industries exhibit a mix of growth rates and volatility. The Arts, Entertainment, and 

Recreation Services industry has shown strong employment and earnings growth rates coupled with 

stability over the six business cycles. The same pattern holds true for employment in the Eating and 

Drinking Places industry, but earnings lag behind. Employment and earnings in the Accommodations 

industry has grown somewhat faster than the United States, but with volatility that is roughly 50 percent 

higher than the United States economy. 

Environmental Effects 

Under the alternatives, some resource-related industries may increase in employment and earnings while 

others decrease. If industries increase that exhibit historic instability, they may inject greater economic 

instability into their host communities. Conversely, if industries increase that exhibit historic stability, 

their greater presence may add economic stability to host communities. 

As discussed under Issue 2, the BLM recreation specialists project that there will be a constant rate of 

increase in recreation visits in the planning area between 2012 and 2018 regardless of the alternative and 

district area. For that reason, recreation-related industries vary little between alternatives and therefore 

would not strongly influence changes in the economic stability or instability of district model areas. As a 

result, alternative BLM timber programs are the focus when considering economic stability in the 

planning area. 

Because this issue considers a long-term perspective of economic stability, the BLM considers timber 

harvest levels over 50 years. However, as described in Forest Management, total harvests under each 

alternative do not vary more than 15 percent in any year compared to average harvest levels in the first 

decade and all change in harvest levels over time are driven by non-ASQ harvest, such as restoration 

thinning in the reserves. Furthermore, each alternative would maintain its relative rank among all other 

alternatives in terms of total timber harvest through 50-years. Said differently, Alternative C would have 

the greatest harvest at every point in the planning period, followed by No Action, B, A, and D. All 

alternatives, except Alternative D, show timber harvest volumes exceeding current (2012) levels. 

Because the timber industry has a long, national history of high volatility, alternatives with harvest 

volumes that exceed current levels are likely to introduce greater instability into local economies, based 

on past business cycles. The expansion of existing timber-based firms or the addition of new ones would 

bring additional jobs and earnings to the planning area, but could make the whole planning area more 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

569 | Page

vulnerable to large fluctuations inherent in domestic and international timber markets. Alternative C with 

the largest harvest volumes would have the greatest effect on jobs and earnings, but also the greatest 

potential for increased economic instability. The No Action alternative, Alternative B, and Alternative A, 

based on their lower volumes compared to Alternative C, would have comparatively lesser effects on jobs 

and earnings and lower potential for increased economic instability. With harvest volumes below current 

levels on BLM-administered lands, Alternative D would show job and earnings reductions, but may 

moderate existing economic instabilities across the planning area. 

Because the historic volatility index of timber-related industries exceeds the index for every model area, 

each model area that shows increases in timber industry activity over current (Table 3-186) could bring 

additional exposure to greater economic instability. Greater potential for instability could be expected in 

the Eugene and Medford areas for all alternatives, in both Salem areas under Alternatives B and C, in the 

Roseburg area under the No Action alternative and Alternative C, in the Klamath Falls area under the No 

Action alternative and Alternatives B and C, and in the Coos Bay area under Alternative C only. 

Greater economic stability alone, whether achieved through the moderation of historically volatile 

industries or an increase in historically stable industries, does not guarantee an increase in the economic 

well-being of an area. Industrial specialization can be beneficial to an area, though it may, at the same 

time, subject the area to greater volatility. Growth and stability are both important though sometimes 

competing concepts in a portfolio of economic growth and development considerations. 

Issue 5 

How would the RMP alternatives affect the capacity and resiliency of different types of communities in 

the planning area? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

This analysis focuses on the potential effects of the RMP alternatives on selected communities of place in 

the planning area, specifically on small and mid-size cities and tribal communities. The BLM conducted 

many of the socioeconomic analyses in this Section at an appropriate county or District level, but 

recognized that this scale can mask differences among smaller communities within these broad areas, or 

fail to show how county-level impacts can affect communities. 

Communities in Land Use Planning 

The BLM uses a variety of social science information in land use planning. The BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook (USDI BLM 2005) states that social science information can include the economic, political, 

cultural, and social structure of communities, regions, and the Nation as a whole; social values, beliefs, 

and attitudes; how people interact with the landscape; and sense-of-place issues. 

While the other socioeconomic analyses focus more on the economic effects of the alternatives, this 

analysis focuses on the social effects of the alternatives on communities. 

Communities exist at a variety of scales but are commonly one of two types: communities of interest, 

unified by a common interest, or communities of place, unified by a common geography. To analyze the 

effects of the alternatives on communities in western Oregon, the BLM considered analyzing the effects 

on communities of interest. However, due the practical difficulties of comprehensively identifying such 

communities and analyzing how the alternatives would affect them, the BLM decided instead to focus on 

communities of place. Further, because much of the socioeconomic analysis in the EIS is at the county 

level, the BLM opted to gain a different perspective on the potential impacts of the alternatives by 

analyzing communities at the sub-county level. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

570 | Page

A “community of place” is a distinct geographic area within which residents or Tribal members would 

generally associate themselves with a single location. For purposes of this analysis, this location is an 

incorporated city or Tribal land.75

Incorporated cities comprise approximately 70 percent of the population of the planning area, justifying 

special consideration in the socioeconomic analysis. In addition, there are seven Federally-recognized 

Tribes with land in the planning area. This analysis includes them as separate communities of place, as 

the United States acknowledges them as sovereign nations with inherent powers of self-government. 

A unique feature of the analytical approach to this issue was 1- to 2-hour telephone interviews with 

representatives of the governments of approximately 15 communities. This gave community 

representatives the opportunity to tell their stories and provided insights into the social values, beliefs, and 

attitudes of their communities, thereby supplementing the statistical data the BLM collected regarding 

capacity and resiliency. 

Capacity and Resiliency 

Capacity and resiliency are commonly used terms in the social sciences when researching and analyzing 

communities. Resiliency in particular is a term used increasingly frequently with respect to communities’

responses to natural disasters such as hurricanes and to other changes such as climate or major economic 

change. 

Many communities in western Oregon have experienced large socioeconomic changes, particularly since 

the listing of the northern spotted owl, the subsequent injunction barring timber harvest in northern 

spotted owl habitat, and the adoption of Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. As part of the Northwest Forest 

Plan monitoring program, the Forest Service has been leading socioeconomic monitoring to answer the 

question: What is the status and trend of socioeconomic well-being? (USDA FS 2008). In light of this 

ongoing monitoring and the potential effects of the updated RMPs for Western Oregon on communities, 

the BLM analyzed the potential socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives through the lenses of capacity 

and resiliency, which are measures of a community’s ability to face change. 

There are different definitions of capacity and resiliency though they tend to have common elements. This 

analysis uses the following definitions: 

x Community Capacity: a community’s ability to face changes; respond to external and internal 

stresses, create and take advantage of opportunities, and meet its needs 

x Community Resiliency: a community’s ability to adapt to change over time 

There is some overlap between the two concepts and the presentation of results does not attempt to draw a 

fine line between them. 

Community Selection 

There are 161 cities (incorporated places) in the planning area. The BLM decided to exclude 27 very 

small cities (populations below 500) and very large cities (populations over 40,000) from the group for 

analysis bringing the number to 134. The exclusions were for the following reasons: 

75 Many people live in unincorporated communities. The Bureau of the Census recognizes these areas as Census 

Designated Places (CDPs). However, while census data are available for CDPs, they do not have local elected or 

appointed officials who can speak for them, and this analysis does not include them. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

571 | Page

x Very small cities represent a very small share of the planning area population (less than one 

percent), and information and interviews could be difficult to obtain. 

x Large cities tend to mirror or contribute significantly to the socioeconomic characteristics of the 

counties in which they are located. Other analytical questions are focused on counties, so that 

including large cities would be duplicative and reduce the desired focus on communities below 

the county level. 

Analyzing all 134 cities, including personal interviews, would have been impractical. The BLM decided 

that a 10 percent sample of the 134 cities (i.e., approximately 13 cities) plus the Tribes would be 

sufficiently representative of the entire group to enable an analysis sufficient to assess effects on 

community capacity and resiliency. The BLM stratified (weighted) the sample so that it would be 

representative of the diverse geography of the planning area.76 The stratification was such that: 1) there 

were at least one or two cities from each BLM office; 2) there would be at least three rural cities from the 

Salem District;77 and 3) Klamath Falls would be the representative city for the Klamath Falls Field 

Office.78 Within these stratification rules, the BLM selected 13 cities at random from the group of 134 

cities79 (Table 3-194 and Map 3-7). Appendix O shows all 134 cities in the sample group. The Planning 

Criteria document (USDI BLM 2014) contains a description of the selection methodology in detail, and is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 140-148). 

 

 

76 Stratification was necessary because approximately 89 of the 134 cities (66%) are in the Salem District and a 

random sample would likely have resulted in eight or nine of the 13 cities coming from the Salem District which 

would not be representative of the diverse geography of the planning area. 

77 There are many urban cities in the Portland metropolitan area that, if sampled, would reveal little regarding the 

potential impacts of the RMPs. 

78 The Klamath Falls Field Office has a total of four cities and three of them are small with populations under 850. 

79 To make the selections, the BLM used the random number function in Microsoft’s Excel program.
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

572 | Page

Table 3-194. Selected communities (cities and Tribes) for analysis of capacity and resiliency. 

Selected Communities County District/Field Office

City

Coquille Coos Coos Bay

Drain Douglas Roseburg

Gold Beach Curry Coos Bay

Florence Lane Eugene

Grants Pass Josephine Medford

Junction City Lane Eugene

Klamath Falls Klamath Klamath Falls

Lincoln City Lincoln Salem

Molalla Clackamas Salem

Rogue River Jackson Medford

St. Helens Columbia Salem

Sublimity Marion Salem

Winston Douglas Roseburg

Tribe

Confederated Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians

Coos Coos Bay

Coquille Indian Tribe Coos Coos Bay

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua 

Tribe of Indians Douglas Roseburg

Confederated Tribes of the Grand 

Ronde Community of Oregon Yamhill Salem

Confederated Tribes of Warm 

Springs Reservation of Oregon Clackamas and Marion Salem

Klamath Tribes Klamath Klamath Falls

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Indians Lincoln and Polk Salem

Notes: While data for Tribes used census data for land owned by the Tribes, the analysis also considered Tribal members not 

living on Tribal-owned land. 

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

574 | Page

Data and Information About Communities 

The BLM collected data and information about the selected communities from three sources: 1) publicly 

available data sources, primarily the U.S. Bureau of Census American Community Survey; 2) internet 

sites, primarily the official websites of the selected communities; and 3) interviews with community 

representatives.

Data Baseline 

The publicly available data sources provided a data baseline for assessing potential impacts from the 

RMP alternatives. The BLM created the baseline from data on 13 metrics (measures) of capacity and 

resiliency including population, housing, jobs, unemployment, wages, income, health insurance, 

education, recreation, and assessable base. They are largely consistent with the metrics identified in Table 

37 of the Planning Criteria (Appendix O). The metrics chosen are among a large number of accepted 

potential metrics that exist (see, for example, Jepson and Colburn 2013). The BLM selected the metrics in 

consultation with the RMP’s for Western Oregon Cooperative Agencies Advisory Group’s

Socioeconomics Working Group based on their relevance to the capacity/resiliency question, availability 

of data across the communities, and analytic efficiency. The BLM summed each community’s scores for 

all 13 metrics and expressed the totals as a percentage of the total theoretical maximum score; a higher 

percentage meant a higher level of capacity and resiliency. 

The BLM recognized four capacity and resiliency categories based on the data score spread: high (over 65 

percent), medium (60 to 64 percent), low (50 to 59 percent), and very low (less than 50 percent) and 

assigned the communities to one of the categories based on its baseline score. Because of data limitations 

for the Tribes (see next section) the BLM did not assign the Tribes to a category. 

Data Limitations 

Most data have limitations and the data in this analysis are no exception. First, most of the data for this 

analysis are from the American Community Survey, which the Bureau of Census derives from a sample 

of American households. They provide more detailed socioeconomic data than the decennial census, but 

the data have “margins of error” (degrees of confidence, or reliability), and these tend to be greater for 

smaller communities because their sample sizes are smaller. Some communities commented on this 

during the interviews, and the BLM invited them to provide supplementary data. 

The data are particularly unreliable for the tribes, some of whom have very small populations living on 

tribal lands. The tribes commented on this during the interviews, and they preferred to discuss the entire 

tribal membership, not just the population living on tribal lands. 

Additionally, the way the metrics were selected and applied may incorrectly “favor” one community over 

another, giving it a higher score. In other words, had the BLM selected different metrics, a different score 

might have been the result. Further, arguably, some metrics are more important to capacity and resiliency 

than others, whereas the calculations treat the metrics equally without weighting. 

The BLM acknowledges these data limitations but believes that use of a relatively large number of 

metrics (i.e., 13 for the cities and 12 for the Tribes) mitigates the limitations and produces results that are 

useful and informative, especially when reviewed in conjunction with the interviews (see next section). 

Interviews with City and Tribal Representatives 

The BLM conducted interviews with city and tribal representatives in order to supplement the baseline 

data with representatives’ personal experiences, perspectives, perceptions, and insights, and to help tell 

each community’s “story” in relation to the RMPs. The BLM developed brief, introductory geographic 

and economic profiles of the selected communities to have some familiarity with the communities prior to 

the interviews. Appendix O contains these profiles. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

575 | Page

The BLM contacted each of the selected communities’ governments by phone and letter inviting their 

participation. Appendix O contains copies of the letters. Of the 13 cities, 11 participated in an interview, 1 

provided written responses to questions, and 1 declined to participate. Of the seven Tribes, two 

participated in an interview. The interviews typically lasted 60 to 90 minutes. 

Each community government could decide who it wanted to participate. City representatives included city 

managers/administrators, mayors, county commissioners, and members of advisory boards. Tribal 

representatives included Tribal chairpersons, executive directors, and other staff. The interview 

conversations ranged widely but focused on the following questions: 

x How do you view your community’s “capacity,” that is your community’s ability to face changes, 

respond to external and internal stresses, create and take advantage of opportunities, and meet its 

needs? 

x How do you view your community’s “resiliency,” that is your community’s ability to adapt to 

change over time? 

x How do the ways the BLM manages its resources affect your community (its capacity and 

resiliency)? 

x Have changes in the BLM’s resource management over time affected your community? In what 

ways? 

x Are there changes in the ways that the BLM manages its resources that would increase your 

community’s capacity and resiliency? 

Note that the while many of the interviewees were community leaders, they spoke as individuals from the 

communities and not as official representatives of the communities. Thus, while the BLM takes their 

views as representative of the communities, it recognizes that the communities did not formally endorse 

the opinions expressed and that diversity of opinion in each community is likely. 

Final Adjusted Capacity and Resiliency Categories 

The interviews provided valuable insights into the communities. Following each interview, the BLM 

summarized the interview and sent it to the interview participants for comment. Appendix O contains all 

14 interviews/written responses. 

Based on what the interviews revealed about the communities and including insights that supplemented or 

put into perspective the baseline data, the BLM adjusted some of the communities’ final assigned capacity 

and resiliency categories. This last step was qualitative and was grounded in the interviews as 

documented. 

Tribal Statement 

The tribes requested the following statement be included, given the data limitations described above, and 

the difficulty of using these data in an analysis of capacity and resiliency of the tribes in the planning area. 

The Cooperating Agency Advisory Group’s Tribal Working Group developed the following statement: 

There are varying acreages of O& C lands located within the ancestral homelands of the seven western 

Oregon Tribes. Management of these lands has a direct impact on the cultural interests, traditional 

lifeways, and economic wellbeing of Tribal members. 

As defined above, capacity and resiliency from a social sciences perspective is a measure of a 

community’s or group of people’s ability to respond to certain events such as natural disasters, major 

economic change, external and internal stresses and to take advantage of opportunities to meet needs. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

576 | Page

However, it must be well communicated and understood that when applying a measure of capacity and 

resiliency to Tribes, that meaning may appropriately be interpreted differently. 

Census data and the developed metrics used in this analysis become problematic when assessing Tribal 

capacity and resiliency. Oregon Tribes which had their federal status terminated in the 1950s and then 

were restored to federal recognition in the 1980s do not have a single reservation where all Tribal 

members live. The Congressional Acts restoring these Tribes established multiple county service areas 

where the Tribes have historical and cultural interests and where many Tribal members reside. These 

county service areas also have legal meaning for Tribal members to receive governmental services. The 

census data and metrics when applied to counties and cities focuses on a specific geographic location 

and the population living in this area. Using this same approach for the identified Tribal reservations is 

inaccurate because the focus for Tribes is a distinct group of people with special legal status living in 

multiple county locations. Applying the developed metrics to only Tribal members living on the 

specified reservation and in the respective county location gives conclusions which most likely are not 

reflective of the total Tribal population. 

In respect to historic resiliency, Tribes have demonstrated perseverance and resiliency to the highest 

degree. Tribes have endured over two hundred years of devastation following the European occupation 

of native lands in North America. Tribes have also adapted to adverse actions, laws and policies of the 

United States government. Tribal people are still here, and in many cases, thriving – preserving 

culture, raising families, executing government functions, and significantly contributing to native and 

non-native people and their communities. Given that, it becomes clear that resiliency takes on a unique 

meaning when applied to Tribes. 

For Tribes and their members there is also a culture dimension when determining capacity and 

resiliency. Those with strong ties to Tribal culture and active in traditional lifeways may have a very 

robust sense of capacity and resiliency which is not reflected by the non-Tribal analytical model used in 

this analysis. 

Effects Analysis 

The regional scale of the combined RMPs and the geographical breadth of their potential impacts is such 

that it is not possible to analyze with useful precision how the different RMP alternatives would affect 

one specific local community versus another. Instead, the analysis assumed that effects to regions and 

counties will affect the local communities within those regions and counties, and either increase or 

decrease local community capacity depending on the different effects. 

The capacity and resiliency effects analysis applied the environmental effects outputs from Issues 2 and 3 

to the local communities as identified in the final adjusted capacity and resiliency categories. The key 

outputs from these issues were economic activity (jobs) and county payments. The analysis assumed that

the communities in the categories were generally representative of the communities in the BLM district 

economic areas that the Issue 2 analysis modeled. 

Affected Environment 

Capacity and Resiliency Baseline 

Table 3-195 presents the baseline data. Column 2 of the table shows the comparison (reference) number 

used in applying the metric. For example, for the first metric, “Population size compared to city average 

in sample”, the comparison number is 7,264, which is the average population size of the thirteen cities in 

the sample (or in the case of the Tribes, the seven Tribes). Column 3 explains how the data should be 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

577 | Page

interpreted, that is what the purpose of the metric is and “what it is telling us” about capacity and/or 

resiliency. Column 4 explains how the scoring works. For example, in the case of the first metric, a city 

with a population 150 percent higher than 7,264 gets a score of 5 (e.g., St. Helens, which has a population 

of 12,807), whereas a city with a population between 125 percent and 75 percent of 7,264 has a score of 3 

(e.g., Lincoln City, which has a population of 7,926). This differential reflects the fact that, other things 

being equal, places with greater population tend to have higher resilience (Harris et al. 2000). 


Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

580 | Page

The scores for each metric range from 5 (higher capacity) to 1 (lower capacity). The theoretical maximum 

score for a city is 65 (13 metrics times 5). For the Tribes the maximum is 60 because their dataset used 

only 12 metrics (the “assessed value per capita” is not applicable to tribal lands). Appendix O includes the 

raw data for the metrics. 

At the bottom of Table 3-195 are the combined total scores for all 13 metrics for each city and tribe and a 

comparison of the total to the theoretical maximum score, expressed as a percentage. For example, 

Drain’s total score from all 13 metrics is 30, which is 46 percent of 65. 

Interview Summary and Conclusions 

Capacity 

The community representatives had different perceptions of their capacity, depending on their 

circumstances and situations. Many of the interviewees felt that their communities are very challenged by 

today’s economic environment; they do not feel they have recovered from the 2007 to 2009 recession. 

Examples include Coquille, the Coquille Indian Tribe, Gold Beach, Klamath Falls, Rogue River, and 

Winston. These communities tended to fall into two groups, those whose representatives regard the 

community as timber-dependent and those whose representatives regard their economies as heavily reliant 

on the tourism sector, which tends to be seasonal and dependent on the broader economy. 

Few, if any community representatives admitted to having an excess of capacity. Indeed, almost every 

community representative spoke of community financial stresses, especially in light of Oregon’s citizendriven tax cap initiatives that limit cities’ ability to raise revenue. Many community representatives spoke 

of the impact of the reductions in timber payments to the counties, which have resulted in the counties 

reducing or cutting off funds to the cities. 

On the other hand, several community representatives spoke of their strong human capacity, which is the 

willingness and eagerness of their residents to pitch in to benefit and support community life, especially 

in hard times. Examples include Coquille and Junction City. One counter case is St. Helens, whose 

representatives cited a loss of social cohesion, as they estimated 75 percent of the City’s labor force now 

commutes to jobs in Portland and Hillsboro. 

Resiliency 

Community representatives had a range of perceptions regarding their resiliency. Some representatives 

felt their communities are at a “tipping point” or crossroads with respect to their survival as communities 

with the capacity to meet their needs and obligations fully. The Grants Pass representatives used this 

actual “tipping point” phrase, but others expressing similar feelings included those from Coquille, the 

Coquille Indian Tribe, Drain, Gold Beach, Klamath Falls, Rogue River, and Winston. 

These representatives feel their communities have low resiliency. To a varying extent, they see their

communities as victims of a combined set of circumstances that has hit them hard: 

x Decline of the timber industry and the resulting loss of “family wage” jobs (the jobs that have 

replaced timber-related jobs pay less) 

x Decline in payments to counties that have resulted in reductions in pass through funds to cities 

x A broader economy that, for some, has not recovered from the 2007 to 2009 recession 

x Lack of economic options. This varies by community but particularly affects geographically more 

isolated communities (Coquille Indian Tribe, Gold Beach, Klamath Falls) and smaller, timberdependent communities where the ebbs and flows in timber-related employment have major 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

581 | Page

direct and ripple impacts on the community (Coquille, Drain, Rogue River, Winston). The 

Coquille representative, for example, estimated that 30 to 50 percent of all jobs are at the City’s 

one remaining mill. 

x Broad political-economic shifts that favor Oregon’s larger cities and metropolitan areas at the 

expense of western Oregon’s rural areas. Smaller communities’ representatives feel that they just 

can’t compete. 

x Some community representatives feel that decision-making and related lawsuits, especially at the 

Federal level, are unbalanced; they overly favor environmental interests and considerations 

compared to local economic interests, (e.g., Drain, Klamath Falls, Sublimity). Some 

representatives feel that what they perceive as overly protective environmental regulations deny 

them the tools to adapt economically. 

x Demographic shifts, especially loss of school age children (Coquille, Drain, Rogue River, 

Winston), which is the result of the loss of jobs that support families, and, in some communities, 

an aging population. 

Representatives of both coastal communities (e.g., Florence, Gold Beach) and some interior communities 

(e.g., Klamath Falls, Rogue River) described their communities as experiencing influxes of retirees.80

Further, the general feeling among these representatives was that their retirees are not particularly 

beneficial fiscally or economically, unlike for communities that attract retirees that are more affluent. 

Some community representatives (Coquille, Gold Beach, and Klamath Falls) described divisions among 

their residents in reaction to these circumstances. They described some groups as seeing the potential for 

a timber-based economy to come back, while others think that it is not coming back and that their 

communities need to adapt to the “new normal.” The representatives pointed out that these divisions make 

it difficult to set future-oriented community policy. 

Most of the community representatives described their efforts to adapt to their new situation, 

notwithstanding the challenges described above. 

x Some communities have been able to “move on” by diversifying their economies, e.g., Junction 

City, Sublimity. 

x Others are trying to diversify their economies, e.g., Coquille Indian Tribe, Florence, Grand 

Ronde, Grants Pass, and Klamath Falls. 

x Several smaller community representatives described how challenging it is for them to diversify, 

e.g., Coquille, Gold Beach, Klamath Falls, and Rogue River. 

x Other community representatives said they were less tied to the natural-resource economy in the 

first place, e.g., Lincoln City. 

x Two of the communities, St. Helens and Molalla, are near the Portland and Salem metropolitan 

areas, and their representatives pointed out that much of their labor forces now commute to these 

areas. 

 

80 The BLM speculates that the lower cost of living in smaller communities may attract some retirees, though some 

communities also cited Oregon’s high quality of life.
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

582 | Page

BLM Influences on Capacity and Resiliency 

The interior communities in the southern part of the planning area (Coquille Indian Tribe, Drain, Grants 

Pass, Rogue River, Winston) tended to perceive more direct effects from the BLM compared to the other 

communities. However, nearly all the communities feel that BLM affects them in two ways: BLM’s

management impacts on the broader economy; and its impacts on the counties, which they feel ripple 

through to the communities. The Grants Pass interviewees said that cities were “joined at the hip” with 

the counties. The Coquille Indian Tribe interviewees spoke of the BLM’s impact on the tribe in three 

ways: direct effects on the Coos County economy, indirect economic effects on the tribal members who 

are spread across five counties, and direct effects on the Tribe due to its legal mandate to manage its 

forest consistent with BLM’s management practices. The Tribe specifically wants to decouple 

management of the Coquille Forest from BLM management practices. 

With respect to the BLM’s impacts, the way the BLM manages timber is by far the number one issue of 

concern among the communities. The primary concern is economic. The community representatives share 

a common view that the BLM is party to a worldview that no longer allows for economic use of a 

(timber) resource that is abundant and renewable. In their view, the BLM is not managing the resource for 

the benefit of local communities, and, in consequence, they experience the effects of millions of dollars of 

potential income that are lost every year. A few of the communities (Drain, Sublimity) referred to the 

O&C Act of 1937 in making these points. 

In this view, expressed most strongly by representatives of the more timber-dependent communities, the 

loss of income has hurt them economically and fiscally. The economic effects described by these 

representatives include the loss of family wage jobs, and the high poverty rates and demographic changes 

(fewer families with school age children, more elderly and retirees) that they see as resulting in 

communities failing to sustain local business and community activity. They also described reductions in 

services the counties provide (sheriff, courts, libraries, jail, health and social services, and juvenile 

services) and reductions in pass-through funds from the counties (for street repairs and upgrades). Several 

representatives (Coquille, Coquille Indian Tribe, Grand Ronde, Winston) spoke of the negative impacts 

from cuts in funding for schools that affect their residents and Tribal members. 

Fire is another major management issue for the communities, including the perceived lack of timber 

management that some interviewees believe has led to increases in fires. The Grants Pass representatives 

felt very strongly about this, citing large fires in 2013 (such as the 75,000-acre Big Windy fire) that 

effectively shut down the city, causing economic losses, heat, human health effects, and negative 

reputational impacts. From the community representatives’ perspectives, the cost of fighting forest fires is 

huge, affecting State budgets and subsequently affecting counties and cities as the State directs resources 

away from other priorities. 

Several representatives (Coquille, Grants Pass, Klamath Falls, Rogue River, Sublimity, Winston) felt that 

fewer managers and loggers in the forest and the steep decline in harvest since the 1990s have resulted in 

forests that are overgrown and more susceptible to damaging fires. They add that reduced or blocked 

access due to lack of management makes fighting the fires more difficult. 

A few of the communities mentioned nearby BLM-managed recreation or had management concerns for 

specific sites (Coquille, Florence, Gold Beach, Rogue River, Winston). However, representatives of most 

communities did not describe BLM-provided recreation as a major factor affecting their community, and 

only a few places (e.g., Grants Pass), perceive it as important to local economies. A few communities 

cited lack of access and increasingly reduced access to the forest as reducing or limiting recreational 

activity, including hunting. The Grand Ronde representative specifically expressed disappointment over 

declining opportunities to hunt deer and elk, fewer openings and meadows due to lack of active 

management. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

583 | Page

Some communities spoke of the BLM’s role in supporting both local, resident-based recreation and the 

region’s broader efforts to attract visitors (e.g., Gold Beach, Klamath Falls, and Lincoln City). However, 

some expressed the view that recreation/tourism were poor substitutes for local, resource-based jobs that 

provide family-wage salaries. 

Representatives did not mention BLM management of other resources, such as grazing, minerals, 

fisheries, or cultural resources.as factors affecting communities, except in site-specific circumstances. The 

tribes expressed a broader interest in these management practices, since their interests range over multiple 

counties. 

Capacity and Resiliency Summary 

The total scores from the capacity and resiliency data baseline are fairly close, but there are differences. 

For example, the total percentage point spread was 23 points among the cities and 18 points among the 

tribes (Table 3-196). While strong data trends are a little difficult to discern, with the data from some 

metrics at variance with other data, it is possible to make the following overall observations: 

x Cities in the northern part of the planning area generally have higher capacity and resiliency 

scores. 

x Cities in the southern part of the planning area generally have lower capacity and resiliency 

scores. 

x Grants Pass is a notable exception, its higher score driven by population, income, and 

employment metrics. 

x Cities on the coast generally have lower capacity and resiliency scores. Gold Beach is a notable 

exception, its higher score driven by population, income, and recreation metrics. 

x While there were few larger cities in the sample (only 3 of 13 are >10,000 population), they 

tended to have higher scores, though Klamath Falls had a lower score. 

x Data limitations and historical/cultural considerations make it difficult to assign capacity and 

resiliency scores to the tribes. 

There are no hard and fast rules to distinguish between different levels of capacity and resiliency, but 

distinguishing among communities is useful for assessing the impacts of the alternatives. Table 3-196

recognizes four capacity and resiliency categories based on the data score spread; high, medium, low and 

very low - see the categories and ranges in the columns 1 and 2 and assignments in column 3.81

 

 

81 This grouping of communities based on resiliency scores is consistent with other analyses of the effects of public 

land management, for example: Harris et al. 2000, op. cit. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

584 | Page

Table 3-196. Capacity and resiliency data summary. 

1 2 3

Capacity and

Resiliency Category

Percent of Maximum

Data Score

Category Based on

Data Score Alone

High >65% Grants Pass

Sublimity

Medium 60 – 64%

Gold Beach

Molalla

St. Helens

Low 50 – 59%

Coquille

Florence

Junction City

Klamath Falls

Rogue River

Winston

Very Low <50% Drain

Lincoln City

Note: due to data limitations the table does not include the scores of the tribes (see Analytical Methods). 

Figure 3-151 shows the final assignments including adjustments to the scores in Table 3-196 based on 

the insights from the interviews. The figure includes overlapping categories recognizing that capacity and 

resiliency are concepts that encompass a wide range of contributory factors on which communities may 

be variously stronger or weaker. 

Figure 3-151. Capacity and resiliency affected environment summary. 

Environmental Effects 

BLM management affects local communities in two primary ways: 1) its effects on local economies, 

especially jobs and the associated earnings that result in spending in the communities; and, 2) its effects 

on county payments that affect the services the counties provide in communities, and in some cases, funds 

that counties pass through to communities. 

Employment 

Under the No Action alternative and under Alternative C, BLM-based employment (i.e., the number of 

jobs resulting from BLM activities and programs), would increase in every BLM district model area 

Not Assigned

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated 

Tribes of Coos Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians,

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, Confederated 

Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, 

Coquille Indian Tribe, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua 

Tribe of Indians, Klamath Tribes

LOW

Coquille, Florence, Junction City, 

Klamath Falls, Rogue River, Winston

VERY LOW

Drain, Lincoln City

MEDIUM

Gold Beach, Molalla, St. Helens

HIGH

Grants Pass, Sublimity
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

585 | Page

(Table 3-196). This job growth would increase capacity and resiliency in local communities across the 

planning area. Table 3-197 shows change in BLM-based employment by district model area. Table 3-

198 shows the effects of this change on the 13 selected cities. 

Table 3-197. Change in BLM-based employment by district model area by alternative. 

District Model Area 

Number 

of Jobs 

in 2012 

Percent Change in BLM-Based Total 

Employment by BLM District Economic 

Model Area 

Number of 

Communities by 

Capacity-Resiliency 

No Category 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Coos Bay 1,198 3% -24% -22% 34% -48% Low2

Eugene 1,297 72% 41% 70% 158% 19% Medium1, Low1

Klamath Falls 231 25% -5% 17% 29% -18% Low1

Medford 1,326 102% 27% 59% 75% 10% High1, Very Low1

Roseburg 1,225 40% -12% 5% 58% -20% Low1, Very Low1

Salem-Other 851 4% 9% 22% 60% -3% Low1

Salem-Portland MSA 1,275 0.1% 5% 9% 22% 1% High1, Medium2

Totals 7,403 39% 8% 25% 68% -7% 

Notes: 

1. Jobs in 2012 are the “current modified” jobs from Table 3-185. 

2. Shaded cells under the alternatives mean a 20 percent or greater increase in the number of jobs compared to current. Bold underlined numbers 

mean a 20 percent or greater decrease in the number of jobs. Bold, no underline means a decrease in the number of jobs of less than 20 percent. 

3. Number of Communities by Capacity-Resiliency Category is from Table 3-196. 

Source: BLM, based on employment modelling in Issue 2. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

586 | Page

Table 3-198. Effects of change in BLM-based employment by community. 

Community

Capacity 

Resiliency 

Category

District County

Effect on Community by Alternative

(See Table Note for Explanation)

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Grants Pass High Medford Josephine +++ ++ +++ +++ +

Sublimity High Salem Marion + ++ +++

Junction City Medium Eugene Lane +++ ++ +++ +++ +

Molalla Medium Salem Clackamas + ++

St. Helens Medium Salem Columbia + ++ +++

Coquille Low Coos Bay Coos -- -- ++ --

Florence Low Eugene Lane +++ ++ +++ +++ +

Gold Beach Low Coos Bay Curry -- -- ++ --

Klamath Falls Low Klamath Falls Klamath ++ + ++ -

Lincoln City Low Salem Lincoln + ++ +++

Winston Low Roseburg Douglas ++ - +++ -

Drain Very Low Roseburg Douglas ++ - +++ -

Rogue River Very Low Medford Jackson +++ ++ +++ +++ +

Notes: All symbology refers to change in BLM-based employment in relation to “current modified” jobs from Table 3-185. 

+ = minor benefit (6% to 20% increase); 

++ = moderate benefit (21% to 50% increase); 

+++ = strong benefit (>51% increase); 

- = minor negative impact (6% to 20% decrease); 

-- = moderate negative impact (21% to 50% decrease); 

--- = strong negative impact (>51% decrease). 

Blank cell indicates little or no effect (+5% to -5% change). 

Under the No Action alternative, the highest percentage employment increases would be in the Medford, 

Eugene, and Roseburg districts. This would benefit communities across all capacity and resiliency 

categories in these districts (such as Grants Pass, Florence, and Winston) but would have little or no effect 

on communities in other districts, including several communities with low capacity and resiliency such as 

Coquille and Gold Beach. 

Under Alternative C, the highest percentage increases would be in the Medford, Eugene, Roseburg, and 

Salem-Other districts. These districts all have communities with medium, low, and very low capacity and 

resiliency. However, as shown in Table 3-198, all communities would see moderate or strong benefits 

under this alternative. 

Alternatives A, B, and D would have mixed effects, increasing or decreasing community capacity and 

resiliency in different geographies (Table 3-197). Under Alternative A, the Coos Bay and Roseburg 

Districts and the Klamath Falls Field Office would see job losses. These districts contain communities 

with low or very low capacity and resiliency including Coquille, Gold Beach, Winston, and Drain. The 

Eugene and Medford Districts would see the highest job increases under Alternative A, but these districts 

have more of a mix of higher and lower capacity/resiliency communities compared to the districts that 

would see job losses. 

Under Alternative B, only the Coos Bay District would lose jobs. This would have negative economic 

effects on the District’s low capacity/resiliency communities, such as Gold Beach and Coquille. The other 

districts, especially Eugene and Medford, would see job increases and the communities within these 

districts, such as Grants Pass and Roque River, would see modest to strong benefits. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

587 | Page

Under Alternative D, all district model areas except Salem-Portland MSA, Eugene, and Medford would 

see job losses. The highest percentage losses would be in the Coos Bay and Roseburg Districts both of 

which contain low and very low capacity/resiliency communities. 

County Payments 

For purposes of the effects analysis, the BLM assumed that the Federal Government would make 

payments to counties using the formula in the O&C Act (see Socioeconomics Issue 3). Under the 

distribution formula, the counties in the Medford, Roseburg and Salem districts would receive 73 percent 

of the total payments (Table 3-199). 

Table 3-199. Shares of county payments by BLM district 

District/Field Office Sum of County Percentages 

Coos Bay 10 

Eugene 15 

Klamath Falls 2 

Medford 28 

Roseburg 25 

Salem 20 

Source: Table 3-190

Table 3-200 shows what the payments would be in 2018 by district using the payments to counties data 

and the distribution formula from Tables 3-190 and 3-192. Table 3-201 shows the potential effects of 

these payments on the 13 selected cities. 

Table 3-200. County payments by district by alternative. 

District/ 

Field Office 

2012 Payment 

Under O&C 

Act Formula1

Payments by Alternative in 2018 (2012$) 

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Coos Bay $1,117,223 $4,441,647 $2,685,209 $3,479,049 $6,440,522 $1,786,198 

Eugene $1,786,387 $7,101,984 $4,293,522 $5,562,836 $10,298,091 $2,856,046 

Klamath Falls $273,749 $1,088,320 $657,946 $852,458 $1,578,096 $437,665 

Medford $3,246,381 $12,906,356 $7,802,570 $10,109,279 $18,714,606 $5,190,261 

Roseburg $2,930,517 $11,650,603 $7,043,401 $9,125,674 $16,893,725 $4,685,263 

Salem $2,344,415 $9,320,482 $5,634,721 $7,300,539 $13,514,980 $3,748,210 

Totals $11,698,672 $46,509,392 $28,117,370 $36,429,835 $67,440,021 $18,703,644 1

 Estimated O&C payments in 2012, had county payments been based on the O&C formula that year (see discussion in Issue 3). 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

588 | Page

Table 3-201. Potential effects of county payments by community. 

Community

Capacity 

Resiliency 

Category

County

Share of 

County 

Payments to 

Each County1

Effects by Alternative

(See Table Note for Explanation)

No 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Grants Pass High Josephine 12.1% +++ + ++ +++ +

Sublimity High Marion 1.5% + +

Junction City Medium Lane 15.3% +++ ++ ++ +++ +

Molalla Medium Clackamas 5.6% + + + ++

St. Helens Medium Columbia 2.1% + + +

Coquille Low Coos 5.9% ++ + + ++

Florence Low Lane 15.3% +++ ++ ++ +++ +

Gold Beach Low Curry 3.7% + + + ++

Klamath Falls Low Klamath 2.3% + + ++

Lincoln City Low Lincoln 0.4% +

Winston Low Douglas 25.1% +++ +++ +++ +++ +

Drain Very Low Douglas 25.1% +++ +++ +++ +++ +

Rogue River Very Low Jackson 15.7% +++ ++ ++ +++ + 1

 Under the O&C Act distribution formula. See Table 3-190. 

+ = small benefit ($0.5 million to $2.0 million); 

++ = moderate benefit ($2.0 million to $4.0 million); 

+++ = strong benefit (>$4.0 million). 

Blank cell indicates little or no effect (<$0.5 million). 

Payments to counties would increase under all alternatives, relative to what the payments would have 

been in 2012 under the O&C Act formula. Driven by timber harvest volumes, payments would be highest 

under Alternative C, followed by the No Action alternative. See the discussion in Issue 3. 

Relative to current population, the formula generally benefits the offices with smaller populations. For 

example, counties in the Salem District, with approximately 74 percent of the planning area population, 

receive approximately 20 percent of the payments. This would limit beneficial effects to lower capacity 

resiliency communities in the Salem District such as Lincoln City. Roseburg, with approximately 3 

percent of the planning area population, receives 25 percent. As noted under methods, the BLM assumed 

continuation of the current distribution formula. 

The payments would benefit the offices with low capacity/resiliency communities especially in the Coos 

Bay, Medford, Roseburg, and Eugene Districts. Examples would include Coquille, Drain, Florence, and 

Winston. Klamath Falls would see some benefits, but since Klamath County receives only 2 percent of 

total receipts, the benefits would be small. 

Under the alternatives where employment and earnings would fall in some offices, (i.e., Alternatives A, 

B, and D), the loss of total BLM-based earnings would be greater than the earnings from the county 

payments. The economic impact of earnings losses to communities with low capacity and resiliency 

would be substantial.82

82 For example, under Alternative A, Coos Bay would see a net loss in worker earnings of approximately $13.8 

million ($54.4 million minus $39.1 million = $15.3 million (Table 3-185), $15.3 million minus $1.5 million =$13.8 

million (Appendix O, Table O-6).
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

589 | Page

Issue 6 

Would the alternatives result in environmental justice impacts (disproportionally high and adverse effects 

on minority, low-income, or Tribal populations or communities)? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income 

Populations (1994) requires analyses of Federal actions to address human health and environmental 

conditions in minority and low-income communities, and to ensure that disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on these communities are identified and addressed. 

Environmental justice refers to the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement 

of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (EPA 2007). In the context of the RMPs for Western 

Oregon, a potential environmental justice population is one that could experience disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects from the implementation of an RMP. 

To identify potential environmental justice populations, the BLM collected the most recently available 

population and income data for populations in the following 284 geographies in the planning area: 

x 19 counties 

x 161 incorporated places (i.e., cities)83

x 97 census-designated places (CDPs)84

x 7 Federally-recognized Tribes with reservation and off-reservation trust land 

The BLM also collected data for the State of Oregon. The State data serve as the reference for 

determining which local geographies contain potential environmental justice populations. 

The BLM collected the population and income data from the American Community Survey (ACS). The 

ACS is an ongoing survey by the U.S. Census Bureau that provides data every year, and provides more 

recent and more detailed data compared to the decennial census. The ACS gets data from a sample of the 

population. As a result, the data have statistical margins of error. The margins of error vary across the 

geography sampled with the data from smaller places generally having greater margins of error than 

larger places.85 In addition, the ACS compiles data from multiple years; the data in this analysis are from 

2009 to 2012. 

To identify potential environmental justice populations the BLM used the following criteria, based on 

guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality for addressing environmental justice (CEQ 1997): 

 

83 Three of these 161 places, Bonanza, Butte Falls, and Waterloo are towns not cities, but for simplicity of 

presentation this analysis counts them as cities. 

84 Census Designated Places are settled concentrations of population that identifiable by name but are not legally 

incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. State and local officials and the Census Bureau 

delineate CDPs cooperatively. 

85 See the US Census Bureau website (http://www.census.gov ) for more information about the ACS, sampling, and 

margin of error. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

590 | Page

1. Geographies where the minority or Hispanic population exceeds 50 percent of the total population. 

2. Geographies where the minority or Hispanic population is “meaningfully greater” than the 

statewide minority or Hispanic population percentage. This analysis defines meaningfully greater as 

a minority or Hispanic population percentage that is 25 percent or higher than the statewide 

percentage. 

3. Geographies where the percentage of the population in poverty is meaningfully greater than the 

statewide percentage. This analysis defines meaningfully greater as a poverty population percentage 

that is 25 percent or higher than the statewide percentage. 

4. Geographies where the percentage of the population with low income is meaningfully greater than 

the statewide percentage. 

Minority populations include individuals that belong to one or more of the following races: AfricanAmerican, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander, Other race, or 

Multiple Races. For this analysis, the BLM summed the separate minority populations to calculate a total 

minority population for each geography. Minority individuals also include those identifying as Hispanic 

or Latino, regardless of race and the BLM conducted a separate Hispanic or Latino population analysis. 86

The population in poverty criterion uses data from the ACS that identifies persons as below poverty level 

if that individual’s income, or family’s total income, is below a pre-defined threshold (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014a).87 This analysis defines low-income as the percentage of the households whose income is 

50 percent or less than the state median household income. For criteria 2, 3, and 4 above, this analysis 

defines “meaningfully greater” as a population percentage that is 25 percent or more higher than the 

statewide percentage. 

The regional scale of this planning effort and the geographical breadth of its potential impacts is such that 

it is not possible to analyze with useful precision how the different RMP alternatives would affect one 

specific geography below the county level, such as a city or CDP versus another. Instead, the analysis 

assumed that positive or negative effects to regions and counties will have similar effects on the local 

geographies within those regions and counties. 

The first step in the effects analysis was to identify any negative effects that would result from 

implementation of the RMPs under each alternative, and then to assess whether they would fall 

disproportionately on minority or low-income populations. Views of what constitutes a negative or 

positive impact vary depending on different perspectives and values, but this analysis assumed that 

increases in BLM-based employment, and the increase in earnings that would result, would be positive 

impacts, and that decreases in employment would be negative. Similarly, this analysis assumed that 

increases in payments to counties would be a positive impact, and decreases in payments to counties 

would negative. The effects analysis section addresses these two types of effects on identified 

environmental justice populations. 

The alternatives could affect environmental justice populations in other ways. For example, dependence 

on a resource or use, such as access to recreation or to grazing, that the alternatives would allocate or 

manage differently could lead to positive or negative impacts. However, such impacts would not likely 

86 The U.S. Census Bureau defines race (African-American, Asian, etc.) separately from ethnicity (Hispanic or NonHispanic). 

87 Each person or family is assigned one out of 48 possible poverty thresholds that vary by size of the family and 

ages of the members. For example the 2013 threshold for a family of four with two children under 18 was $23,624. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

591 | Page

result in disproportionally high and adverse effects, and the locally specific data necessary to assess such 

impacts at a landscape level are beyond the scope of this analysis. 

The Planning Criteria provide additional detail regarding the Analytical Methods (USDI BLM 2014 pp. 

149-151). 

Background 

Table 3-202 presents racial minority and Hispanic data for the counties in the planning area for 2000 and 

2012. As of 2012, the minority population of the planning area as a whole was approximately 520,000 or 

17 percent of the total population, slightly higher than the minority percentage for the State of Oregon (15 

percent). Since 2000, when the planning area’s minority population was 14 percent, the minority 

population has increased by 26 percent, though four counties, all in the Salem District, had minority 

growth rate increases above 40 percent (Linn, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill). 

Table 3-202. Racial minority and Hispanic population change, 2000 to 2012. 

Geography

2012 2000 Change 2000 to 2012 

All Minorities Hispanic All Minorities Hispanic All Minorities Hispanic 

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % 

Oregon 563,921 15% 449,888 12% 459,776 13% 275,314 8% 104,145 23% 174,574 46% 

Planning Area 519,755 17% 387,563 11% 411,827 14% 234,876 8% 107,928 26% 152,687 65% 

Benton Co. 10,104 12% 5,486 6% 8,475 11% 3,645 5% 1,629 19% 1,841 38% 

Clackamas Co. 38,017 10% 29,137 8% 29,539 9% 16,744 5% 8,478 29% 12,393 56% 

Clatsop Co. 3,110 8% 2,820 8% 2,445 7% 1,597 4% 665 27% 1,223 70% 

Columbia Co. 3,405 7% 2,035 4% 2,430 6% 1,093 3% 975 40% 942 64% 

Coos Co. 5,937 9% 3,456 5% 5,039 8% 2,133 3% 898 18% 1,323 62% 

Curry Co. 1,686 8% 1,258 6% 1,503 7% 761 4% 183 12% 497 56% 

Douglas Co. 7,261 7% 5,042 5% 6,165 6% 3,283 3% 1,096 18% 1,759 44% 

Jackson Co. 16,334 8% 21,894 11% 15,144 8% 12,126 7% 1,190 8% 9,768 61% 

Josephine Co. 4,969 6% 5,274 6% 4,623 6% 3,229 4% 346 7% 2,045 50% 

Klamath Co. 7,945 12% 6,990 11% 8,080 13% 4,961 8% -135 -2% 2,029 35% 

Lane Co. 37,680 11% 26,125 7% 30,231 9% 14,874 5% 7,449 25% 11,251 61% 

Lincoln Co. 5,326 12% 3,662 8% 4,187 9% 2,119 5% 1,139 27% 1,543 67% 

Linn Co. 9,901 8% 9,097 8% 7,010 7% 4,514 4% 2,891 41% 4,583 78% 

Marion Co. 61,715 20% 76,429 24% 52,365 18% 48,714 17% 9,350 18% 27,715 42% 

Multnomah Co. 158,601 22% 79,791 11% 137,661 21% 49,607 8% 20,940 15% 30,184 44% 

Polk Co. 9,316 12% 9,122 12% 6,741 11% 5,480 9% 2,575 38% 3,642 38% 

Tillamook Co. 1,838 7% 2,262 9% 1,490 6% 1,244 5% 348 23% 1,018 75% 

Washington Co. 122,803 23% 83,085 16% 79,335 18% 49,735 11% 43,468 55% 33,350 40% 

Yamhill Co. 13,807 14% 14,598 15% 9,364 11% 9,017 11% 4,443 47% 5,581 39% 

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Census 2000 

Summary File 1 (SF 1), Table DP-1; American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (Sept 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

DP05, S1901 and S1701; American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (July 2014). 

Notes: Hispanic status is considered separately from racial identification. 

The Hispanic population share of the planning area population was 11 percent in 2012, which was very 

close to the percentage for the State as a whole (12 percent). Since 2000 the planning area’s Hispanic 

population increased by 65 percent. Nearly two-thirds of this increase was in three counties: Marion, 

Multnomah, and Washington. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

592 | Page

The median household income in the planning area as whole in 2012 was $51,197, a little higher than the 

statewide median of $50,036 (Table 3-203). Household income varies considerably across the planning 

area. The lowest median incomes (below $40,000) are in the southwest, in Coos, Curry and Josephine 

counties, and the highest (above $55,000) in the north, in Clackamas, Columbia, and Washington 

counties. Between 2000 and 2012, the median household income increased in all counties in the planning 

area. For the planning area as whole, the increase of $8,955 was slightly lower than for the State of 

Oregon. 

Table 3-203. Poverty population and median household income, 2000 and 2012. 

Geography

2012 2000 Change 2000 to 2012

Population 

in Poverty

Median 

Household 

Income

Population 

in Poverty

Median 

Household 

Income

Population 

in Poverty

Median 

Household 

Income

Oregon 584,059 $50,036 388,740 $40,916 195,319 $9,120

Planning Area 515,861 $51,197 341,468 $42,242 174,393 $8,955

Benton Co. 17,418 $48,635 10,665 $41,897 6,753 $6,738

Clackamas Co. 36,265 $63,951 21,969 $52,080 14,296 $11,871

Clatsop Co. 5,725 $44,330 4,625 $36,301 1,100 $8,029

Columbia Co. 6,797 $55,358 3,910 $45,797 2,887 $9,561

Coos Co. 10,661 $37,853 9,257 $31,542 1,404 $6,311

Curry Co. 3,048 $38,401 2,554 $30,117 494 $8,284

Douglas Co. 18,777 $40,096 12,999 $33,223 5,778 $6,873

Jackson Co. 33,346 $43,664 22,269 $36,461 11,077 $7,203

Josephine Co. 16,301 $36,699 11,193 $31,229 5,108 $5,470

Klamath Co. 12,143 $41,066 10,515 $31,537 1,628 $9,529

Lane Co. 64,705 $42,628 45,423 $36,942 19,282 $5,686

Lincoln Co. 7,262 $41,996 6,084 $32,769 1,178 $9,227

Linn Co. 19,237 $47,129 11,618 $37,518 7,619 $9,611

Marion Co. 55,223 $46,654 37,104 $40,314 18,119 $6,340

Multnomah Co. 123,434 $51,582 81,711 $41,278 41,723 $10,304

Polk Co. 10,788 $52,365 6,943 $42,311 3,845 $10,054

Tillamook Co. 4,197 $41,869 2,718 $34,269 1,479 $7,600

Washington Co. 57,466 $64,375 32,575 $52,122 24,891 $12,253

Yamhill Co. 13,068 $53,950 7,336 $44,111 5,732 $9,839

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 Census 2000 Summary 

File 3 (SF 3), Table DP-3; American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (Sept 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

DP05, S1901 and S1701; American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (July 2014). 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

593 | Page

Affected Environment 

Minority Populations 

Table 3-204 summarizes the data for minority populations in the planning area. Map 3-8 shows their 

locations. Appendix O contains the data for all the minority population geographies in the planning area. 

Table 3-204. Summary of minority populations meeting environmental justice criteria. 

Geography 

Number of Geographies 

50 Percent 

Criterion 

Additional Meaningfully Greater 

Criterion Total, Both Criteria 

Counties 0 3 3 

Cities 5 29 34 

CDPs 2 19 21 

Tribes 6 0 6 

Totals 13 51 64 

Population Population 

Total Minority Total Minority Total Minority 

Counties 1,584,319 343,119 1,584,319 343,119 

Cities 28,637 16,718 86,766 21,028 115,403 37,746 

CDPs 261 146 15,286 4,457 15,547 4,603 

Tribes 5,247 4,647 5,247 4,647 

Totals 34,145 21,511 1,686,371 368,604 1,720,516 390,115 

Sources: BLM staff compiled from: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009. Appendix O 

contains more detailed source descriptions. 

Notes: Population numbers for cities and CDPs do not include those cities in Marion, Multnomah, and Washington counties. 

 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

595 | Page

50 Percent Criterion 

Thirteen geographies meet the 50 percent criterion, (i.e., the racial minority or Hispanic population 

exceeds 50 percent of the total population). In total, these 13 geographies contain approximately 34,100 

people, or approximately one percent of the total population of the planning area. 

None of the 19 counties as a whole meets the 50 percent criterion. 

Six of the seven Tribal land areas meet the criterion. The only Tribe not meeting the criterion is the Cow 

Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. Note that the data for the Tribes have limitations. First, as noted 

in the Summary of Analytical Methods for Issue 5, the ACS data are subject to sampling error, and, in 

addition, some of the Tribes have very small populations (e.g., less than 30 persons) living on Tribal lands 

thereby compounding the potential for error. Second, the population on reservation and off-reservation 

trust land is not the entire Tribal membership. Some of the Tribes commented on this as part of the 

capacity/resiliency analysis. The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data for the entirety of a Tribe’s 

members. 

Seven other geographies meet the criterion: Summit CDP in Benton County; Chiloquin, Malin, and 

Merrill City in Klamath County; and Gervais, Woodburn, and Labish Village CDP in Marion County. Of 

these, five meet the criterion based on their Hispanic populations and three meet the criterion based on 

their non-Hispanic minority populations.88

Meaningfully Greater Criterion 

A total of 51 geographies, in addition to the 13 above, meet the meaningfully greater criterion, (i.e., the 

minority or Hispanic population is 25 percent or higher than the statewide percentages). The statewide 

percentages are 15 percent minority and 12 percent Hispanic. These geographies include three counties, 

29 cities, and 19 CDPs. The three counties are Marion, Multnomah, and Washington (Table 3-204 and 

Map 3-9). 

 

 

88 Labish Village in Marion County meets the criterion based on both its Hispanic and non-Hispanic minority 

populations. 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

597 | Page

Of the 48 cities and CDPs with meaningfully greater populations, 42 are in the Salem District, mostly 

along the I-5 corridor between Salem and Portland, and in the Portland metropolitan area itself. 

Total, Both Criteria 

The 64 geographies meet one or both of the criteria. These geographies contain approximately 1.72 

million people, or approximately 50 percent of the total population of the planning area (approximately 

3.4 million). Of the 1.72 million, approximately 390,000 are minority persons and approximately 199,000 

are Hispanic (some of whom could also be non-Hispanic minority persons, such as Black Hispanics). The 

City of Portland, with a 22 percent minority population, accounts for approximately 586,000 of the 1.72 

million, or 34 percent. 

Low- Income Populations 

Table 3-205 presents data for low-income populations in the planning area as of 2012. Map 3-8 shows 

their locations. Appendix O contains the data for all the low-income population geographies in the 

planning area. 

Table 3-205. Summary of low-income populations meeting environmental justice criteria. 

Geography Number of Geographies 

Poverty Additional Low Income Totals 

Counties 2 4 6 

Cities 45 18 63 

CDPs 31 16 47 

Tribes 5 1 6 

Totals 83 39 122 

Population 

Counties 33,719 17,249 50,968 

Cities 84,977 7,688 92,665 

CDPS 15,903 630 16,533 

Tribes 1,281 5 1,286 

Totals 135,880 25,571 161,451 

Sources: BLM staff compiled from: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009. Appendix O 

contains more detailed source descriptions. 

Note: To avoid double counting, the populations for additional low- income geographies exclude the populations counted as 

poverty. 

Poverty Criterion 

A total of 83 geographies meet the poverty criterion, (i.e., the percentage of residents in poverty is 25 

percent or higher than the statewide percentage, which is 15 percent). These geographies comprise 2 

counties (Benton and Josephine), 45 cities, 31 CDPs, and 5 of the Tribes. The total population of these 83 

geographies is approximately 992,000 (29 percent of the planning area population). The number of people 

in poverty within the 83 geographies is approximately 136,000. 

The poverty populations are scattered throughout the planning area, and can be found in every county and 

BLM district (Map 3-9). 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

599 | Page

employment would decrease in the Coos Bay District only, and, under Alternative D, employment would 

decrease in all three. Employment effects would be positive in all other offices under all alternatives with 

the exception of a relatively small 3 percent decrease in the rural part of the Salem District under 

Alternative D. 

The counties within these three offices are Douglas, Coos, Curry, and Klamath. Three of these counties 

met the low-income environmental justice criteria, and the fourth (Douglas) was within 1 percent of the 

low-income threshold, and contained 14 cities or CDPs meeting the low-income environmental justice 

criteria.89 In total, four of the six low-income counties in the planning area are in this southern part of the 

planning area.90

The BLM concludes that employment effects in Coos, Curry, Douglas, and Klamath Counties would be 

disproportionately negative under Alternatives A and D, with greater negative effects under Alternative D 

than under Alternative A. Low income cities, CDPs and tribes in these counties would also be vulnerable 

to these disproportionately negatively effects. Under Alternative B, employment effects would be 

disproportionately negative for Coos and Curry Counties, and low income cities, CDPs, and Tribes in 

these counties would also be vulnerable. 

Regarding payments to counties, under all alternatives, every county would receive higher payments 

under the O&C Act formula in both 2018 and 2028 than they would have received in 2012 (Table 3-192). 

Therefore, there would be no disproportionately negative impacts as a result of changes in county 

payments. However, the BLM notes that under the alternatives where employment and earnings would 

fall in some districts, (i.e., Alternatives A, B, and D), the loss of total BLM-based earnings would be 

greater than the earnings from the County payments (see the discussion of county payments in Issue 5). 

A key issue for the counties is how any increased payments would compare to payments under Secure 

Rural Schools funding (Tables 3-188, 3-189, and 3-190). Coos, Curry, Douglas, and Josephine are the 

counties most dependent on the SRS funding based on the high percentages of their general funds that the 

SRS payments represent (25 percent to 82 percent, Table 3-189). Three of these counties are low-income 

and the Douglas was within 1 percent of the low-income threshold. The State of Oregon Business 

Development Department considers all four counties as distressed (see the background section). 

The future of the SRS program and distributions to counties are outside the control of the BLM and 

cannot be assessed in the alternatives. Nevertheless, the BLM notes that decreases in SRS funding since 

2003 have disproportionately negatively affected these four counties (Table 3-188), and three of these 

counties would experience employment losses under some of the alternatives which could exacerbate 

their distressed financial condition. 

Issue 7 

What would be the cost to the BLM to implement the alternatives? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM compiled budget information for FY 2012 for each of the five full BLM district offices in the 

planning area and for the Klamath Falls Field Office. The budget data did not include the cost of the 

BLM’s Oregon State Office or of the fire program because the State Office budget is independent of the 

 

89 Of the 14, 3 are in western Douglas County in the Coos Bay District. 

90 The fourth is Josephine County (adjacent to Curry and Douglas) which met the criteria for a poverty county. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

600 | Page

RMPs and the fire budget can fluctuate widely from year to year depending on the extent and scale of 

fires. 

The BLM estimated the portions of the district offices’ budgets that are attributable to the timber program 

under current conditions based on 2012 timber harvest volumes and an average timber volume cost of 

$200 per Mbf, a figure the state office uses for budget estimates. This figure includes all of the work 

associated with preparing, offering, and administering timber sales. It includes work done by members of 

a timber sale interdisciplinary team, National Environmental Policy Act compliance work, overhead, etc. 

To estimate the potential cost to the BLM to implement the alternatives, the BLM applied the $200 per 

Mbf figure to the estimated timber harvest under the No Action alternative and the four action 

alternatives. The BLM estimated budgets based on projected harvests for the average of the first decade. 

The BLM added this figure to the non-timber portion of the budget, which the BLM assumed would 

remain unchanged between alternatives, consistent with the analytical assumptions set forth in the 

Planning Criteria. The total of the timber and non-timber portion of the budget resulted in a total BLM 

budget by alternative. All dollar figures are expressed in constant 2012 dollars. 

Note that as a landscape-level planning effort, none of the alternatives prescribe project-level or sitespecific activities on BLM-administered lands. Further, the BLM’s selection of an alternative does not 

authorize funding to any specific project or activity nor does it directly tie into the agency’s budget as 

appropriated annually through the Federal budget process. Consequently, the effects analysis does not 

cover non-timber resources even though these resources do have associated management costs. 

Affected Environment 

The BLM’s budget for the six offices in the planning area totaled approximately $109.2 million in FY 

2012, including labor and non-labor costs. The labor costs cover approximately 780 employees across all 

six offices (Table 3-206). The Medford office, which has the largest number of employees, accounts for 

approximately 30 percent of the total area-wide budget. Non-labor costs include items such as rent, 

transportation, and supplies, but the largest single component is contracts to non-BLM entities for a 

variety of services on BLM-administered lands. 

Table 3-206. BLM budget by office, FY 2012. 

District/

Field Office

Employees

(FTE)

Expenditures

Totals

Programmatic 

Breakdown

Labor Non-Labor Timber NonTimber

Salem 150 $12,345,619 $9,213,051 $21,558,670 $12,430,000 $9,128,670

Eugene 130 $10,445,431 $7,544,410 $17,989,841 $7,215,800 $10,774,041

Roseburg 117 $9,414,710 $4,104,349 $13,519,059 $9,047,200 $4,471,859

Coos Bay 109 $9,084,127 $7,990,160 $17,074,287 $14,200,200 $2,874,087

Medford 231 $17,713,275 $15,503,893 $33,217,168 $4,705,200 $28,511,968

Klamath Falls 41 $2,891,236 $2,973,992 $5,865,228 $904,800 $4,960,428

Totals 778 $61,894,398 $47,329,854 $109,224,252 $48,503,200 $60,721,052

Totals (%) 57% 43% 44% 56%

Management of the BLM’s timber program in FY 2012 accounted for an estimated $48.5 million, or 44 

percent, of the total $109.2 million budget. The remaining 56 percent covered all other programs such as 

recreation, mining, fisheries, and grazing. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

601 | Page

Environmental Effects 

Table 3-207 shows the estimated effects on the BLM’s budget under the alternatives and the percent 

change compared to current conditions. All the alternatives except for Alternative D would result in an 

increase in the BLM’s budget compared to the current budget (i.e., approximately $109.2 million). 

Alternative C, with its higher projected timber harvests compared to current, would require the highest 

budget, approximately $171.7 million, a 57 percent increase compared to the budget under current 

conditions (FY 2012). The No Action alternative would result in a 29 percent increase compared to 

current. Alternative D, with its lower projected timber harvests would require a lower budget, 

approximately 11 percent below current. 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

603 | Page

References 

Adams, V. and D. M. Gaid. 2008. Federal Land Management and County Government: 1908-2008. A Report of the “Changing 

Federal County Payments Policy and Rural Oregon Counties: Impacts and Options” Project. Oregon State University 

Working Paper Number RSP 0804. October. 

Association of O&C Counties (AOC). 2014. 

Babcock, L. 2014. Receipt distribution in western Oregon. BLM Eastern OR/WA (PD) Forestry Lead, Oregon State Office. 

Portland, OR. 

Balmford, A., A. Bruner, P. Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. Green, M. Jenkins, P. Jefferiss, V. Jessamy, J. Madded, K. 

Munro, N. Myers, S. Naeem, J. Paavola, M. Rayment, S. Rosendo, J. Roughgarden, K. Trumper, and K. Turner. 2002. 

Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature. science 297(5583): 950-953. 

Barnard, J. 2014. Why redwood burl poaching is so destructive. The Christian Science Monitor. 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2014/0305/Why-redwood-burl-poaching-is-so-destructive. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2014. Regional Economic Accounts - Tables CA04, SA05, SA05N, SA27, and SA27N. 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. Accessed on April 25, 2013 and August 7, 2014. 

Behrer, P. 2010. Building in the mountains: A hedonic analysis of the value of degraded mountain views using GIS modeling. 

Harvard Environmental Economics Program. 

Blatner, K., and S. Alexander. 1998. Recent price trends for Non-Timber Forest Products in the Pacific Northwest.” Forest 

Products Journal. Oct: 48(10): 28-44. 

Bulte, E. and C. Van Kooten. 1999. Marginal valuation of charismatic species: Implications for conservation. Environmental and 

Resource Economics, pp. 119-130. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2014. Regional Economic Accounts - Tables CA04, SA05, SA05N, SA27, and SA27N. 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. Accessed on April 25, 2013 and August 7, 2014. 

Business Oregon. 2014. http://www.oregon4biz.com/Publications/Distressed-List/. Accessed 10/30/2014. 

Carter, Colin A., Gordon C. Rausser, and Aaron Smith. 2011. Commodity booms and busts. Annual Review of Resource 

Economics 2011(3): 87-118. 

Corn, M. L. 2014. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified. Congressional Research Service RL31392. February 

20. www.crs.gov. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

December 10, 1997. Website: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. 

CEQ. 2013. Principles and requirements for federal investments in water resources. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/final_principles_and_requirements_march_2013.pdf. 

de la Torre, M. (Ed.) 2002. Assessing the values of cultural heritage. The Getty Conservation Institute. Los Angeles, CA. 

Diffendorfer, J. E., J. B. Loomis, L. Ries et al. 2013. National valuation of monarch butterflies indicates an untapped potential for 

incentive-based conservation.” USGS Staff – Published Research. Paper 802. 

Draffan, G. 2006. Report on the floral greens industry. Olympia: Evergreen State College Labor Center. 

Dumcke, C., and M. Gnedovsky. 2013. The social and economic value of cultural heritage: Literature review. European Expert 

Network on Culture (EENC) Paper. July. 

Earth Economics. 2012. Nature’s value in the McKenzie Watershed. Prepared for the Eugene Water and Electric Board. May. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Guidelines for preparing economic analyses. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf. 

Ericsson, G., J. Kindberg, and G. Bostedt. 2007. Willingness to pay (WTP) for wolverine Gulo gulo conservation. Wildlife Biol. 

13(Suppl. 2): 2-12. 

Farber, S., R. Costanza, and M. Wilson. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological 

Economics 41: 375-392. 

Freeman, J., R. Madsen, and K. Hart. 2008. Statistical analysis of drinking water treatment plant costs, source water quality, and 

land cover characteristics. Trust for Public Land white paper. http://www.tpl.org http://www.tpl.org/. 

Gale, Charles B., Charles E. Keegan III, Erik C. Berg, Jean Daniels, Glenn A. Christensen, Colin B. Sorenson, Todd A. Morgan, 

and Paul Polzin. 2012. Oregon’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2008: Industry trends and impacts of the Great 

Recession through 2010. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-868. Pacific Northwest Research Station. USDA FS. 

Portland, OR. 

Garrod, G. D., N. A. Powe, C. F. Brunsdon, and K. G. Willis. 1997. Using a geographic information system to estimate an 

hedonic price model of the benefits of woodland access. Forestry 70(2): 139-149. 

Governor’s Task Force. 2009. Final report federal forest payments and county services. January. 

http://library.state.or.us/repository/2009/200902270759325/governor.oregon.gov_Gov_docs_toffp_final_report_020309_am

_nobkmk.pdf. 

Hagen, D. J. Vincent, and P. Welle. 1992. Benefits of preserving old-growth forests and the spotted owl. Contemporary Policy 

Issues X (April): 13-26. 

Harris, Charles C., William McLaughlin, Greg Brown, and Dennis R. Becker. 2000. Rural communities in the inland Northwest: 

an assessment of small communities in the interior and upper Columbia River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477. 

USDA FS. Portland, OR. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

604 | Page

Haynes, R. 2008. Emergent lessons from a century of experience with Pacific Northwest timber markets. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-747. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 

Haynes, R.W., D. M. Adams, R. J. Alig, P. J. Ince, J. Mills, and X. Zhou. 2007. The 2005 RPA timber assessment update. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-699.USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 212 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr699/. 

IMPLAN. 2013. http://www.implan.com. 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. 2013. Technical Support Document: 

Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order. Retrieved December 24, 

2014, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

Jepson, Michael, and Lisa L. Colburn. 2013. Development of social indicators of fishing. Community vulnerability and resilience

in the U.S. southeast and northeast regions. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-129. 

64 p. 

Johnson, D. 2009. Letter to Representative Arnie Roblan and County Duties and Services Required By Oregon Law. State of 

Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee. April 1. 

King, Dennis, and Marisa Mazzotta. 2000. Ecosystem valuation. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services and National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). http://ecosystemvaluation.org. 

Krieger, D. 2001. Economic value of forest ecosystem services: a review. The Wilderness Society. Washington, D.C. 

Krumenauer, Gail, and Brenda Turner. 2014. Employment projections by industry and occupations 2012-2022, Oregon and 

regional summary. Oregon Employment Department, April 2014. 

https://www.qualityinfo.org/documents/10182/92203/Oregon+Employment+Projections+2012-2022?version=1.0 (accessed 

November 21, 2014). 

Loomis. 2005. 

Loomis. 2013. 

Loomis, J., A. Edwards, and L. Richardson. 2014. Total economic value of threatened and endangered species. June 28. 

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/51cbef167896bb431f69c4a9/. 

Loomis, J. and A. Gonzalez-Caban. 1998. “A Willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire.”

Ecological Economics 25: pp. 315-322. 

Loomis, J., and R. Walsh. 1997. Recreation economic decisions: comparing benefits and costs. 2nd ed. State College: Venture 

Publications. 

Loomis, J. and D. White. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological 

Economics 18 (3): 197-206. 

Malprezzi, Stephen. 2002. Hedonic pricing models: a selective and applied review. Prepared for: Housing Economics: Essays in 

Honor of Duncan Maclennan. The Center for Urban Land Economics Research. The University of Wisconsin. 

Mapes, J. 2013a. Curry County, seeking to avoid state intervention, once again asks voters for tax hike. OregonLive.com. August

20.

Mapes, J. 2013b. Curry County voters one again reject property tax increase; state may now intervene. OregonLive.com.

November 5. 

Mapes, J. 2014a. Financially troubled Curry County to vote on whether to dump its full-time commission. OregonLive.com.

April 18. 

Martín-López, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. 

Conservation Biology 22: 624–635. 

MIG, Inc. 2013. IMPLAN version 3 software and Oregon state package data set. Huntersville, NC. http://implan.com/. 

MIG, Inc. 2014. 

Mortenson, E. 2012a. Rural Oregon counties scramble as timber payments dry up, while critics say it’s time they paid for 

services. OregonLive.com. March 4. 

Mortenson, R. 2012b. Oregon’s hard-hit timber counties are ‘eating our seed corn’ as budget problems grind on. 

OregonLive.com. September 13. 

Moskowitz, K. and J. Talberth. 1998. The economic case against logging our national forests. Forest Guardians, Santa Fe, NM. 

Muir, P., K. Norman, and K. Sikes. 2006. Quantity and value of commercial moss harvest from forests of the Pacific Northwest 

and Appalachian Regions of the U.S. The Bryologist 109(2): 197-214. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2013. Revised delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical 

Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and guidance on uses of the delineations of these areas. Bulletin No. 13-01. February 

28. Washington, D.C. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. No date. Threatened and Endangered Species. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/threatened_endangered_species.asp. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. No date. Oregon forestland ownership. 

http://www.oregon.gov/)DF/indicators/indicatorEb.shtml. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 2014. Annual Timber Harvest Reports 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Pages/state_forests/frp/Charts.aspx. 

Oregon Employment Department (OED). 2014. Covered employment and wages by county, 2012. Salem, OR. 

http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/CEW. Accessed July 24, 2014. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

605 | Page

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2014. 2014 Final Draft Oregon Nonpoint Source Management Program 

Plan. Water Quality Division. 

Oregon DEQ. No date. Overview of the State of Oregon water quality rules and regulations for BLM Western Oregon RMP 

Revision Cooperating Agency Advisory Group. 

http://www.mediate.com/DSConsulting/docs/Overview%20of%20the%20State%20of%20Oregon%20Water%20Quality%2

0Rules%20and%20Regulations%20for%20the%20BLM%20Western%20Oregon%20RMP%20Revision%2011-8-2012.pdf. 

Oregon DEQ and USDI BLM. 2014. 2011 BLM and DEQ MOU. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/docs/USFSDEQMOU.pdf. 

Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). 2012. Forage lease rate calculation. Rangelands. Retrieved December 24, 2014 from 

http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/LW/Pages/rangeland.aspx.

Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI). 2012. The 2012 Forest Report: An economic assessment of Oregon’s forest and wood 

products manufacturing sector. Portland, OR. Data support provided by Dr. Dan Green of Economic Analysis Systems. 

Moscow, ID. 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). 2011. Oregon Statewide Outdoor Recreation Resource/Facility Bulletin Final 

Report. A component of the 2013-2017 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

Oregon Secretary of State. 2012. Counties Financial Condition Review, Report Number 2012. May 17,2012. 

http://sos.oregon.gov/Documents/audits/full/2012/2012-17.pdf. 

Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree Association. 2014. 2013 Tree Harvest. Facts at a glance. http://www.pnwcta.org/newsevents/facts-at-a-glance http://www.pnwcta.org/news-events/facts-at-a-glance/. 

Pascual, U. and R. Muradian. 2010. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. Chapter 5 in The Economics 

of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB). http://www.teebweb.org/ourpublications/teeb-study-reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/. 

Pimentel, D., C. Wilson, C. McCullum, R. Huang, P. Dwen, J. Flack, Q. Tran, T. Saltman, and B. Cliff. 1997. Economic and 

environmental benefits of biodiversity. BioScience 47(11) (December): 747-757. 

Portland State University Population Research Center. 2014. Population Estimates. http://www.pdx.edu/prc/population-estimates0. 

Rubin, J. G. Helfand, and J. Loomis. 1991. A benefit-cost analysis of the northern spotted owl. Forestry (December): 25-29. 

Sarukhán, J., and A. Whyte, editors. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 

Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Schlosser, W. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: A 1992 survey.” Journal of Forestry. 

pp. 32-6. 

Schlosser, W., and K. Blatner. 1992. 

Schlosser, W., and K. Blatner. 1997. Special forest products: An east-side perspective. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-380.” In: 

Quigley, T., ed. 1997. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment. Portland: USDA FS, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. pp. 1-30. 

Snyder, R., R. Williams, and G. Peterson. 2003. Culture loss and sense of place in resource valuation: Economics, anthropology,

and indigenous cultures. In Jentoft, S., H. Minde, and R. Nilsen (Eds.) Indigenous Peoples: Resource management and 

global rights. pp. 107-123. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon. 

Templeton, A. 2013. Voters in 3 Oregon counties reject public safety levies. OPB. November 6. 

www.opb.org/news/article/curry-county-rejects-public-safety-levy-in-early-results/. 

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MES). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends, Volume 1. 

Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press: Washington, 

Covelo, London. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Global.html. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Wild Salmon Center. 2012. Atlas of conservation values on Bureau of Land Management 

holdings in western Oregon. Oregon Explorer. http://oregonexplorer.info/landuse/AtlasofConservationValues. 

Thomas, M., and D. Schumann. 1993. Income opportunities in special forest products: Self-help suggestions for rural 

entrepreneurs. USDI FS Ag. Info. Bulletin 666, pp. 37-43. Washington, DC. 

Timber Sale Information System (TSIS). No year. 

Tuchman, T., and C. Davis. 2013. O&C Lands Report. Prepared for Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber. State of Oregon, Oregon 

Department of Forestry and Office of Governor John Kitzhaber. February 6. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table DP05. Generated by Joan Huston using American FactFinder, 

http://factfinder2.census.gov (May 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, 

DP04, DP05, S1901 and S1701.Generated by Joan Huston using American FactFinder, http://factfinder2.census.gov (May 

2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles and 2010 Census Summary File 1 Demographic Profile. 

https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, 

DP04, DP05, S1901 and S1701. Generated by Joan Huston using American FactFinder, http://factfinder2.census.gov (May 

2014). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

606 | Page

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. OnTheMap Application. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program. 

http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; generated by Clive Graham July 3, 2014. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2010 Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles and 2010 Census Summary File 1 Demographic Profile.

https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. How poverty is calculated in the American Community Survey. Website: 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html. Accessed September 13, 2014. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. State and County Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41071.html. 

USDA FS. YEAR? Northwest Forest Plan–The First 15 Years (1994–2008) Summary of Key Findings. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. Portland, OR. R6-RPM-TP-03-2011. 

USDA FS. 2000. Water and the Forest Service. USDA FS, Policy Analysis, Washington, DC. January. 

USDA FS. 2005. RPA Timber Assessment Update. 

USDA FS. 2008. 

USDA FS. 2014. Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool. Unpublished. Ecosystem Management Staff, Washington Office. 

Ft. Collins, CO. 

USDA FS. 2014. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts/. 

USDI. 2014. Payments in Lieu of Taxes website. http://www.doi.gov/pilt/index.cfm. Accessed July 25, 2014. 

USDI BLM. 2005. Land Use Planning Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1601-1.

USDI BLM. 2006. Southwest Oregon Interagency Biomass Utilization Strategy. Medford District BLM and Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest. Draft Report. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/files/Biomass.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2010. Woody Biomass and Energy. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/forests_and_woodland/biomass.html. 

USDI BLM. 2011. Minimum SFP Price List. BLM Salem District. 

USDI BLM. 2013. Analysis of the Management Situation. Resource Management Plans for western Oregon. 

USDI BLM. 2013a. Economic Methods for Estimating Nonmarket Environmental Values. BLM Socioeconomics Program 

Guidance. Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-131, Change 1. September 12. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/IM_2013-

131__Ch1.print.html. 

USDI BLM. 2013b. Appendix O: Economic Impact Analysis Methodology. Nevada and Northeast California Greater 

SageGrouse Draft LUPA/EIS. October. https://www.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/lup/21152/45037/48538/O_EconomicImpactMethods.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2013c. 

USDI BLM. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 

USDI BLM. 2014a. 

USDI BLM 2014b. O&C Counties historical information. http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/ctypayhistory.php. 

USDI BLM. 2014c. New energy for America. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy.html. 

USDI BLM. 2014d. Fact sheet on the BLM’s management of livestock grazing.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.print.html. 

USDI BLM. 2014e. BLM and Forest Service announce 2014 grazing fee. January 31. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/january/NR_01_31_2014.html. 

USDI BLM. 2014f. Recreation Management Information System. See 

http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/viewresource.php?courseID=313 for background on available data. 

USDI BLM. 2014g. Official payments made to counties. http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/ctypayments.php. 

USDI FWS. 2013. ESA basics 40 Years of conserving endangered species. USFWS, Endangered Species Program. January. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf. 

USDI National Park Service (NPS). 2014. More Cultural Resources. Laws, Executive Orders, and Regulations. Retrieved 

December 24, 2014 from http://www.nps.gov/history/laws.htm. 

Vaidya, Kanhaiya. 2012. Oregon’s demographic trends. Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, 

State of Oregon, December 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/Pp./demographic.aspx (accessed November 20, 2014). 

White, E. M. 2010. Woody biomass for bioenergy and biofuels in the United States—a briefing paper. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-825. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 45 p. 

White, P. C. L., K.W. Gregory, P. J. Lindsey, and G. Richards. 1997. Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case 

study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arcicola terrestris. Biological Conservation 82: 345–354. 

World Resources Institute. No data. Natural Infrastructure. Editors T. Gartner, J. Mulligan, R. Schmidt, and J. Gunn. In 

collaboration with Earth Economics and Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 

Zheng,Y. 2013a. Oregon lawmakers prepare for worst-case scenarios in near-broke timber counties. OregonLive.com. February 

27.

Zeng, Y. 2013b. Oregon House approves bill allowing state agencies to provide services to financially distressed timber counties. 

OregonLive.com. June 14. 

Zhou, X.. 2013. Production, prices, employment, and trade in northwest forest industries, all quarters 2012. Resource Bulletin 

PNW-RB-265. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 163 p. 

Zhou, X., and D. Warren. 2012. Production, prices, employment and trade in northwest forest industries, all quarters 2011. 

Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-264. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

608 | Page

Key Points 

x The alternatives would increase the acreage of detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvest, 

road construction, and fuels treatments by 13 to 30 percent of current amounts during the first 

decade. 

x The BLM would be able to reduce the acreage of detrimental soil conditions from timber harvest, 

road construction, and fuels treatments through sound management practices that would limit 

initial compaction levels, remove existing or created compacted surfaces, and improve soil water 

and organic matter levels. 

x Detrimental soil disturbance from OHV use would be highest under the No Action alternative 

because none of the action alternatives would allocate any areas as open for OHV use. 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Soil quality is the capacity of a specific kind of soil to function, within natural or managed ecosystem 

boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and 

support ecosystem health. Management practices can reduce soil quality through declines in two 

ecosystem properties - site organic matter and soil porosity (Powers et al. 1990). 

In this analysis, the BLM evaluated reductions in soil quality based on acres of detrimental soil 

disturbance. The BLM evaluated the acres of detrimental soil disturbance from several sources of 

management-induced changes, and the cumulative total of all sources, as a decrease in the innate ability 

of a soil to function and provide ecosystem services. Detrimental soil disturbance is the limit where the 

innate soil properties change and the inherent capacity to sustain growth of vegetation is reduced (Powers 

et al. 1998). Detrimental soil disturbance generally represents unacceptable levels of erosion, loss of 

organic matter, soil compaction, soil displacement, lethal soil heating, or a combination. 

Evaluating soil quality is complicated by the diversity of soil properties that drive the functional 

processes, appraisal techniques, and soil uses (Page-Dumroese et al. 2000). This analysis measured soil 

quality using acres of detrimental soil disturbance, rather than other measures, such as changes to soil 

quality index or site index, as discussed below. 

Amacher et al. (2007) introduced the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program that measured a 

number of chemical and physical properties of soils in order to address specific questions about forest soil 

quality or health. This soil quality index integrated 19 measured physical and chemical properties of 

forest soils into a single number that could serve as the soil’s “vital sign” of overall soil quality. The 

concept monitors changes in forest soil properties with time, but this index requires specific data that is 

not available at this scale of analysis across the decision area. 

Site index class characterizes soil productivity by tree height growth over a set time. Across the decision 

area, there is a distinct differentiation between the high productivity soils in the north (predominately Site 

Class 2 and 3) and the lower productivity soils in the south (predominately Site Class 4 and 5). However, 

this traditional measure of soil productivity does not encompass the full spectrum of the functions that 

define soil quality, which requires a more holistic measure that defines growth as it relates to functional 

processes in the soil. 

For several aspects of this analysis, the BLM categorized the decision area into the coastal/north (the 

Salem, Coos Bay, and Eugene Districts, and the northern portion of the Roseburg District) and the 

Soil Resources 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

609 | Page

interior/south (southern portion of the Roseburg District, the Medford District, and the Klamath Falls 

Field Office). This division represents a general divide in forest productivity and soil conditions within 

the planning area. 

Issue 1 

How would timber harvest under the alternatives affect soil quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Timber harvest causes detrimental soil disturbance most often from displacement of surface material and 

soil compaction. The extent of detrimental soil disturbance varies with the type of yarding method and the 

mitigation measures employed. 

The intensity, location, and extent of compaction differ under different yarding systems. In this analysis, 

the BLM assumed that determining the proper design measures to reduce or eliminate adverse effects 

could not be applied at this level of analysis. Therefore, the different yarding methods would result in 

detrimental soil disturbance of the following percentage within each harvest unit: 

x Ground-based – 35 percent 

x Cable – 12 percent 

x Aerial – 6 percent 

(Heilman et al. 1981, Fleming et al. 2006, Froehlich 1976, Han et al. 2009, Miller et al. 1989). 

Ground-based yarding systems have the greatest detrimental soil effect. Ground-based yarding equipment 

include, for example, rubber-tired skidders, tracked dozer equipment, cut-to-length harvesters, and multiwheeled forwarders. The extent of an equipment’s coverage across a harvest unit can vary from several 

well-spaced skid trails to operating over the entire harvest unit. Typically, only slope conditions that 

exceed machine capabilities prevent compaction from occurring because the equipment cannot operate on 

steeper slopes. In addition, repetitive tracking across the same trail causes the depth of compaction to go 

deep into the soil. 

Cable yarding systems typically cause compaction at the landing area as well as within the harvest unit. 

Compacted areas stretch out like spokes from the landing, but are only as wide as sweeping tail end of a 

yarded log. Since there are many logs pulled to the landing along one yarding corridor, they create a 

compacted trail that ranges from 3 to 8 feet wide. 

For aerial yarding, most compaction is in work areas adjacent to the harvest unit, and these areas 

generally undergo rehabilitation after harvest. Compaction from falling and yarding activities inside 

harvest units is typically negligible. 

The BLM used data from the BLM Timber Sale Information System, which includes a listing for the type 

of yarding system employed during timber harvest, to provide information current levels of detrimental 

soil disturbance. The BLM used the final harvested acres from timber sale contracts from 1990 to 2012 to 

characterize current levels of detrimental soil disturbance. Using this 22 years of timber harvest data 

provides only a partial indication of the current amount of detrimental soil disturbance, because 

compaction from past harvesting may last more than 22 years. However, the BLM does not have 

sufficient information to quantify continuing detrimental soil disturbance from older timber harvests. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

610 | Page

The Woodstock model provided outputs on acres of each yarding method by alternative for the first 

decade (the Vegetation Modeling section contains more information) 

In this analysis, the BLM calculated the amount of detrimental soil disturbance from each timber harvest 

method by multiplying the areal extent of that yarding method for each alternative by the percentages 

listed above. 

Background 

Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are pressed together, reducing the pore space between them. 

This increases the weight of solids per unit volume of soil (bulk density). Soil compaction occurs in 

response to pressure from above (e.g., from animals or equipment). The risk for compaction is greatest 

when soils are wet (USDA NRCS 1996). Compaction is usually described as an increase in bulk density 

and results in plants increasing root strength in order to penetrate the soil for growth. Studies showing an 

increase of bulk density greater than 15 percent have varied impacts to plant growth depending on soil 

texture, plant species, and competing vegetation (Tan et al. 2009). Powers et al. (2005) found that soil 

compaction effects depended upon initial bulk density; vegetation growth declined on compacted clay 

soils but increased on sands. 

In general, soil compaction that reduces water infiltration rates and large pore space for gas and water 

movement constitutes detrimental soil disturbance and can last many years (Froehlich and McNabb 1984, 

Cafferata 1992). Compaction restricts rooting depth, which reduces the uptake of water and nutrients by 

vegetation. Compaction decreases the soil pore size that can absorb water and decrease the soil 

temperature. Soil organisms respond to compaction by decreasing their soil organic matter 

decomposition, which then decreases their release of nutrients back into the soil. Smaller pore spaces 

decrease the infiltration of both water and air into a soil, and runoff increases with a corresponding 

increase of water erosion risk or hazard. The degree of soil compaction depends on the type of equipment 

used, number of equipment passes over the same location, and site conditions such as soil texture, water 

content, and temperature (Tan et al. 2009). Powers et al. (1990) hypothesized that the two most important 

site disturbances that reduce forest productivity are soil compaction and organic matter removal. 

Soil compaction reduces tree growth, but the relationship between compaction and tree growth is complex 

and difficult to predict because it is dependent on many variables. For example, Miller et al. (1996) found 

early growth reductions of seedlings planted on compacted skid trails compared to uncompacted 

locations, but growth of most seedlings on compacted locations caught up to uncompacted locations after 

eight years. Tan et al. (2009) also found variable responses of three-year-old seedlings, depending on 

level of compaction, species, organic matter removal, and intensity of amelioration of compacted 

surfaces. Removing competition for site resources (e.g., water and nutrients) may offset severe 

compaction, and tree growth may not be affected (Sanchez et al. 2006). 

A vast array of microbiotic organisms exist in the soil that can potentially be affected by detrimental soil 

disturbance. Most of these organisms are the decomposers of organic matter, which return nutrients to the 

soil for use by plant roots or other organisms. However, little research has been done on the effects of 

detrimental soil disturbance on microbiotic organisms other than the fungal and bacteria components. 

Most research on soil compaction in forests has focused on tree growth in skid trails or tree growth 

response after some amelioration treatment. Only recently did Shestak and Busse (2005) compare 

microbial composition, community size, activity, and diversity on compacted forest soils. They noted 

their results show tolerance or resilience by microbial communities. These authors suggest the 

reconfiguration of pores following compaction resulted in reduced total porosity and a near elimination of 

large pores, but an increase in habitable pore volume use by bacteria and fungi. Therefore, with the 

exception of poorly drained soils or for those regions receiving high annual precipitation where saturation 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

611 | Page

is a concern, changes with compaction appear to be of little consequence to the microbial community. 

Previous studies have identified negative, neutral, or positive responses, yet there are few unifying 

concepts (Busse et al. 2006). 

Ground-based yarding equipment has changed since the signing of the 1995 RMPs. Ground-based 

yarding equipment in use today are more mechanized, using fewer workers, and are capable of traversing 

more of each harvest unit. Soil compaction is a common consequence of using mechanized equipment, 

especially when soil moisture is high, for particular soil types. At high soil moisture content, cut-to-length 

and whole-tree harvesting cause a greater degree of soil compaction in skid trails. The cut-to-length 

system causes less compaction in the center of the trail, especially when operators minimize compaction 

by placing heavy slash loads on forwarding trails before traversing a unit. Whole-tree harvesting disturbs 

a larger area, sweeping slash from trails, and causing a high degree of compaction in the center of the 

track (Han et al. 2009). To summarize, heavy equipment operates directly on forest soils with a high 

potential to affect soil quality negatively, especially soil density, which then affects plant and tree growth 

(Labelle and Jaeger 2011). Soil compaction during harvesting generally occurs in the first few passes of 

the equipment, but compaction reaches a maximum within the first ten passes (Han et al. 2006). Bustos 

and Egan (2011) noted that compaction is a function of mass, number of trips (i.e., passes), and total mass 

transported per trip. Using historic skid trails and a designated trail system is recommended as soils with 

high initial bulk densities compact less than those with a low initial bulk density (Han et al. 2009). 

In the 1995 RMPs, the BLM used a percentage of compacted surface area within a harvest unit to set a 

threshold for acceptable impacts to soil productivity. The districts initially set this threshold level at 10 or 

12 percent of the harvested area, depending on the district. Instruction Memoranda OR-2010-009 

provided guidance to adopt the revised Best Management Practices (BMPs; as contained in Appendix I of 

USDI BLM 2008) for use when designing individual projects and for water quality restoration planning 

activities. Specifically, BMP TH-9 states a 12 percent level of compaction, and provided a consistent 

approach for all of the districts. Thus, this analysis used a 12 percent level for the No Action alternative. 

In the 1995 RMPs, the BLM also anticipated treating compacted surfaces after use, typically with a 

winged sub-soiler implement pulled behind a dozer to treat skid trails in final harvest units. Treating 

compacted skid trails in thinning units has proven problematic, and has generally been deferred until final 

harvest, as the sub-soiler damages roots of the residual stand. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Current levels of detrimental soil disturbance from past timber harvest are 29,564 acres in the decision 

area: 12,688 acres are in the coastal/north and 16,876 acres are in the interior/south (Figure 3-152). The 

29,564 acres of detrimental soil compaction from past timber harvest constitutes approximately 1 percent 

of the decision area as a whole. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

612 | Page

Figure 3-152. Detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvest by yarding system, 1990-2012. 

This acreage of detrimental soil disturbance constitutes 20 percent of the harvested acres in the decision 

area: 17 percent in the coastal/north, and 23 percent in the interior/south. The interior/south has 

detrimental soil disturbance on a higher percentage of harvested acres because of the more extensive use 

of ground-based yarding systems, which result in more detrimental soil disturbance within each harvest 

unit. 

In the first 10 years, the alternatives would result in approximately 12,000-27,000 acres of detrimental 

soil disturbance from timber harvest (Figure 3-153 and Table 3-208). Alternative C would result in the 

most acreage of detrimental soil disturbance (27,000 acres), with only slightly smaller acreage in 

Alternative B (25,217 acres), the No Action alternative (24,172 acres), and Alternative D (21,742 acres). 

In contrast, Alternative A would result in substantially smaller acreage of detrimental soil disturbance 

compared to the other alternatives (12,036 acres) (Table 3-208). The amount of detrimental soil 

disturbance largely reflects the total acreage of timber harvest and, specifically, the acreage of timber 

harvest in the interior/south, where ground-based yarding predominates. 

6,161

13,934

6,328

1,929

199

1,014

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

18,000

Coastal/North Interior/South

Acres 

Ground-Based Cable Aerial
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

613 | Page

Figure 3-153. Detrimental soil from timber harvest by yarding system and alternative during the first 

decade. 

9,672 

5,673 

11,357 11,607 9,834 

13,250 

5,550 

12,082 13,562 

10,490 

1,250 

814 

1,778 

1,831 

1,418 

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

24,000

28,000

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Acres 

Ground-Based Cable Aerial

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

615 | Page

The detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvest during the first decade under the alternatives would 

range from 41-91 percent of the current detrimental soil disturbance from past timber harvests (Table 3-

208). As a result, the alternatives together with past timber harvest would result in a cumulative total of 

detrimental soil disturbance ranging from 41,600 acres to 56,564 acres. 

Each alternative would result in detrimental soil disturbance on an average of 15 to 16 percent of the total 

area harvested in the first 10 years. 

Detrimental soil disturbance could result in some reduction in future tree growth. At this scale of analysis 

and with the data available, it is not possible to quantify the reduction in future tree growth from 

detrimental soil disturbance, in part because of the influence of site-specific and project-specific factors 

on the extent and intensity of detrimental soil disturbance. The BLM would be able to ameliorate 

detrimental soil disturbance by reducing soil compaction after harvest; however, because the extent and 

effectiveness of such amelioration depends heavily on site-specific and project-specific factors, the BLM 

cannot quantify those reductions in detrimental soil disturbance in this analysis. 

Issue 2 

How would road construction under the alternatives affect soil quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that both permanent and temporary road construction would result in 

detrimental soil disturbance. It is not possible to forecast in this analysis whether how much 

decommissioning might mitigate detrimental soil disturbance, or how long after decommissioning 

detrimental soil disturbance would continue. Therefore, this analysis assumed that road construction 

would result in detrimental soil disturbance, even though eventual decommissioning might mitigate these 

soil effects for some roads. 

The BLM assumed that road construction would result, on average, in detrimental soil disturbance across 

a 45-foot width, from upper cutbank to the lower toe of fill (Brian Thauland, BLM, personal 

communication, July 2013). 

The calculation of the mileage of road construction under each alternative is described in the Trails and 

Travel Management section in this chapter. 

The BLM calculated the acreage of detrimental soil disturbance from road construction by multiplying the 

length of roads by the 45-foot road width. 

The Planning Criteria identified that this analysis would also address landings (USDI BLM 2014, p. 156). 

However, most of the landing area would be included in road construction and is therefore not included 

here as a separate analysis. 

Background 

Road construction results in detrimental soil disturbance, which decommissioning can potentially 

ameliorate. However, the effectiveness of decommissioning in reducing detrimental soil disturbance is not 

clear. Tan et al. (2009) note better growth on compacted sites with coarse sandy soils. Most of the 

decision area does not have coarse sandy soil types, with the exception of some areas in the Medford 

District. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

616 | Page

As noted by Powers et al. 1990, soil compaction and organic matter removal are the two most important 

site disturbances caused by forest management practices. These have the greatest potential to reduce 

forest productivity. Replenishing the organic matter and reducing the amount of compaction both within 

the depth of a road surface and across the surface are key ingredients to providing a quality soil-growing 

medium for future tree growth. Lloyd et al. (2013) describes the effectiveness of different road 

decommissioning techniques for rehabilitation of ecological and hydrological systems in densely roaded 

forest ecosystems. Their overarching hypothesis is that restoration designs that fail to address explicitly 

both above- and below-ground ecosystem structure and function may result in recovery to an alternative 

state that has diminished ecological and hydrological functions relative to a “never-roaded” forest. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are currently 14,416 miles of roads in the decision area. This constitutes a detrimental soil 

disturbance on 79,311 acres, approximately 3 percent of the decision area. 

Over the first decade, the No Action alternative would create the largest acreage of detrimental soil 

disturbance from road construction (5,167 acres;) while Alternative D would create the least (1,388 acres; 

Figure 3-154). 

Figure 3-154. Detrimental soil disturbance from road construction by alternative during the first decade. 

The detrimental soil disturbance from road construction during the first decade under the alternatives 

would be approximately 2 to 7 percent of the current detrimental soil disturbance from past road 

construction (Table 3-209). As a result, the alternatives together with past road construction would result 

in a cumulative total of detrimental soil disturbance ranging from 80,699-84,478 acres. 

5,167

1,692

3,748

4,367

1,388

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Soil Disturbance (Acres)
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

617 | Page

Table 3-209. Acres of detrimental soil disturbance from road construction by alternative during the first 

decade. 

Detrimental Soil Disturbance From Road 

Construction No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Current Condition (Acres) 79,311 79,311 79,311 79,311 79,311 

Effects of the Alternatives (Acres) 5,167 1,692 3,748 4,367 1,388 

Totals 84,478 81,003 83,059 83,678 80,699 

Percentage of Current Condition 6.5% 2.1% 4.7% 5.5% 1.8% 

Under all alternatives, approximately 60 percent of the new road construction would likely be permanent 

roads and 40 percent temporary roads. Temporary roads include both native-surfaced and rock-surfaced 

roads. The BLM could potentially decommission or obliterate temporary roads to ameliorate detrimental 

soil disturbance, including removing rock, loosening the compacted sub-grade, replenishing some of the 

organic matter, and implementing erosion-control measures. 

Given the vast size of the planning area and the complexity of road construction, not all temporary roads 

would undergo decommissioning adequate to ameliorate detrimental soil disturbance. However, 

temporary roads disturb less of the subsoil and have lower traffic volumes and so would be the most 

likely to be decommissioned or obliterated. Under all alternatives, decommissioning of temporary roads 

would provide some reduction in the acres of detrimental soil disturbance, but it is not possible at this 

scale of analysis with the data available to quantify this potential reduction in this analysis. 

Even if all newly constructed roads were permanent, the increased acreage of detrimental soil disturbance 

from new road construction in the first decade under the alternatives would range from 1.8-6.5 percent 

(Table 3-209). This would be an increase from the current condition of 3.2 percent of the decision area 

with detrimental soil disturbance from road construction, to 3.26 to 3.41 percent after 10 years, depending 

on alternative. This represents a very minor increase in the acreage of detrimental soil disturbance from 

road construction, and represents an overestimation, because the BLM does not quantitatively account for 

potential reductions from road decommissioning and obliteration. 

Issue 3 

How would fuel reduction treatments under the alternatives affect soil quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Fuel reduction treatments can result in detrimental soil disturbance from soil compaction, soil 

displacement, erosion of bare soils, excessive heating of soil, or production of a thick mulch of chopped 

or chipped vegetation. The portion of treated areas experiencing detrimental soil disturbance varies by 

fuel reduction methods. 

In this analysis, the BLM grouped together fuel reduction treatments for activity fuels (the slash 

remaining after timber harvest) and for hazardous risk fuels not associated with timber harvest. This is a 

change from the discussion in the Planning Criteria, which presented separate issues for the effects of 

treatment of activity fuels and hazardous risk fuels (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 166-171). At this scale of 

analysis with the data available, fuel treatments for activity fuels or hazardous risk fuels do not have a 

discernible difference in creating detrimental soil disturbance. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

618 | Page

This analysis evaluated fuel reduction treatments over a 22-year period. Fuel reduction by any method is 

temporary in nature, as vegetation resprouts and needs retreatment in 5 to 15 years. In some instances, the 

type of fuel treatment changes from removal of larger diameter trees to the reduction of understory shrubs 

or small diameter trees, which increase the fuels component after overstory removals. 

The BLM derived the acreage of past fuel reduction treatments for activity fuels by querying the 

Mechpoly and Burnpoly corporate BLM data.91 The BLM used the Woodstock model outputs to obtain 

acreages for each alternative for the six different silvicultural treatments of broadcast burns, hand piles, 

machine piles, landing piles, lop and scatter, and mastication during the first decade. 

The BLM derived the acreage of fuel reduction treatments for hazardous risk fuels by querying the district 

fuel specialists for the level of treatment in the past two decades, and then the BLM projected a future 

decadal level of treatment. The BLM assumed in this analysis that the amount of fuel reduction treatments 

for hazardous risk fuels would be the same among all alternatives. Based on the management objectives 

and management direction in all of the alternatives, the BLM concluded that there is no basis for 

predicting a change in treatment of hazardous risk fuels from current and recent practices, regardless of 

how other land management decisions may change under the alternatives. 

The BLM assumed that detrimental soil disturbance would occur on 25 percent of areas treated with 

excavator machine piling, 35 percent of areas treated with heavy machinery mastication methods, and 5 

percent of areas treated with broadcast burning. These estimations are based on the amount of travel 

equipment make across the units, the length of the boom on the equipment, the size of the piles, the 

material size to burn, and conclusions from literature describing negative effects to the soil. 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that hand pile burning, landing pile burning, and lop and scatter 

methods of fuel reduction treatment would not result in measurable detrimental soil disturbance at this 

scale of analysis. Hand-piling material that is smaller in diameter and in smaller piles typically does not 

generate lethal soil temperatures. Landing piles can be large enough to generate lethal temperatures but 

the area already has detrimental soil disturbance from the road construction. The BLM has used two 

methods of lop and scatter; 1) Using manual labor to cut and disperse excess vegetation in the area 

treated, or 2) Using mechanical grinders to cut and disperse excess material (Busse et al. 2014). Grinding 

equipment remains on existing roads, limiting the potential for detrimental soil disturbance. Neither 

method would result in detrimental soil disturbance that would be measureable at this scale of analysis. 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that machine pile burning and broadcast burning have the potential to 

cause some detrimental soil disturbance, especially where concentration of slash would cause deep 

heating of the soil, or where large wood would be allowed to smolder for long periods of time. However, 

these circumstances would constitute only a small portion of the broadcast burn area, and quick mop-up 

after burning would limit the scope and extent of any detrimental soil disturbance. For machine piling, the 

scattered nature of constructing piles is reliant on the excess fuel loading. Less fuel equals larger distances 

between piles and potentially less compaction and lethal temperatures during ignition of the piles. The 

burning of machine piles causes detrimental soil disturbance from both the soil compaction around the 

pile from the equipment and the heating of the soil beneath the center of the pile. 

91 These are two layers in the BLM’s corporate GIS database. As fuel reduction treatments are completed, specialists 

input the activity into these layers. However, not all specialists have input the data do these layers are incomplete. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

619 | Page

Generally, mastication involves using mechanical equipment to grind cut vegetation and distributing 

treated material by spreading or blowing it out on the ground (Busse et al., 2014). For mastication of 

fuels, the BLM assumed that most machines would be mobile across the treatment area. The impact to the 

soil resources would come from compaction, displacement, and some concentration of chipped material 

deeper than three inches. The BLM has employed boom excavators and horizontal bar type machines that 

need to traverse most of the unit for mastication. Grinding of heavy fuel loads has, in the past, built up 

chipped material that impedes plant growth. 

The Planning Criteria provides more discussion of the analytical methods for detrimental soil disturbance 

from prescribed burning and is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 157-161). 

Background 

Prescribed fire can heat the soil to a lethal temperature that kills the microbial activity, which process 

organic matter in the soil to provide nutrients to growing vegetation. These same organisms connect roots 

and soil, which provide additional water and increase the water uptake for the plant. Inadequately 

populated soils that lack the corresponding diverse bacterial and fungal communities demonstrate reduced 

growing capacity and function, which results in less vegetative growth. 

The effects of prescribed burning on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties depend on the 

specific properties or species. Threshold temperatures classed by Busse et al. (2014) for soil physical, 

chemical, and biological properties fall into low, moderate or high classes. Mortality of bacteria or fungal 

components, as well as seeds and fine roots of plants within the soil, occurs in the low class, between 100 

and 300 °F degrees. Most soil structure and organic matter changes occur in the moderate class, between 

390 and 930 °F. The high class is where nutrient volatilization proceeds and occurs between 700 and 

2,700 °F. The lethal threshold for roots is approximately 140 °F, while that of many soil organisms is 

between 122 and 392 °F. 

Chemical and biological effects to soils from prescribed burning include oxidation of surface and soil 

organic material, changes in nutrient availability and pool size, changes in pH, and lethal heating to biota 

and fine roots. Soil properties most indicative of detrimental changes differ between fuel reduction 

practices, making comparisons among treatment types problematic. 

Soil heating is a particular concern given anticipated changes to soil nutrient content and availability, 

microbial composition and function, soil carbon content, soil mineralogy, and water repellency, and 

infiltration following severe burning (Neary et al. 2005). Busse et al. (2013) determined that, regardless 

of pile size or fuel composition, the soil heat pulse during burning was quenched rapidly with soil depth. 

The greatest soil heating occurred in the surface 4 inches, whereas benign temperatures registered at the 

12-inch depth; mean maximum values were 104 °F for slash piles and 167 °F for woodpiles. Soil 

moisture plays a key role in heating dynamics, particularly when burning natural fuels or scattered slash. 

Heat penetration is substantially lower in moist soil than in dry soil due to the additional energy required 

to heat water (Busse et al. 2010). 

Soils in the interior/south are generally lower in organic matter and nutrients and are more susceptible to 

degradation by prescribed fire than soils in the coastal/north. Detrimental soil disturbance from 

prescribed burning is particularly severe with machine piling, because piled fuel concentrates heat in the 

center of the pile, and the equipment compacts the soil around the pile. Smaller hand piles or the use of 

broadcast burning generally results in less detrimental soil disturbance than machine piling. 

Mastication involves cutting and grinding vegetation. Mastication occurs with various types of 

equipment, including wheeled or tracked equipment, equipment with a rotary head attached to a boom, 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

620 | Page

and equipment with the rotary mechanism attached directly to the front of the equipment. Boom-mounted 

masticators can reach areas such as deep ditches and steep embankments and can treat more area with 

less compaction than machines with the rotary mechanism on the front of the machine (Ryans and 

Cormier 1994). Tracked equipment can work on steeper slopes and softer soils than wheeled equipment. 

Mastication may cause some soil compaction and displacement, depending on the type of equipment, soil 

conditions and type, operator experience, and stand conditions. Limiting masticators to designated trails 

or using low-ground-pressure equipment can reduce the extent and intensity of physical soil disturbance 

(Busse et al. 2014). Most mastication fuel treatments are fundamentally different from ground-based 

harvest yarding systems, in which yarding concentrates traffic to trails that receive multiple passes. Most 

masticators track over broad areas to treat fuels, especially if using a horizontal fixed bar design. Boommounted masticators are more similar to ground-based yarding; for this type of mastication treatment, 

confining the equipment to trails, operating on a deep slash mat, and using low ground pressure 

equipment reduces or avoids detrimental soil disturbance. 

Mastication produces a coating of cut vegetation debris across the forest floor. Because the resulting 

debris is unlike the natural forest floor in terms of particle size, composition, bulk density, and moisture 

regime, there are few direct comparisons to natural wildland systems or processes. There are so few 

studies of mastication impacts on soil resources within the planning area that it is difficult to interpret 

long-term ecological consequences. Short-term studies published in the last 5 years have found few 

detrimental effects, but the majority of these studies are conducted on sandy soils in California and 

juniper woodland vegetation types in Colorado. Those soils do not compact in the same negative manner 

as the clay-textured soils in the planning area. Most short-term impacts center around compaction, 

mycorrhizal reductions, and nutrient loss or tie up, but long-term consequences or indirect effects from 

mastication remain largely unstudied (Busse et al. 2014). These same studies caution that results are very 

site-specific, taking the results to other treatment areas needs to be conducted with caution, and much 

more research is needed to understand the variability across landscapes. Thus, the BLM has cautiously 

assumed that mastication will affect soil resources in a manner similar to timber harvesting with 

mechanical type systems. 

Mastication can substantially modify soil temperature and moisture regimes by creating mulch that 

insulates the soil and traps moisture at the soil surface. This mulch may keep soils cooler in the summer 

and warmer in the late fall and early winter. The extent the cut vegetation debris is incorporated into the 

soil during mastication determines the degree that soil temperature changes and water content increases. 

Masticated debris can act as a barrier against both water infiltration into the soil and evaporative losses 

from the soil. 

Reducing fuels through mastication has limited short-term effects on soil microbial communities, largely 

because of the insulating and buffering effect of the cut vegetation debris. Mastication removes 

vegetation, which opens treated areas to the sun, but the resultant mulch reduces soil drying. Studies of 

mastication treatments in pinyon-juniper woodlands did not find differences in abundance, species 

richness, or community composition of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi 2.5 years after treatment (Busse et 

al. 2014). 

Mastication may reduce soil nitrogen availability. Mulch is generally low in nitrogen and high in carbon. 

After the mulch is added to the soil, microbes will use inorganic nitrogen from the soil in order to 

decompose the added carbon-rich material. Under such circumstances, this nitrogen immobilization could 

temporarily reduce the amount of soil nitrogen available for plant growth. While such effects on soil 

nitrogen are possible, few studies have examined nitrogen transformations and dynamics following 

mastication. The depth of mulch influences the effect of these treatments on plant available nitrogen. 

Ryan et al. (2011) found that patchy mulch 0.5 to 1.5 inches thick had no negative impact on soil 

nitrogen at the stand level, but uniform mulch 3 to 6 inches thick had substantial effects on soil nitrogen. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

621 | Page

While the depth of the mulch layer was not identified, in a comparison of fuel treatments in the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains, commercial thinning followed by mastication did not significantly alter available 

nitrogen or net nitrification rates two years after treatment, compared to untreated control stands 

(Moghaddas and Stephens 2007). The soil moisture content of the study area is drastically less than the 

coastal/north portion of the decision area, and the microbial processes may not come into equilibrium in 

the same manner of the studies. 

A study conducted from 2003 to 2008 on the southeastern edge of the Klamath Mountains in northern 

California, found that overall the community composition and species richness of mycorrhizal fungi were 

not significantly altered by any of the mastication and burning treatments (Southworth and Gibson 2010). 

In addition, soil nutrients at the depth of fine roots and mycorrhizal fungi were not significantly changed 

due to mechanical mastication followed by burning, and soil nutrient composition did not vary among 

treatments. Reduction in the fruiting bodies of truffles did occur if the masticated fuels were burned. This 

study area comes closest to soil and weather conditions found in the interior/south portion of the decision 

area. Limited research in this area, particularly on clay-textured soils that are well-drained, makes it 

difficult to determine that similar results will occur in the decision area, particularly in the coastal/north 

area. 

Fuel reduction through biomass removal can remove both carbon and nutrients. Long-term productivity 

can be reduced by removing these materials, particularly where soils are low in these nutrients in the first 

place (Poggiani and Couto 1983, Swank and Reynolds 1986). The risk of reduction in soil quality due to 

nutrient loss is greatest in the areas of lower productivity in the interior/south. Removal of material to 

meet hazard reduction goals may conflict with long-term site productivity. 

Under the 1995 RMPs, the BLM has placed greater emphasis on removing hazardous fuel in the 

interior/south than in the coastal/north (Table 3-210). Fuel reduction for hazard risk has included 

removal of material along roadsides or pulling material into treated harvest units, which the BLM may 

not have recorded in the data as fuel reduction treatments. Many areas recorded as burn treatments in 

another database do not reflect in the totals as hazardous fuels reduced.

Table 3-210. Fuel treatments by method, 2003-2012. 

Fuels Treatment

Coastal/North Interior/South 

Totals 

(Acres) 

Activity 

Fuel 

(Acres) 

Hazardous 

Risk Fuel 

(Acres) 

Total 

Area 

Treated 

(Acres) 

Activity 

Fuel 

(Acres) 

Hazardous 

Risk Fuel 

(Acres) 

Total 

Area 

Treated 

(Acres) 

Underburn/Broadcast Burn 81,142 2,725 81,414 57,095 33,053 90,148 171,562 

Machine Pile and Burn 310 16,690 17,000 33,976 25,018 58,994 75,994 

Mastication - 2,773 2,773 - 5,359 5,359 8,132 

Total Treatment Acres 81,452 22,188 101,187 91,071 63,430 149,677 250,864 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Fuel treatments over the past 20 years have resulted in detrimental soil conditions on 30,424 acres in the 

decision area: 9,292 acres in the coastal/north and 21,132 acres in the interior/south (Table 3-211). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

622 | Page

Table 3-211. Detrimental soil disturbance from fuel treatments by method, 2003-2012. 

Fuels Treatment Coastal/North

(Acres)

Interior/South

(Acres)

Totals

(Acres)

Underburn/Broadcast Burn 4,071 4,507 8,578

Machine Pile and Burn 4,250 14,749 18,999

Mastication 971 1,876 2,847

Totals 9,292 21,132 30,424

For each alternative, the total detrimental soil acres from treatment disturbance ranges from 

approximately 10,100 to 4,400 acres (Figure 3-155). This acreage equals from 5 to 7 percent of the acres 

treated in each of the alternatives. Alternative C would result in the greatest amount of detrimental soil 

disturbance from fuel treatments (10,139 acres), and Alternative D would result in the least (4,346 acres). 

The No Action alternative and Alternatives A and B would result in only slightly more detrimental soil 

disturbance from fuel treatments than Alternative D, and substantially less than Alternative C. 

Figure 3-155. Detrimental soil disturbance from fuel treatments by alternative during the first decade. 

The detrimental soil disturbance from fuel treatments during the first decade under the alternatives would 

be approximately 14 to 33 percent (Table 3-212) of the current detrimental soil disturbance from past fuel 

treatments. As a result, the alternatives summed with past fuel treatments would result in a cumulative 

total of detrimental soil disturbance ranging from 34,770 acres to 40,563 acres. 

3,489

1,674

3,252

4,307

2,575

1,311

1,810

1,816

4,005

1,136

530

926

987

1,827

635

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Acres

Machine Pile Mastication Under Burn
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

623 | Page

Table 3-212. Detrimental soil disturbance from fuels treatments compared to the current condition. 

Detrimental Soil Disturbance From 

Fuel Reduction Treatments No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Current Condition (Acres) 30,424 30,424 30,424 30,424 30,424 

Effects of the Alternatives (Acres) 5,330 4,410 6,055 10,139 4,346 

Totals 35,754 34,834 36,479 40,563 34,770 

Percentage of Current Condition 18% 14% 20% 33% 14% 

There are differences between alternatives based on the method of treatment that would produce different 

detrimental effects. In all alternatives except Alternative A, machine piling would be the largest 

contributor to detrimental soil disturbance (Figure 3-155). Mastication would be the largest contributor to 

detrimental soil disturbance in Alternative A. Where machine piling would occur, there would be 

compaction that may reduce seedling growth or vegetative cover of native plants. Where soil is heated 

above lethal temperatures, there may be loss of microbial activity and potential attachment to roots to 

improve growth. If masticated materials accumulate in layers greater than 3 inches, the mulch layer would 

impede transpiration, water infiltration, and seedling growth. 

Issue 4 

How would off-highway vehicle use under the alternatives affect soil quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that areas allocated as open for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would 

experience detrimental soil disturbance. Areas designated as closed would not experience detrimental soil 

disturbance, because the BLM would not permit off-highway vehicle use. Areas designated as limited 

would not experience measurable additional detrimental soil disturbance, because the BLM would limit 

off-highway vehicle use to existing or designated roads and trails, which have already experienced 

detrimental soil disturbance through the construction of the roads or trails. Until the BLM completes route 

designations through implementation level planning, the BLM cannot identify which routes would be 

designated in any alternative. Therefore, the BLM cannot quantify these more site-specific effects in this 

analysis, and the BLM would address these effects as part of the analysis supporting the implementation 

level decisions. 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that OHV users would operate vehicles consistent with BLM decisions 

about OHV use. Although the BLM has some site-specific and anecdotal information about illegal OHV 

use, the BLM does not have a basis for predicting the location or effects of any widespread or systematic 

illegal OHV use. In addition, much of the decision area has physical limitations to potential illegal OHV 

use, including dense vegetation, steep slopes, and locked gates. In most of the interior/south, the ability to 

track numerous different routes across the open spaces can lead to degradation and erosion in a greater 

proportion than most of the coastal/north. However, the BLM lacks a basis for characterizing current 

illegal OHV use or forecasting such potential illegal OHV use in the future under any of the alternatives 

at this scale of analysis. 

Background 

Off-highway vehicle use can cause detrimental soil disturbance as vehicle traffic compacts or displaces 

soil (Ouren et al. 2007). The effects can be vary based on the type of vehicle. Off-highway vehicles 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

624 | Page

include 2- and 4-wheel all-terrain vehicles, large 4-wheel drive trucks, sport utility vehicles, and any other 

vehicle capable of off-road travel. Depending on the type of soil, there will be different effects. Relatively 

uniform sandy or clay soils are less vulnerable to compaction than loamy sands or coarse-textured, 

gravelly soils characterized by variability in particle size (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). In addition, soils 

capable of holding greater water content are more susceptible to compaction than soils containing less 

moisture (Webb 1982). However, even soils in semi-arid and arid lands experience problematic 

compaction, because the texture of these soils is slow to recover through natural soil-loosening processes, 

including shrinking, swelling, drying, wetting, freezing, and thawing (Webb 1982). 

Off-highway vehicle use can cause soil erosion, which occurs when fine-grained particles blow off in the 

wind or wash off when precipitation occurs on the unprotected surface. The removal of the top layers of 

soil, particularly the organic matter, degrades the potential for soil function. The result can range from a 

barren surface or very deep gullies, depending on soil type, slope gradient, and amount of exposure to 

precipitation. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Under the No Action alternative, approximately 85,000 acres (3.3 percent) of the decision area would 

remain closed to OHV use, and approximately 330,400 acres (12.8 percent) would remain open to OHV 

use (Table 3-213). On the remaining 83.9 percent, OHV use would remain limited to existing roads and 

trails or designated roads and trails. On some portion of the 330,400 acres open to OHV use, detrimental 

soil disturbance has been, and will continue, to occur. It is not possible for the BLM to determine at this 

scale of analysis with the data available how much of the 330,400 acres open to OHV use is actually 

experiencing detrimental soil disturbance or will in the future. However, within areas open to OHV use, 

such effects could occur throughout the open area without future analysis or decision-making by the 

BLM. 

Table 3-213. OHV categories of use by alternative. 

Trails and 

Travel 

Management

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Acres

% of 

Total 

Acres

Acres

% of 

Total 

Acres

Acres

% of 

Total 

Acres

Acres

% of 

Total 

Acres

Acres

% of 

Total 

Acres

Closed 84,589 3.3% 128,757 5.2% 148,551 6.0% 178,001 7.2% 153,305 6.2%

Limited 2,156,712 83.9% 2,345,574 94.8% 2,325,763 94.0% 2,296,313 92.8% 2,320,987 93.8%

Open 330,394 12.8% - - - -

Under all action alternatives, no areas would be open to OHV use. The entirety of the decision area would 

be closed to OHV use, or OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails. As such, there would be 

no additional detrimental soil disturbance from OHV use measurable at this scale of analysis with the data 

available under any of the action alternatives. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

625 | Page

Issue 5 

How would the combination of timber harvest, road construction, and fuel reduction treatments92 under 

the alternatives affect soil quality? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM combined the individual levels of detrimental soil disturbance from timber 

harvesting, road construction, and fuels treatments. For the purposes of this analysis, the BLM considered 

all acres of detrimental soil to be equal: acres of detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvesting are 

equivalent to those from road construction or fuels reduction. There are differences in how detrimental 

soil disturbance from different management actions would affect soil quality. However, it is not possible 

to distinguish quantitatively these differences in detrimental soil disturbance at this scale of analysis with 

the data available. In addition, there would likely be some overlap in the acres of detrimental soil 

disturbance from these three sources (e.g., the same location within a harvest unit would experience 

detrimental soil disturbance from the ground-based yarding equipment during harvesting and from 

machine piling and burning during fuels treatment). However, it is not possible at this scale of analysis to 

separate the acres of detrimental soil disturbance from each source and identify overlapping acres. 

Therefore, these estimates overestimate the acres of detrimental soil disturbance, in part, because of 

overlapping acres. 

The BLM compared the combined amount of detrimental soil disturbance to a threshold of 20 percent of 

areas treated. The BLM derived this analytical threshold, in part, from a U.S. Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region standard, in which overall soil quality is considered negatively impacted and 

amelioration must ensue when detrimental soil disturbance exceeds 15 percent of an area treated (USDA 

FS 2010). However, this 15 percent standard does not account for road construction. The BLM increased 

this analytical threshold to 20 percent to account for detrimental soil disturbance from road construction. 

This 20 percent threshold only provides an approximate analytical threshold at this scale of analysis. 

Comparing the amount of detrimental soil disturbance as a percentage of total area treated across the 

decision area over 10 years to this 20 percent analytical threshold provides only limited and approximate 

information, it does not reveal whether or not any particular site or treatment area would exceed this 20 

percent threshold. The relevant scale for evaluating detrimental soil disturbance and determining the need 

for mitigation or amelioration is at the site scale, such as an individual timber harvest unit or individual 

treatment area. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Currently, 139,299 acres in the decision area have experienced detrimental soil disturbance from past 

timber harvest, road construction, and fuel reduction treatments (Table 3-214). 

Table 3-214. Detrimental soil disturbance from all sources, by the current condition and under all 

alternatives during the first decade. 

Management Action Current No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Fuels Treatments (Acres) 30,424 5,330 4,410 6,055 10,139 4,346 

Road Construction (Acres) 79,311 5,167 1,692 3,748 4,367 1,388 

 

92 While there is detrimental soil disturbance from OHV use, at this scale of analysis the BLM cannot quantify an 

amount. Therefore, the BLM did not combine detrimental soil disturbance from OHV use with these other sources 

because of this uncertainty. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

626 | Page

Management Action Current No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Timber Harvest (Acres) 29,564 24,172 12,036 25,217 27,000 21,742

Totals 139,299 34,669 18,138 35,020 41,506 27,476

Total Alt. Combined with Current - 173,968 157,437 174,319 180,805 166,775

Percentage of Current Condition 25% 13% 25% 30% 20%

Through the first decade, the alternatives would increase detrimental soil condition amounts by 13 to 30 

percent of current amounts. Alternative C would result in the largest combined increase in detrimental soil 

disturbance (41,506 acres), and Alternative A would result in the smallest combined increase in 

detrimental soil disturbance (18,138 acres). Although detrimental soil disturbance from timber harvest has 

been the smallest source of detrimental soil disturbance in the past, it would be the largest source of 

detrimental soil disturbance under all alternatives in the future. New road construction would be low 

under all alternatives, as most of the required transportation system is currently in place. Fuel treatments 

under the proposed alternatives would use less of the treatment methods likely to result in detrimental soil 

disturbance than in past management. 

As noted in the issues above, the BLM would be able to reduce the acreage of detrimental soil conditions 

from timber harvest, road construction, and fuels treatments through sound management practices that 

would limit initial compaction levels, remove existing or created compacted surfaces, and improve soil 

water and organic matter levels. Best management practices are listed and described in Appendix I. 

However, because the extent and effectiveness of such mitigation or amelioration depends heavily on sitespecific and project-specific factors, the BLM cannot quantify those reductions in detrimental soil 

disturbance in this analysis. 

References 

Amacher, M. C., K. P. O’Neil, and C. H. Perry. 2007. Soil vital signs: A new Soil Quality Index (SQI) for assessing forest soil 

health. Research Paper RMRS-RP-65WWW. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 12 p. 

Busse, M. D., S. E. Beattie, R. F. Powers, F. G. Sanchez, and A. E. Tiarks. 2006. Microbial community responses in forest 

mineral soil to competition, organic matter removal and vegetation control. Can. J. For. Res. 36(3): 577–588. 

Busse M. D., C. J. Shestak, K. R. Hubbert, and E. E. Knapp. 2010. Soil physical properties regulate lethal heating during burning 

of woody residues. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74: 947–955. doi:10.2136/SSSAJ2009.0322. 

Busse, M. D., C. J. Shestak, and K. R. Hubbert. 2013. Soil heating during burning of forest slash piles and wood piles. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire, published online 20 May 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF12179. 

Busse, M. D.; K. R. Hubbert, E. E. Y. Moghaddas. 2014. Fuel reduction practices and their effects on soil quality. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-241.USDA FS, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. 156 p. 

Bustos, O., and A. Egan. 2011. A comparison of soil compaction associated with four ground-based harvesting systems. 

ProQuest Earth Science Collection, Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 28(4): 194-198. 

Cafferata, P. 1992. Soil compaction research. In: Skaugset, A., editor, Forest soils and riparian zone management: the 

contributions of Dr. Henry A. Froehlich to forestry. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. pp. 8-22. 

Coulter, E., K. Coulter, and T. Mason. 2002. Dry forest mechanized fuels treatment trials project. Final Report to the USDA FS,

Pacific Northwest and Intermountain Regions. http://www.theyankeegroup.com/mechfuels/publications.htm. 

Davis, R. L. F. Sanchez, and S. DeHart. 2008. Soil Quality Standards Monitoring Program Administration and Implementation 

(In) Page-Dumroese, D., D. Neary, C. Trettin, tech. eds. 2010. Scientific background for soil monitoring on National Forests 

and Rangelands: workshop proceedings, April 29-30, 2008, Denver, CO. Proc. RMRS-P-59. Fort Collins, CO: USDA FS, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 126 p. 

Fleming, R.L., R. F. Powers, N. W. Foster, J. M. Kranabetter, D. A. Scott, F. Ponder, Jr., S. Berch, W. K. Chapman, R. D. 

Kabzems, K. H. Ludovici, D. M. Morris, D. S. Page-Dumroese, P. T. Sanborn, F. G. Sanchez, D. M. Stone, and A. E.Tiarks. 

2006. Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction, and vegetation control on a 5-year seedling performance: a 

regional comparison of long-term soil productivity sites. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(3): 529-550. 

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x05-271. 

Froehlich, H. A. 1976. The influence of different thinning systems on damage to soil and trees. Proceedings, XVIIIUFRO World 

Congress Division IV. pp. 333-334. 

Froelich, H. A., and D. S. McNabb. 1984. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest forest. p. 159-192. In E. L. Stone 

(ed.) Forest soils and treatment impacts. Proceedings of the 6th North American Forest Soils Conference. Knoxville, TN. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Soil Resources

627 | Page

Han, Han-Sup, D. Page-Dumroese, Sang-Kyun Han, and J. Tirocke. 2006. Effect of slash, machine passes, and soil moisture on 

penetration resistance in a cut-to-length harvesting. International Journal of Forest Engineering 17(2):11-24. 

Han, Sang-Kyun, Han Han-Sup, D. Page-Dumroese, and L. R. Johnson. 2009. Soil compaction associated with cut-to length and 

whole tree harvesting of a coniferous forest. Can. J. For. Res. 39: 976-989. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site 

at cjfr. nrc.ca on 13 May 2009. 

Heilman, P. E., H. W. Anderson, and D. M. Baungartner, eds. 1981. Forest soils of the Douglas-fir region. 298 pp. 

Johnson, D. W. 2010. Soil quality: some basic considerations and case studies. In Page-Dumroese, D., D. Neary, C. Trettin, tech. 

eds. 2010. Scientific background for soil monitoring on National Forests and Rangelands: workshop proceedings; April 29-

30, 2008; Denver, CO. Proc. RMRS-P-59. Fort Collins, CO: USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp. 1-12. 

Karlen, D. L, M. J. Jausbach, J. W. Doran, R. G. Cline, R. F. Harris, and G. E. Schuman. 1997. Soil quality: a concept, definition 

and framework for evaluation. (A guest editorial), Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61(1): 4-10. 

Labelle, E. R., and D. Jaeger. 2011. Soil compaction caused by cut-to-length forest operations and possible short-term natural 

rehabilitation of soil density. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75(6): 2314-2329. 

Lloyd, R. A., K. A. Lohse, and T. P.A. Ferré, 2013. Influence of road reclamation techniques on forest ecosystem recovery. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(2): 75–81. 

Lovich, Jeffrey E., and David Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation of the southern California desert ecosystem and 

prospects for natural recovery and restoration. Environmental Management 24(3): 309-326. 

Miller, R. E., W. Scott, and J. W. Hazard. 1996. Soil compaction and conifer growth after tractor yarding at three coastal 

Washington locations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26(2): 225–236. 

Miller, R. E., W. I. Stein, R. L. Heninger, W. Scott, S. N. Little, and D. J. Goheen. 1989. Maintaining and improving site 

productivity in the Douglas-fir region. pp. 98-136 In: D.A. Perry and others, eds. Maintaining the long-term productivity of 

Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems. Proceedings of a symposium; March 31- April 2, 1987. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/silv/publications/opt/326_MillerEtal1989.pdf. 

Montreal Process. 1995. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temporal and boreal forests.

Canadian Forest Service, Catalogue Fo42 238/1995E. Canadian Forest Service, Hull, Quebec. 

Moghaddas, E. Y., and S. L. Stephens. 2007. Thinning, burning, and thin-burn fuel treatment effects on soil properties in a Sierra 

Nevada mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 250(3): 156–166. 

Naeth, M.A.; D.J. Pluth; D.S. Chanasyk, A.W. Bailey; and Fedkenheuer,A.W. 1990. Soil compacting impacts of grazing in 

mixed prairie and fescue grassland ecosystems of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 70(2): 157-167. 

http://pubs.aic.ca/doi/abs/10.4141/cjss90-018. 

Neary, D. G., K. C. Ryan, and L. F. DeBano. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soil and water. General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 

Ouren, D. S., C. Haas, C. P. Melcher, S. C. Stewart, P. D. Ponds, N. R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and Z. H. Bowen. 2007. 

Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated 

bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353, 225 

p. 

Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, W. Elliot, T. Rice, J. Nesser, T. Collins, and R. Meurisse. 2000. Soil quality standards and 

guidelines for forest sustainability in northwestern North America. Forest Ecology and Management 138(1): 445-462. 

Poggiani, F., and H. T. Z. Couto. 1983. Biomass and nutrient estimates in short rotation intensively cultured plantation of 

Eucalyptus grandis. IPEF, Piracicaba, n. 23, p. 29-36, abr. 1983. 

Powers, R. F., Tiarks, A. E., Boyle, J. R., 1998. Assessing soil quality: practicable standards for sustainable forest productivity in 

the United States. In: Davidson, E. A., M. B. Adams, and K. Ramakrishna (eds.). The contribution of soil science to the 

development and implementation of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. SSSA Special Publication No. 

53, SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 53±80. 

Powers, R. F., D. H. M. Alban, R. E. Miller, A. E. Tiarks, C. G. Wells, P. E. Avers, R. G. Cline, R. O. Fitzgerald, and N. S. 

Loftus, Jr. 1990. Sustaining site productivity in North American forests: Problems and prospects. p. 49-79 in Sustained 

Productivity of Forest Soils, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 

Powers, R. F., D. A. Scott, F. G. Sanchez, R. A. Voldseth, D. Page-Dumroese, J. D. Elioff, and D. M. Stone. 2005. The North 

American long-term soil productivity experiment. Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and 

Management 220(205): 3117-50. 

Ryan, M., M. A. Battaglia, C. Rhoades, and M. E. Rocca. 2011. Reducing fuels through mulching treatment: What are the 

ecological effects? Fire Science Brief, Issue 140: 6. 

Ryans, M., and D. Cormier. 1994. A review of mechanized brush-cutting equipment for forestry. Special Report No. SR-10. 

Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC). 

Sanchez, F. G., A. D. Scott, and K. H. Ludovici. 2006. Negligible effects of severe organic matter removal and soil compactions

on loblolly pine growth over 10 years. For. Ecol. Manag. 227(1):145-154. 

Shestak, C. J. and M. D. Busse. 2005. Compaction alters physical but not biological indices of soil health. Soil Science Society of 

America Journal ProQuest Earth Science Collection 69(1): 236-246. Jan/Feb. 

Southworth, D., and J. Gibson. 2010. Going underground: Studying fuel treatment effects on the mycorrhizal community of 

Northern California. Fire Science Brief, Issue 105: 6. 

Swank, W. T., and B. C. Reynolds. 1986. Within-tree distribution of woody biomass and nutrients for selected hardwood species. 

Paper presented at Eighth Annual Southern Forest Biomass Workshop, Knoxville, Tennessee, June 16-19, 1986. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Soil Resources

628 | Page

Tan, Xiao, M. Curran, S. Chang, and D. Maynard. 2009. Early growth responses of lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir to soil 

compaction, organic matter removal, and rehabilitation Treatments in Southeastern British Columbia, Forest Science 

ProQuest Earth Science Collection 55(3): 210. 

USDA FS. 2010. FSM 2500, Chapter 2550 Soil Management, Forest Service Manual National Headquarters (WO) Washington, 

DC., Amendment No. 2550-2010-1, effective date November 23, 2010. 

USDI BLM. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRC). 1996. 1996. Soil quality resource concerns: compaction. Soil Quality 

Information Sheet. April 1996. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_019200.pdf. 

Webb, R. H. 1982. Off-road motorcycle effects on a desert soil: Environmental Conservation 9(3): 197-208. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Sustainable Energy

629 | Page

Sustainable Energy 

Key Points

x Under all alternatives, the majority of the land in the decision area is available for the potential 

development of sustainable energy resources. 

x Alternative C would make available the greatest amount of biomass. 

x While Alternative A would have the greatest acreage in exclusion areas, the BLM concluded that 

Alternative D would be the alternative most likely to constrain wind energy and transmission line 

development substantially by designating over a third of the decision area as avoidance areas. 

x While there is no current geothermal development and limited potential in the decision area, all 

action alternatives would be less constraining to geothermal development than the current 

condition, with Alternative A being the least constraining. 

Background

For the purposes of this Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM uses the term sustainable energy in lieu of the term 

renewable energy, which is more commonly used in laws and policies guiding the management of the 

resources addressed in this section. The term “renewable” implies that an energy resource undergoes a 

cycle of availability, (i.e., a cycle that alternates between energy depletion and energy replenishment). For 

the purposes of this document, the BLM believes that it is more accurate to characterize these resources as 

sustainable. 

Issue 1 

How would management alternatives for forest treatment affect the availability of slash as a biomass 

energy source? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM evaluated the alternatives and quantified them by projected volume of timber harvest under 

each alternative in MMbf. Using this harvest data, the BLM quantified the maximum quantities of slash 

that would be produced using the assumption, described more fully in the Planning Criteria, that 450 

green tons of slash would be made available for every million board feet of harvest. 

While other types of biomass exist, the BLM focused this analysis on slash (i.e., wood residue from 

timber harvest) since this is the specific type of biomass that provides the most practical opportunity for 

sustainable energy development in the planning area. Slash consists primarily of the branches and treetops 

of harvested merchantable timber. Slash excludes other biomass present in abundance but more difficult 

to transport such as snags, downed logs, and stumps (Cross et al. 2013, p. 1).

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

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

2014, pp. 164-165). 

Background 

While the availability of 450 tons of green slash per million board feet of timber is an acceptable 

assumption for the purposes of this analysis, the precise amount of biomass produced would vary based 

on several factors including the location and type of harvested stand. Other factors include the amount of 

non-merchantable hardwoods, the amount of sub-merchantable material designated for cutting and 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Sustainable Energy

630 | Page

removal in fire-prone stands, and the level of defect within a given stand. Thinning would typically 

produce biomass that consists mainly of tops and sub-merchantable stems, whereas regeneration harvest 

would produce more cull material and broken pieces. 

Topography, vegetation, and yarding systems would affect the accessibility of biomass produced through 

timber harvest. Areas suitable for ground-based equipment would have a higher recovery level. Areas of 

steep, dense brush would have a lower recovery level due to the difficulty of locating the material and 

bringing it to a landing with cable yarding systems. 

The sale of biomass also depends on market conditions. The amount sold is generally less than the 

available biomass would allow because this resource typically lacks sufficient energy density for 

economical transport as a fuel for electrical power generation except where generating plants are close to 

harvest areas. 

There are wood fiber biomass combustion boilers at 21 industrial or institutional sites in the planning 

area. The boilers supply heat for industrial processes. At nine of these sites, steam-driven generators 

produce electric power. Private individuals and commercial companies also cut firewood on BLMadministered lands, which the BLM includes in the definition of biomass available on BLM-administered 

lands, but do not come from slash. 

Affected Environment 

Biomass occurs in abundance throughout the planning area, but as described above, factors such as the 

distance from harvest areas to power generation sites influence its production and sale. Based the harvest 

level, in 2012, 91,669 green tons of biomass were available as slash from BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area. In addition to its use for energy generation, biomass currently harvested in the decision 

area is also sold as landscaping material, raw manufacturing material for fiberboard, or charcoal 

briquettes. 

Environmental Effects

Table 3-215 provides the biomass available as slash from BLM-administered lands under each 

alternative. As described above, a number of additional factors affect the biomass actually produced, as 

opposed to simply made available, from BLM-administered lands. These factors would almost certainly 

cause the production of less biomass from BLM-administered lands than is described as available in 

Table 3-215. These factors would be consistent across alternatives, so the results in the table provide a 

reasonable basis for comparing the relative levels of biomass made available under each alternative. 

Alternative C would make available the most biomass of the alternatives, followed by the No Action 

alternative, Alternative B, and Alternative A. Alternative D would make available the least amount of 

biomass from BLM-administered lands. 

Table 3-215. Biomass available from BLM-administered lands as timber harvest slash by alternative. 

Alternative Green Tons

No Action 180,629

Alt. A 112,893

Alt. B 149,471

Alt. C 250,623

Alt. D 81,283
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Sustainable Energy

631 | Page

Issue 2 

How would ROW avoidance and exclusion areas in the alternatives affect the potential siting of wind 

energy developments and sustainable energy corridor designations? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

As presented in the Planning Criteria (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 164-165), the BLM intended to use the 

existing wind energy resource data compiled in the 2005 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Land in the Western United States (USDI 

BLM 2005) to assess how the alternatives interacted with the potential for wind energy development in 

the planning area of this RMP. However, the BLM found that the data in the 2005 Wind EIS is not 

detailed enough to reveal specific areas of high energy potential within the planning area. 

Instead, the BLM compared acres of right-of-way (ROW) avoidance and exclusion across the alternatives 

to determine the extent to which each alternative might constrain the development of wind energy and 

sustainable energy transmission. The BLM administers both wind energy and transmission lines on BLMadministered lands through the granting of a ROW, so avoidance and exclusion areas would directly 

affect the potential for developing wind energy and transmission lines on BLM-administered lands. For 

the purposes of this analysis, the BLM assumed that ROW avoidance areas would preclude wind energy 

and transmission lines in most cases. 

Background 

According to the American Wind Energy Association, Oregon, as a whole, currently has approximately 

435 megawatts (MW) of installed wind power generating capacity with another 140 MW proposed. The 

2005 Wind EIS projected that by 2025, 196 MWs of wind energy will originate from BLM-administered 

land throughout Oregon (USDI BLM 2005, p. 5-104). 

The NREL wind resource map for Oregon indicates that Oregon has wind resources consistent with 

community-scale production. The good-to-excellent resource areas for community-scale production are 

concentrated on ridge crests throughout the State. None of the good-to-excellent non-ridge crest areas 

with at least good wind resource potential are located in the planning area of this RMP. There are a few 

sites with wind resources of this quality along the ridge peaks of the Cascade Range on the eastern border 

of the planning area and scattered along the Pacific coast. Current NREL mapping resolution does not 

reveal the presence of utility-scale wind resources in the decision area (DOE EERE 2014, 80-Meters). 

Wind energy development on BLM-administered lands is permitted through right-of-way (ROW) 

authorizations in accordance with requirements of FLPMA and the 2008 BLM Wind Energy 

Development Policy (2008 Wind Policy). 

Affected Environment 

There is no current wind energy production, or proposals for wind energy production, on BLMadministered lands in western Oregon. As noted in the background section, there are no known sites with 

potential utility-scale wind development for within the decision area for this RMP. 

In addition to limited potential, the lack of infrastructure critical to development limits the development of 

sustainable energy resources, including wind, in western Oregon. There are currently no transmission 

lines that could easily transmit energy collected from wind energy on BLM-administered in the planning 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Sustainable Energy

632 | Page

area. There are no current plans to construct transmission lines that could fill this need. Any transmission 

line through BLM-Administered land would require a ROW. 

Environmental Effects 

The alternatives being considered change the acreage of both Exclusion Areas and Avoidance Areas. 

Table 3-216 compares the ROW exclusion acreage associated with each alternative. Since the BLM is 

unable to grant ROW for energy transmission corridors in exclusion areas, Alternatives A, B, and C all 

slightly increase the percent of the decision area on which the BLM could not grant a ROW for wind 

power under any situation short of a legal mandate. Alternative A would exclude wind energy and 

transmission line development from the greatest percentage of the decision area. Alternative D would 

very slightly decrease the current acreage of exclusion areas. 

Table 3-216. Right-Of-Way Exclusion Area acres by alternative. 

Exclusion Area Criteria No Action

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

Lands Designated as Wilderness 14,309 14,309 14,309 14,309 14,309

Lands Managed to Protect their 

Wilderness Characteristics - 88,029 50,706 50,706 -

Designated and Suitable Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (Wild Only) 5,937 5,937 5,937 5,937 5,937

Visual Resource Management Class I 22,136 21,114 21,114 21,114 21,114

Totals 42,382 129,389 92,066 92,066 41,360

Percent of Decision Area 1.66% 5.06% 3.60% 3.60% 1.62%

The BLM is able to grant a ROW in Avoidance Areas if such a ROW is compatible with the protection of 

the values for which the BLM designated the Avoidance Area or no other route is possible. However, it is 

unlikely that the development of wind power would be compatible with the values for which the BLM 

would designate the Avoidance Areas. These Avoidance Areas would thus likely constrain the 

development of wind energy and sustainable energy transmission corridors on these BLM-administered 

lands. Table 3-217 compares the ROW Avoidance acreage associated with each alternative. Alternative 

A would decrease the acres of Avoidance Areas compared to the No Action alternative, while 

Alternatives C and D would substantially increase this acreage. While Alternative A would have the 

greatest acreage in Exclusion Areas, the BLM concludes that Alternative D would be the alternative most 

likely to constrain wind energy and transmission line development substantially by designating over a 

third of the decision area as Avoidance Areas. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Sustainable Energy

633 | Page

Table 3-217. Right-Of-Way Avoidance Area acres by alternative. 

Avoidance Area Criteria No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 94,657 105,990 99,427 98,104 105,784 

Recreation Management Areas 8,217 18,543 164,141 416,616 666,862 

Wilderness Study Areas 1,208 1,208 1,208 1,208 1,208 

Designated and Suitable Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (Scenic and Recreation only) 20,414 20,414 27,557 27,557 64,083 

Visual Resource Management Class II 

that is not included in ROW Exclusion 

Areas 

123,756 48,185 48,958 48,999 58,309 

Total Avoidance Acres* 243,928 179,436 326,510 575,444 871,713 

Percent of Decision Area 9.54% 7.02% 12.77% 22.50% 34.08% 

* Right-of-way avoidance total acreage are not a direct sum from the individual criteria acres due to criteria that overlap 

geographically with each other. Areas that overlap with Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas are subtracted from the sum of the total 

avoidance acres due to right-of-way exclusion is more restrictive than right-of-way avoidance. 

Issue 3 

How would the alternatives affect the development of geothermal as a sustainable energy source? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

To assess the effect of each alternative on the development of geothermal energy resources in the 

planning area, the BLM compared the extent to which each alternative would condition the development 

of fluid minerals; geothermal energy is managed as a fluid mineral. The BLM assumed that leasable 

stipulations (such as no surface occupancy) would negatively affect, though not entirely preclude, the 

potential for geothermal development on BLM-administered lands. 

Background 

Although Oregon has yet to achieve commercial generation of electricity from geothermal energy, the 

potential exists. A U.S. Department of the Interior report identifies 7 sites within Oregon as having the 

highest geothermal potential out of 35 sites on public lands throughout the country (Kirby et al. 2003). 

Among these sites, only the area within, and in the immediate surroundings of Klamath Falls, is within 

the planning area. 

Affected Environment 

There is no current geothermal development occurring on BLM-administered lands within the planning 

area. Geothermal potential exists in Oregon; however, it is primarily located in the eastern portion of the 

State. Some potential exists in the south-central part of the State on the eastern border of the planning area 

of this RMP (USDI BLM and USDA FS 2008, p. I-9). 

There are currently 692,100 acres of BLM-administered lands to which the BLM has applied no surface 

occupancy stipulations.

Environmental Effects 

The alternatives would impose requirements for fluid mineral stipulations on differing acreages of BLMadministered lands within the planning area. The differing arrangement in each alternative of ACECs, 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Sustainable Energy

634 | Page

RMAs, suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers, and lands managed for their wilderness characteristics drives 

these differences. Table 3-218 compares acres for which the BLM would require stipulations across the 

alternatives. It is important to note that while the No Action alternative acreage includes only acres to 

which the BLM has applied no surface occupancy stipulations, the action alternative acreages include all 

areas the BLM has identified as requiring stipulations, but these stipulations may include items such as 

timing stipulations in addition to no surface occupancy. 

Table 3-218. Acres that would have leasable stipulations across alternatives. 

No Action 

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

Leasable stipulations 692,100* 190,389 211,638 318,915 498,525

* This includes only acres that are no surface occupancy 

Under all action alternatives, the BLM would substantially reduce the acreage requiring leasable mineral 

stipulations compared to the No Action alternative. Alternative A would have the least acreage requiring 

stipulations. Thus, all action alternatives would be less constraining to geothermal development than the 

current condition, with Alternative A being the least constraining. 

Issue Considered but Not Analyzed In Detail 

How would management alternatives affect the development of solar radiation as a sustainable energy 

source? 

In the joint BLM-DOE analysis, NREL could not demonstrate a potential for solar energy development to 

be a notable sustainable energy resource on BLM-administered lands in the planning area (USDI BLM 

and US DOE 2003, pp. 13-14, 19-20, A2-A3, E9). The BLM cannot assess the effects of the alternatives 

on this resource since the resource does not exist within the BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

References 

Cross, J. C., E. C. Turnblom, and G. J. Ettl. 2013. Biomass production on the Olympic and Kitsap Peninsulas, Washington:

updated logging residue ratios, slash pile volume-to-weight ratios and supply curves for selected locations. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-872, USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. pp. vi + 30 pp. 

Jones, G., D. Loeffler, E. Butler, S. Hummel, and W. Chung. 2013. The financial feasibility of delivering forest treatment 

residues to bioenergy facilities over a range of diesel fuel and delivered biomass prices. Biomass and Bioenergy 48: 171-

180. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2013_jones_g001.pdf. 

Kirby, M., D. Dahle, D. Heimiller, B. Farhar, and B. Owens. 2003. Assessing the potential for renewable energy on public lands.

USDI BLM and US DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. DOE/GO-102003-1704. 

--- . 2014. Oregon 50-Meter Height Wind Map. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/maps_template.asp?stateab=or (Accessed 12/01/2014).

---. 2014. Oregon 80-Meter Height Wind Resource Map. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=or (Accessed 12/01/2014). 

USDI BLM. 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-administered 

lands in the western United States. FES-05-11. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

---. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 

USDI BLM and USDA FS. 2008. Geothermal leasing in the western United States. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/geothe

rmal_eis/final_programmatic.Par.90935.File.dat/ROD_Geothermal_12-17-08.pdf (Accessed 12/30/14). 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

635 | Page

 Trails and Travel Management 

Key Points 

x All action alternatives increase the number of closed area designations when compared to the No 

Action alternative. 

x All Action Alternatives decrease the number of open area designations when compared to the No 

Action alternative. 

x Alternative D provides the greatest number of trail based opportunities for both motorized and 

non-motorized recreation activities. 

x Easements and Reciprocal right-of-way agreements secure access for BLM forest management 

activities. Reciprocal right-of-way agreements over O&C and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands do 

not grant rights for public access and recreational use. For this reason, a substantial portion of 

BLM-managed roads and BLM-administered lands lack legal public access. 

x The overall replacement value of the BLM’s transportation system exceeds $10 billion. 

Approximately 30 percent of the road mileage is in fair or poor condition, primarily due to 

depleted surfacing aggregate and worn-out minor culverts. Currently the deferred maintenance 

backlog exceeds $300 million. 

Background 

BLM-Administered Travel and Transportation System 

The BLM manages a complex and well-utilized travel system within western Oregon. The BLM owns 

and manages approximately 15,000 miles of roads and 395 miles of designated trails within the decision 

area. The primary purpose for the development and uses of the BLM transportation system are access for 

resource management, recreation use, and the transportation of forest products. Given the BLM’s 

checkerboard land ownership pattern, the road network has developed in concert with neighboring private 

timberland owners. The result is a joint-use BLM/private road network. The BLM currently has 

designated a network of trails and travel management areas within the planning area to address particular 

concerns and prescribe specific management actions for a defined geographic area. Travel management 

areas are a tool to frame transportation issues and help delineate and manage travel networks to address 

specific uses and resource concerns. 

Long-term or perpetual reciprocal right-of-way agreements provide legal access to Federal and private 

timberlands for BLM administrative use and private timberland owners as authorized by the FLPMA and 

other Federal regulations. A reciprocal right-of-way agreement provides both the BLM and the private 

landowner with a non-exclusive right to use, construct and maintain logging roads on each other’s 

property for forest management and harvest of forest products. These agreements are in effect on nearly 

75 percent of BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

Reciprocal right-of-way agreements over O&C and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands under 43 CFR 2812 do 

not grant rights for public access and recreational use. For this reason, a substantial portion of BLMmanaged roads and BLM-administered lands lack legal public access. Current commercial use of the 

BLM’s portion of the joint-use network consists predominantly of log hauling. 

Implementation Level Travel Planning

The BLM is deferring implementation-level Travel Management Planning (TMP) during the current 

RMPs for Western Oregon planning effort. Implementation-level TMP is the process of establishing a 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

636 | Page

final travel and transportation network that includes route-specific designations within the broader land 

use planning level area designations. Table 3-219 displays the existing off-highway vehicle area 

designations within the Western Oregon Planning area. 

Table 3-219. Existing OHV designations within the decision area. 

District/

Field Office

1995 RMP Travel Management Area Designation (Acres)

Open

Limited to 

Existing 

Roads and 

Trails

Limited to 

Existing 

Roads and 

Designated 

Trails

Limited to 

Designated 

Roads and 

Trails

Limited to 

Designated 

Roads

Closed Totals

Coos Bay - - - 318,676 - 3,489 322,165

Eugene - 320,883 - - - 3,547 324,430

Klamath Falls 29,902 137,154 - 47,222 - 10,702 224,980

Medford 139,878 26,514 - 661,357 - 46,371 874,120

Roseburg - 416,560 - 6,731 - 3,283 426,574

Salem 160,614 48,771 87,144 16,192 69,508 17,197 399,426

Totals 330,394 949,882 87,144 1,050,178 69,508 84,589 2,571,695

In the future, implementation-level travel planning will follow a site-specific process for selecting a final 

road and trail network. The BLM will make final route designations for the decision area in a 

comprehensive, interdisciplinary Travel and Transportation Management Plan scheduled to be completed 

within five years after the completion of the western Oregon RMPs. The BLM’s geo-database will 

provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and non-motorized recreation 

activities. The BLM began on-the-ground route inventories across the decision during the summer of 

2014. Route inventories will continue throughout 2015. The BLM estimates that there are approximately 

1,000 miles of non-designated user created routes within the decision area. The BLM will develop 

proposed future route designations through public scoping and NEPA analysis, utilizing the draft route 

inventories to evaluate amendments to the existing travel network during an implementation-level TMP. 

Appendix P includes interim OHV management guidelines that would be implemented in limited to 

existing designations until subsequent TMPs are complete. 

R.S. 2477 Assertions

Section 8 of the Mining Act of 1866 provided: “and be it further enacted, that the right-of-way for the 

construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.” The statute 

was self-enacting; rights being established by “construction” of a “highway” on unreserved public lands, 

without any form of acknowledgement or action by the Federal government. This section of the statute 

was later re-codified as Revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 2477). The FLPMA repealed R.S. 2477 in 1976, with 

a savings provision for rights established prior. 

A Travel Management Plan is not intended to provide evidence bearing on or addressing the validity of 

any R.S. 2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 rights are determined through a process that is entirely independent 

of the BLM’s planning process. Consequently, travel management planning does not take into 

consideration R.S. 2477 assertions or evidence. Travel management planning is based on an 

independently determined purpose and need that is based on resource uses and associated access to public 

lands and waters. When a decision is made on R.S. 2477 assertions, the BLM will adjust its travel routes 

accordingly. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

637 | Page

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect the BLM’s ability to provide trail and travel opportunities in western 

Oregon? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM classified lands use allocations (i.e., open, closed, and limited) for travel and trail use by 

alternative. The BLM evaluated the alternatives and compared the number of acres, allowable uses, travel 

limitations, and modes of travel allowed under each travel designation. The BLM analyzed the effects that 

off-highway vehicle allocations would have on other affected resources within the planning area. 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that OHV users would operate vehicles consistent with BLM decisions 

about OHV use. Although the BLM has some site-specific and anecdotal information about illegal OHV 

use, the BLM does not have a basis for predicting the location or effects of any widespread or systematic 

illegal OHV use. In addition, much of the decision area has physical limitations to potential illegal OHV 

use, including dense vegetation, steep slopes, and locked gates. In most of the interior/south, the ability to 

track numerous different routes across the open spaces can lead to degradation and erosion in a greater 

proportion than most of the coastal/north. However, the BLM lacks a basis for characterizing current 

illegal OHV use or forecasting such potential illegal OHV use in the future under any of the alternatives 

at this scale of analysis. 

The Planning Criteria provides additional information on analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, 

and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 115-

119). 

Descriptions of Indicators Used for Analysis 

The analysis used the following indicators: 

Travel Management Area Impact Indicators 

The BLM manages motorized access under three possible categories based on BLM land use planning 

decisions that take into account natural resource protection and public safety. The off-highway vehicle 

categories are (1) open, which allows for unlimited travel, including cross-country, (2) limited, where 

OHV use is restricted to meet specific resource management objectives, and (3) closed to motorized use. 

x Indicators: Travel Management Area designations: (1) the number of acres, allowable uses, travel 

limitations and modes of travel designated as open, limited, or closed; (2) the number of acres of 

recreation management areas where motorized or non-motorized trails are a primary recreation 

activity; (3) the management actions that result in short-term and long-term elimination, 

restriction, or reduction of travel opportunities to meet resource and resource use objectives for 

various programs. The BLM quantifies effects to these indicators where possible. For resources 

for which the BLM lacks quantitative data, it relies on professional judgment. 

Background 

Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations 

During this planning effort the BLM will make decisions about how it will generally manage OHVs in 

different parts of the planning area. As required by Executive Order and regulation, this RMP classifies 

all BLM-administered lands as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel activities. Definitions of open, 

limited, and closed areas are as follows: 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

638 | Page

x Open areas. Areas where the BLM does not limit of OHV use since there are no issues regarding 

resources, visitor conflicts, or public safety to warrant limiting cross-country travel. 

x Limited areas. Areas where the BLM has restricted OHV use in order to meet recreational and 

resource management objectives. Restrictions may include the number or types of vehicles; the time

or season of use; permitted or licensed use only; and limiting use to existing or designated roads and 

trails. 

x Closed areas. Areas that the BLM has closed to all motorized vehicle use to protect resources, 

ensure visitor safety, or reduce visitor conflicts. 

For areas classified as limited, the BLM would designate the types or modes of travel, such as pedestrian, 

equestrian, bicycle, motorized, etc.; limitations on time or season of use; limitations to certain types of 

vehicles (e.g., OHVs, motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles); limitations on BLM administrative use only; 

or other types of limitations. 

The BLM applied designation criteria in 43CFR 8342 when designating lands as open, limited, or closed

to off-road vehicles. All designations are based on the protection of the resources of the public lands, the 

promotion of the safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among 

various uses of the public lands. These designations are in accordance with the following criteria:

1. Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or other 

resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability. 

2. Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of 

wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species and 

their habitats. 

3. Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between of-road vehicle use and other 

existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the 

compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise 

and other factors. 

4. Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas. 

Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer determines that offroad vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, esthetic, scenic, or other 

values for which such areas are established. 

Plan Maintenance and Changes to Route Designations 

The RMPs that the BLM will adopt at the end of this RMP revision process will include indicators that 

guide future plan maintenance, amendments, or revisions related to OHV area designations or the 

approved road and trail system within “Limited to Existing” areas. Future conditions may require the 

designation or construction of new routes or closure of routes to better address resources and resource use 

conflicts. Actual route designations with the “Limited to Existing” category can be modified subsequent 

to RMP adoption without completing a plan amendment, although NEPA compliance will still be 

required. 

Plan maintenance would be accomplished through additional analysis and implementation-level travel 

planning (e.g., activity level planning). The BLM would collaborate with affected and interested parties in 

evaluating the designated road and trail network for suitability for active OHV management and 

envisioning potential changes to the existing system or adding new trails that would help meet current and 

future demands within “Limited to Existing” area designations and broader Recreation and Travel 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

639 | Page

Management Areas that emphasize motorized OHV use. In conducting such evaluations, the BLM will 

apply designation criteria in 43 CFR 8342. The following factors would also be considered: 

x Routes suitable for various categories of OHVs (e.g., motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, full size 4-

wheel drive vehicles) and opportunities for shared trail use. 

x Needs for parking, trailheads, informational and directional signs, mapping and route profiles, 

and development of brochures or other materials for public dissemination. 

x Opportunities to connect into existing or planned route networks. 

x Measures needed to meet the objectives stated in the Western Oregon RMP (e.g., cultural 

resources, soil resources, special status species, and recreation). 

x Affects to cultural resources in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act. 

x Public land roads or trails determined to cause considerable adverse effects or to continue a 

nuisance or threat to public safety would be considered for relocation or closure and rehabilitation 

after appropriate coordination with applicable agencies and partners. 

x Those areas managed as closed will not be available for new motorized designation or 

construction. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Motorized and Non-Motorized Trails 

The BLM manages 63 individual trails and trail systems that total over 395 miles in the western Oregon 

decision area. Trail-based recreation opportunities within the decision area include trail systems for 

motorized and non-motorized users, providing a range of available activities across various recreation 

settings. Popular activities include hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and OHV use. Appendix P

contains an overview of the existing trail opportunities within the planning area. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations 

This section is an analysis of potential impacts on travel from implementing management actions and 

allowable uses to meet resource and resource use objectives for various programs. Travel designations 

support resource programs and are designed to help achieve their objectives. For example, a closed 

designation could be applied to protect sensitive wildlife or other special values. Impacts resulting from 

the travel system on other resources and resource uses are discussed in those specific resource sections of 

Chapter 3. Table 3-220 summarizes proposed OHV area designations across the decision area by 

alternative. Limited area OHV designations would reduce cross-country OHV travel in an area, but 

would not eliminate it from existing and designated routes. A closed area OHV designation would 

completely prohibit motorized travel in the entire area. 

Table 3-220. OHV area designations in western Oregon by alternative. 

Trails and Travel Management 

Designations 

No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Closed to OHV Use 84,589 128,757 148,551 178,001 153,305 

Limited to Designated Routes 1,119,686 13,874 13,874 13,874 13,874 

Limited to Existing Routes 1,037,026 2,331,701 2,311,789 2,282,439 2,307,113 

Open to Cross-country Travel 330,394 - - - - 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

640 | Page

Table 3-221 shows types of areas closed to OHV travel by alternative and other land use allocations or 

special designations. 

Table 3-221. Closed OHV areas by alternative and by land use allocation or designation.. 

District/Field Office Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

Coos Bay

Recreation Management Areas 102 101 101 1,234

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2,645 2,645 2,645 2,645

Protected Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 2,467 - - -

Subtotal 5,214 2,746 2,746 3,879

Eugene

Recreation Management Areas 52 294 2,893 3,955

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 20,513 20,515 20,497 20,905

Subtotal 20,565 20,809 23,390 24,860

Klamath Falls

Recreation Management Areas 9 7,061 16,167 13,884

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 607 470 470 470

Subtotal 616 7,531 16,637 14,354

Medford

Recreation Management Areas 17,096 30,045 26,320 35,754

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 916 916 916 916

Protected Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 83,079 50,670 50,670 -

Subtotal 101,091 81,631 77,906 36,670

Roseburg

Recreation Management Areas 158 6,913 9,018 10,408

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 3,675 3,675 3,675 3,675

Subtotal 3,833 10,588 12,693 14,083

Salem

Recreation Management Areas 97 15,730 32,724 40,231

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 6,294 6,294 5,690 6,294

Protected Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 2,524 58 58 -

Subtotal 8,915 22,082 38,472 46,525

Grand Total 124,002 145,387 171,844 140,371

In all action alternatives, the BLM would increase the acreage of areas closed to OHV use compared to 

the No Action alternative; this acreage increase totals 49,244 acres between alternatives, ranging from 

128,757 acres in Alternative A to 178,001 acres in Alternative C. The total amount of closed area 

designation varies by alternative because of corresponding Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and 

Recreation Management Area designations. Even under the most restrictive alternative for OHV use 

(Alternative C), the BLM would close less than 1 percent of BLM-administered lands in the decision area 

to OHV use. This small increase in closed area designations would not measurably affect OHV 

opportunities when considering the overall planning area. However, it would result in a loss of sitespecific OHV opportunities, while improving non-motorized recreational experiences in these areas. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

641 | Page

In all action alternatives, the BLM would designate 330,000 acres that are currently open as either limited

or closed. The reduction in acres open to OHV travel would not directly equate to a loss of OHV 

opportunities, this is because a majority of the areas that are currently open, and which would remain 

open under the No Action alternative, are located on steep, densely-forested terrain, which is not 

conducive to cross-country motor vehicle travel. For example, the BLM classifies only 7 percent of these 

currently open areas as non-forest habitat. For this reason, OHV use is generally limited to existing roads 

and trails due to conditions in these areas despite their current open designations. The existing routes that 

have shifted from open to limited would continue to be available to OHV use until route designations are 

completed through subsequent implementation-level Transportation Management Plans. 

In all action alternatives, the BLM would designate a large percent of BLM-administered lands in the 

decision area as limited to existing roads and trails (Table 3-220) All action alternatives would designate 

as limited to existing roads and trails, at a minimum, a 51 percent increase from the No Action alternative. 

For the action alternatives, this change would reduce the amount of area designated as limited to 

designated roads and trails from 1,119,686 acres. Alternative A has the greatest number of acres in the 

limited to existing category followed by Alternatives B, D, and C respectively. 

Effects from Recreation and Visitor Services Management 

Improving OHV recreation under all action alternatives would primarily be accomplished through 

subsequent route designations within limited to existing areas, which identify specific roads and trails to 

provide OHV opportunities for the public. Designated routes would be improved or expanded to enhance 

visitor experiences or to meet increasing demand. Areas not designed or suitable for OHV use (or are only 

compatible for certain types of motor vehicles) are closed or restricted in order to reduce visitor conflicts 

and improve public safety. 

An important differentiator among the alternatives is designation of some RMAs for exclusion of OHV 

use. The restrictions identify areas that would be designated for more primitive recreation opportunities. 

Closure acreages correspond proportionally to RMA total acreages by alternative. Table 3-222 shows 

acres restricted to OHV recreation by alternative. 

Table 3-222. Off-highway vehicle recreation opportunities, acres restricted within Recreation 

Management Areas. 

Recreation Opportunities Alt. A (Acres) Alt. B (Acres) Alt. C (Acres) Alt. D (Acres) 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use 17,517 49,969 87,261 105,474 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, nearly all of the decision area (98 percent) would be limited to existing OHV use 

until the BLM completed implementation level travel planning. Alternative A has the smallest amount of 

acreage closed to OHV use (128,757 acres, less than 1 percent). Under Alternative A, the BLM would not 

establish any Recreation Management Areas that emphasize motorized use. Compared to the No Action 

alternative, Alternative A would designate more areas as closed to OHVs and would designate more 

Recreation Management Areas for non-motorized trail use. Compared to Alternatives B, C, and D, 

Alternative A would restrict the fewest number of acres within RMAs as closed to motorized recreation. 

However, Alternative A would establish the highest proportion of RMAs as closed to motorized use (87 

percent) when compared to the other action alternatives. 

Alternative A would result in the eventual decrease of non-motorized recreation opportunities within the 

planning area due to the decrease in acres designated as RMAs for motorized recreation. Since RMAs 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

642 | Page

provide targeted recreation experiences and protect unique recreation settings, visitors seeking motorized 

forms of recreation would experience reduced opportunities in Alternative A when compared to all Action 

Alternatives. In the long-term under Alternative A, as visitor use increases, conflicts between motorized 

and non-motorized visitors are expected to increase in popular use areas, resulting in lower quality 

recreation experiences for non-motorized/motorized visitors. User conflicts would continue to increase 

over the long-term, without a recreation setting established, and no management controls to separate uses. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, most of the decision area (93 percent) would be limited to existing OHV use until 

the BLM completed implementation level travel planning. Alternative B has approximately 20,000 more 

acres closed to OHV use than Alternative A and fewer acres closed to motorized use than Alternatives C 

and D. The majority of these closures would occur within ACECs to protect relevant and important values 

and within RMAs to protect setting characteristics and provide for targeted recreation outcomes that are 

not compatible with the presence of motorized use. Alternative B would designate more RMAs for both 

motorized and non-motorized trail uses when compared to Alternative A. Compared to Alternatives C and 

D, Alternative B would restrict fewer acres within RMAs as closed to motorized recreation. Alternative B 

would establish the highest proportion of RMAs as closed to motorized use (87 percent) when compared 

to the other action alternatives. 

Under Alternative B, the most significant reduction in recreational OHV use occurs within the existing 

Timber Mountain OHV area. This RMA is located approximately 30 miles east of Medford, Oregon, on 

BLM-administered lands intermingled with privately owned lands. Approximately 375 miles of OHV 

trails and roads, within the 10,160 acres of the Timber Mountain RMA, would be closed to motorized 

recreation use under Alternative B; these acres would continue to be limited to existing under all other 

alternatives. Existing trails proposed as closed to OHV use on BLM-administered lands, are proposed for 

non-motorized recreation use (hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking) under Alternative B. 

Implementation-level travel planning would include designation of the final non-motorized route system 

within the Timber Mountain RMA. 

The current estimated visitor use levels for Timber Mountain RMA are 16,000 to 20,000 riders per year. 

This range is based on BLM recreation staff observations of OHV use since 2005 in the Timber Mountain 

RMA. Under Alternative B, the closure of the Timber Mountain RMA would result in a decrease of 

approximately 375 miles of motorized OHV roads and trails open to the public. The decrease in available 

miles of roads and trails for OHV use would likely result in a decrease in the quality of the experience for 

resident and non-resident OHV users who frequently use the area. This decision would negatively affect 

the approximately 16,000 to 20,000 annual visitors to the Timber Mountain RMA. Non-motorized trail 

based recreation users would see increased opportunities to recreate on the existing 375 miles of routes 

that would be closed to OHV use. 

Designated motorized and non-motorized trail riding opportunities would be provided on public lands 

designated for motorized use under RMA designations. These designations would increase opportunities 

over the long-term compared to Alternative A by facilitating increased funding for motorized routes and 

trails and non-motorized trails. Public access to public lands would continue to be very restricted, so very 

limited motorized recreation opportunities would exist in these areas under all alternatives. 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, most of the decision area (92 percent) would be limited to existing OHV use until 

the BLM completed implementation-level travel planning. Alternative C has approximately 50,000 more 

acres closed to OHV use than Alternative A and fewer acres closed to OHV use than Alternatives C and 

D. The majority of these closures would occur within ACECs to protect relevant and important values and 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

643 | Page

within RMAs to protect setting characteristics and provide for targeted recreation outcomes that are not 

compatible with the presence of motorized use. Alternative C would designate more RMAs for both 

motorized and non-motorized trail uses when compared to Alternative A. Compared to Alternative D, 

Alternative C would restrict fewer acres within RMAs to motorized recreation. Alternative C would 

establish 21 percent of RMAs as closed to motorized use. When compared to the other Action 

Alternatives, Alternative C closes less RMA acres then Alternative A and B and more than Alternative D. 

Motorized recreation opportunities would be available on 329,556 acres of RMAs, which is more acres 

compared to Alternatives A and B and less then Alternative D. 

Increased visitation due to these new proposed RMAs would increase the use of roads and trails and 

would increase the demand for new travel opportunities. Managing new RMAs could constrain or restrict 

public access in certain recreation management zones. Special Recreation Management Areas targeting 

OHV and non-motorized trail-based recreation would provide the greatest benefit. In RMAs that are 

specially managed to accommodate OHV activities, visitors seeking non-motorized forms of recreation 

would be dissuaded from using these areas. If these visitors did engage in non-motorized activities within 

these emphasis areas, the quality of their experiences would be diminished because of the limited 

compatibility of their activity with OHV use. In general, however, OHV RMAs help segregate these user 

groups, resulting in an overall improvement in the quality of experiences for all visitors. 

Non-motorized recreation visitors may find other locations to recreate, if competition occurs to ride or use 

the same area, or if sounds from OHV use intrude on the quality of the desired non-motorized recreation 

experience. Hikers and horseback riders may also be displaced if no designated areas exist for their 

preferred use, or if OHV use and OHV sound increase in the future. 

Alternative D 

In Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those identified in Alternative C. Alternative D provides the 

greatest number of RMAs that would provide OHV recreation opportunities. Under Alternative D, a total 

of 561,677 acres of RMAs would provide opportunities for OHV recreation within the decision area. This 

would result in an increase in acres of OHV areas as compared to the No Action alternative and 

Alternatives A, B, and C. 

By emphasizing OHV use in these areas, there would eventually be an improvement in off-highway 

vehicle opportunities that would result from an increase in developments. This would result in more 

concentrated levels of OHV use within these areas and likely cause a reduction in dispersed OHV use on 

other BLM-administered lands. It is assumed that dispersed OHV use would decrease because riders 

would be attracted to greater opportunities within these managed areas that provide targeted OHV 

recreation opportunities. 

Effects from Wildlife Management 

Under all action alternatives, OHV use is prohibited within 330 feet of bald eagle and golden eagle nest 

sites during the breeding season. Under all action alternatives, OHV use would be prohibited within 660 

feet of bald eagles and golden eagle nest sites in areas without forest cover or topographic relief. 

Effects from Cultural Resource Management 

The BLM would close cultural sites to visitation if the BLM determined that travel-related activity 

threatens cultural site integrity. Site-specific decisions to protect a threatened site will affect travel 

management opportunities in the short- and long-term. Compared to the No Action alternative, the action 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

644 | Page

alternatives could have more long-term adverse effects on travel opportunities because access would be 

limited to protect cultural resources. 

Effects from Visual Resource Management 

Management to protect visual resources would restrict new routes or trail plans in areas identified for such 

development (some RMAs, for example). Visual Resource Management (VRM) classifications would 

affect the location of new transportation systems. The BLM would design projects to meet the objectives 

of the VRM class established in the RMP for the project area. The development of travel assets (roads, 

trails) would be compatible with VRM Classes III and IV. Transportation actions would be limited in 

VRM Class I and Class II areas. Alternative A has 147,245 acres designated VRM Class I and Class II 

and is the most restrictive to transportation asset development. Alternatives B and C have 111 and 115 

acres respectively, designated as VRM Class I and Class II, resulting in slightly less of an effect to 

transportation asset development when compared with Alternative A. When compared to the other action 

alternatives, Alternative D is least restrictive to travel management based on VRM class designations. 

Alternative D has the least impact on future transportation asset development with only 63,684 acres 

designated VRM Class I and Class II. 

Issue 2 

How will the alternatives affect the use, maintenance, and condition of the BLM’s transportation system? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM used road ratios (feet/Mbf) developed for the 2008 RMP/EIS to estimate miles of new road 

construction required for the No Action alternative and all the action alternatives. These road ratios reflect 

different road requirements for different types of harvest. Uneven-aged management and thinning harvest 

types require more new road construction than the regeneration harvest type. The average road ratios 

(feet/Mbf) across all offices for uneven-age management harvest are 20 percent higher than the road 

ratios for regeneration harvest and the road ratios for thinning harvest are 70 percent higher than for 

regeneration harvest. 

The BLM also computed road ratios (feet/Mbf) for thinning harvests, using six years (FY2007-FY2012) 

of harvest volume sold data and timber sale contract data, as a reasonableness check against the 2008 

RMP/EIS road ratios. The BLM found the 2008 RMP/EIS ratios to be somewhat higher than the FY 

2007-2012 computed ratios thus yielding perhaps a slightly overestimated new construction mileages for 

thinning harvests. The BLM has no similar new road construction data for either regeneration or unevenaged management harvests. 

The BLM assumed that current trends in road closures would continue into the future since road closure 

mileage may not be sensitive to harvest levels given that most BLM-administered lands are encumbered 

by reciprocal right-of-way agreements. In other words, even if the harvest level would indicate an 

opportunity for road closure, the BLM may not be able to accomplish these closures due to the need to 

protect reciprocal right-of-way holders’ rights to use BLM-owned roads. 

The BLM projected miles of road renovation and purchaser renovation value, miles of road improvement, 

and miles of road closure for each of the alternatives using six years (FY2007-FY2012) of harvest volume 

sold data and timber sale contract data. The BLM projected total miles of the road network utilized for 

each alternative using eight years (CY2005-CY2012) of BLM timber sale contract haul data. Analytical 

conclusions drawn for each alternative include: 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

645 | Page

x Miles of permanent and temporary new road construction 

x Miles of permanent and long-term road closure 

x Road network mileage changes 

x Miles of road renovation and improvement 

x Miles of the existing road network utilized 

x Road maintenance fees collected as a percentage of annual maintenance need 

x Value of purchaser renovation as a percentage of the BLM’s deferred maintenance backlog 

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

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

2014, pp. 127-130). 

Affected Environment 

Road Network Description 

The following functional classifications describe the BLM’s western Oregon transportation system: 

x Collector roads—Roads that primarily provide access to large blocks of public land, 

accommodate multiple uses, have BLM’s highest traffic volumes, and connect with state and 

county road systems 

x Local roads—Roads that normally serve smaller areas than collectors, accommodate fewer uses, 

have lower traffic volumes, and connect with collectors or State and County road systems 

x Resource roads—Roads that provide point access to public lands, typically exist for a single 

use, carry very low traffic volumes, and connect with local or collector roads 

These classifications indicate the character of service the roads provide and the appropriate road 

maintenance intensity levels (i.e., from basic custodial care to annual scheduled and preventative 

maintenance programs). Table 3-223 shows the distribution of functional classifications within the 

BLM’s western Oregon transportation system. Currently, slightly less than 5 percent of the transportation 

system falls into the “collector” classification, while about 21 percent of the system is “local,” and nearly 

75 percent “resource.”

Table 3-223. Functional classification of roads within the decision area. 

District/Field Office Collector 

(Miles) 

Local 

(Miles) 

Resource 

(Miles) 

Totals 

(Miles) 

Coos Bay 186 408 1,302 1,896 

Eugene 71 422 1,524 2,017 

Klamath Falls 47 154 323 524 

Medford 156 981 3,452 4,589 

Roseburg 94 581 2,193 2,868 

Salem 101 546 1,789 2,436 

Totals 655 3,092 10,583 14,330 

Total inventoried transportation system mileage has remained steady since 2007; there are currently 

14,330 miles compared to 14,394 miles in 2007. Additionally, the BLM owns approximately 600 miles of 

non-inventoried roads, typically short (< 500’) logging spurs, within the boundaries of the decision area. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

646 | Page

Eighty-one percent of the BLM transportation system has some form of surfacing (aggregate or 

bituminous surface treatment) with 97 percent built to a single lane width. 

Road Network Condition 

The overall replacement value (the current cost to rebuild the network from scratch) of the BLM 

transportation system exceeds $10 billion. Approximately 30 percent of the road mileage is in fair or poor 

condition, primarily due to depleted surfacing aggregate and worn-out minor culverts. Currently the 

deferred maintenance backlog exceeds $300 million. However, 85 percent of bridges and 97 percent of 

major culverts are in good condition. 

Tables 3-224, 3-225, and 3-226, summarize western Oregon road, bridge, and major culvert condition 

data respectively. 

Table 3-224. Road condition, mileage, replacement value, and deferred maintenance backlog. 

District/Field Office Road Condition Mileage Replacement Value Deferred Maintenance

Coos Bay

Fair/Poor 397 $314 million $20 million

Good 1,499 $1.216 billion $1 million

Totals 1,896 $1.530 billion $21 million

Eugene

Fair/Poor 537 $361 million $23 million

Good 1,480 $1.267 billion $2 million

Totals 2,017 $1.628 billion $25 million

Klamath Falls

Fair/Poor 66 $47 million $6 million

Good 458 $241 million $1 million

Totals 524 $288 million $7 million

Medford

Fair/Poor 1,540 $1.061 billion $123 million

Good 3,049 $2.016 billion $4 million

Totals 4,589 $3.077 billion $127 million

Roseburg

Fair/Poor 1,176 $730 million $85 million

Good 1,692 $934 million $5 million

Totals 2,868 $1.664 billion $90 million

Salem

Fair/Poor 575 $408 million $46 million

Good 1,861 $1.347 billion $1 million

Totals 2,436 $1.755 billion $47 million

Totals Fair/Poor 4,291 $2.921 billion $303 million

Good 10,039 $7.021 billion $14 million

Grand Total 14,330 $9.942 billion $317 million

Table 3-225. Bridge condition, replacement value, and deferred maintenance backlog. 

District/Field Office Bridge Condition Count Replacement Value Deferred Maintenance

All Offices Fair/Poor 53 $34.5 Million $7.1 Million

Good 306 $249.9 Million $1.5 Million

Grand Total 359 $284.4 Million $8.6 Million
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

647 | Page

Table 3-226. Major culvert condition, replacement value/deferred maintenance. 

District/Field Office Major Culvert 

Condition Count Replacement Value Deferred Maintenance 

All Offices Fair/Poor 18 $1.8 Million $1.2 Million 

Good 526 $57.3 Million - 

Grand Total 544 $59.1 Million $1.2 Million 

Road Maintenance 

The BLM is responsible for maintaining roads under the BLM’s ownership. Maintenance provides for 

resource protection, safe accommodation of users, and protection of the government’s investment. Road 

maintenance on BLM roads is primarily for timber management/extraction, recreation, and fire 

management activities. 

Each year the offices identify and prioritize annual maintenance work. Currently the BLM maintains 

about 14 percent of the western Oregon transportation system each year. The miles of annual maintenance 

the BLM conducts has declined in recent years. From 2007 to 2013, annual maintenance mileage declined 

about 47 percent, from 3,926 miles in 2007 to 2,064 miles in 2013. Annual maintenance work ranges 

from aggregate surface blading and roadside brush removal, to pothole repair and culvert replacement. 

The BLM funds annual maintenance of roads from a combination of appropriated funds and a collected 

account. Commercial timber haul, both BLM and private, generates funds paid into the collected account 

based on a maintenance fee charged on a volume hauled and mileage used basis. 

While appropriated funding has remained flat over the last two decades, the BLM’s collected account has 

declined dramatically, from $8 million annually 25 years ago, down to only about $3 million annually 

currently. This reduction is due entirely to BLM’s declining timber sale offerings since private use of the 

network has remained constant over the last two decades. This BLM funding shortfall creates a gap 

between annual maintenance need and actual annual maintenance expenditure resulting in a large and 

growing deferred maintenance backlog, currently exceeding $300 million. 

Road Closure 

There are times the BLM determines that a road closure or travel restriction may be warranted. The 

objectives of road closure are typically for safety or resource protection, such as to reduce sedimentation, 

restore hydrological processes, reduce total road maintenance cost, and reduce impacts to fish or wildlife 

habitat, botanical resources, or special areas. The BLM offices coordinate in advance with potentially 

affected reciprocal right-of-way permittees on decisions to close roads for the purpose of protecting 

permittee rights to use BLM-owned roads. Should permittees not concur on BLM proposed long-term or 

permanent closures, these proposals must be dropped, thus limiting the BLM’s opportunities to reduce 

road densities. 

The BLM currently has about 900 miles (6 percent) of the transportation system in a long-term 

decommissioned status. These are all resource roads that have been closed to vehicles and left in an 

erosion-resistant condition; they may be re-opened in the future as needed. Slightly more than half of 

these miles have a natural surface type. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

648 | Page

Environmental Effects 

New Road Construction 

Timber harvest operations would require construction of additional resource roads under each of the 

alternatives. No new collector or local roads would be needed as this portion of the transportation network 

was fully built out decades ago. Table 3-227 summarizes the estimated new permanent and temporary 

road construction by surface type for the first decade. 

Table 3-227. First decade new road construction by road surfacing and status. 

Alternative Temporary 

Rock (Miles)

Temporary 

Natural (Miles)

Permanent

Rock (Miles)

Permanent 

Natural (Miles)

Total

(Miles)

No Action 76 272 514 88 950

Alt. A 32 89 157 33 311

Alt. B 71 187 362 68 688

Alt. C 78 229 424 75 806

Alt. D 27 72 128 27 254

In the first decade, total resource road new construction mileages range from 254 miles for Alternative D 

to 806 miles for Alternative C. Approximately 40 percent of new road miles are temporary for each of the 

alternatives. 

In the first decade, new construction of permanent resource roads ranges from 155 miles for Alternative D 

to 499 miles for Alternative C. This represents 1.0 percent of the existing western Oregon road network 

for Alternative D and 3.3 percent for Alternative C. Approximately 85 percent of these new road miles 

are surfaced with aggregate for all of the alternatives, similar to the existing network. All new 

construction would be single lane width. 

Table 3-228 contains a summary of the estimated new road construction by harvest type for the first 

decade. 

Table 3-228. First decade new road construction associated with harvest methods. 

Alternative Regeneration Harvest

(Miles)

Thinning Harvest

(Miles)

Uneven-Aged Harvest

(Miles)

Totals

(Miles)

No Action 312 638 - 950

Alt. A 235 18 58 311

Alt. B 151 351 186 688

Alt. C 470 214 122 806

Alt. D 92 29 133 254

The amount of new construction attributable to each harvest type varies greatly between the alternatives; 

regeneration harvest ranges from 22 percent (Alt. B) to 76 percent (Alt. A), thinning harvest ranges from 

6 percent (Alt. A) to 51 percent (Alt. B), and uneven age management harvest ranges from 15 percent 

(Alt. C) to 52 percent (Alt. D). 

Tables 3-229 to 3-233 contain a summary of the estimated new permanent and temporary road 

construction by office and surface type for the first decade. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

649 | Page

Table 3-229. No Action first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status. 

District/ 

Field Office 

Temporary 

Rock (Miles) 

Temporary 

Natural (Miles) 

Permanent Rock 

(Miles) 

Permanent 

Natural (Miles) 

Totals 

(Miles) 

Coos Bay 27 40 67 6 140 

Eugene 21 12 195 4 232 

Klamath Falls - - - 3 3 

Medford 10 81 112 60 263 

Roseburg 2 55 94 - 151 

Salem 16 84 46 15 161 

Totals 76 272 514 88 950 

Table 3-230. Alternative A first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status. 

District/ 

Field Office 

Temporary 

Rock (Miles) 

Temporary 

Natural (Miles) 

Permanent 

Rock (Miles) 

Permanent 

Natural (Miles) 

Totals 

(Miles) 

Coos Bay 11 15 26 2 54 

Eugene 5 2 44 1 52 

Klamath Falls - - - 1 1 

Medford 9 27 45 24 105 

Roseburg 1 16 27 - 44 

Salem 6 29 15 5 55 

Totals 32 89 157 33 311 

Table 3-231. Alternative B first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status. 

District/ 

Field Office 

Temporary 

Rock (Miles) 

Temporary 

Natural (Miles) 

Permanent Rock 

(Miles) 

Permanent 

Natural (Miles) 

Totals 

(Miles) 

Coos Bay 20 30 50 4 104 

Eugene 13 8 126 3 150 

Klamath Falls - - - 2 2 

Medford 24 46 87 47 204 

Roseburg 2 39 64 - 105 

Salem 12 64 35 12 123 

Totals 71 187 362 68 688 

Table 3-232. Alternative C first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status. 

District/ 

Field Office 

Temporary 

Rock (Miles) 

Temporary 

Natural (Miles) 

Permanent Rock 

(Miles) 

Permanent 

Natural (Miles) 

Totals 

(Miles) 

Coos Bay 27 40 67 6 140 

Eugene 14 8 136 3 161 

Klamath Falls - - - 4 4 

Medford 19 54 89 49 211 

Roseburg 3 54 92 - 149 

Salem 15 73 40 13 141 

Totals 78 229 424 75 806 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

650 | Page

Table 3-233. Alternative D first decade new road construction by road surfacing and status. 

District/

Field Office

Temporary

Rock (Miles)

Temporary

Natural (Miles)

Permanent Rock

(Miles)

Permanent

Natural (Miles)

Totals

(Miles)

Coos Bay 9 9 15 1 34

Eugene 4 2 39 - 45

Klamath Falls - - - 1 1

Medford 10 20 39 21 90

Roseburg - 17 24 - 41

Salem 4 24 11 4 43

Totals 27 72 128 27 254

The Medford District would require more new permanent road construction than the other western 

Oregon offices for all harvest types and for each of the alternatives. The average road ratios (feet/Mbf) 

across all harvest types are about 2.5 times greater in Medford than the average of the other offices since 

Medford harvest volumes per acre are typically lower than the other offices. Medford accounts for 28 to 

39 percent of the new road miles for each of the alternatives. 

Road Closure 

The BLM would accomplish both permanent and long-term road closures under each of the alternatives. 

Tables 3-234 and 3-235 summarize estimated permanent and long-term road closures by surface type for 

the first decade. The BLM assumed that road closure mileages would be consistent across alternatives 

since even if the harvest volume projected for a given alternative would indicate an opportunity for road 

closure, the BLM may not be able to accomplish these closures due to the need to protect reciprocal rightof-way holders’ rights to use BLM-owned roads. 

Table 3-234. First decade permanent road closure, all alternatives. 

District/Field Office Rock

(Miles)

Natural

(Miles)

Totals

(Miles)

Coos Bay 2 29 31

Eugene 4 38 42

Klamath Falls - - -

Medford 1 7 8

Roseburg - 10 10

Salem 1 1 2

Totals 8 85 93

Table 3-235. First decade long-term road closure, all alternatives. 

District/Field Office Rock

(Miles)

Natural

(Miles)

Totals

(Miles)

Coos Bay 35 96 131

Eugene 49 4 53

Klamath Falls - 9 9

Medford - 10 10

Roseburg 7 75 82

Salem 27 61 88

Totals 118 255 373
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

651 | Page

Permanent road closures, aimed primarily at natural surface roads, would affect significantly less than 1 

percent of the western Oregon road network in the first decade. 

Long-term road closures, implemented at a 2:1 ratio of natural surface type to rock surface type, would 

increase the percentage of the BLM road network in a long-term closure status from its current 6 percent 

to 8 percent by the end of the first decade. 

In the first decade, net permanent road mileage changes range from an increase of 62 miles for 

Alternative D to an increase of 406 miles for Alternative C. This represents a 0.4 percent increase in the 

existing western Oregon road network for Alternative D and a 2.7 percent increase for Alternative C. 

Road Renovation and Road Improvement 

The BLM will accomplish both renovation and improvement of existing roads needed for timber sale use 

under each of the alternatives to support anticipated use, provide for safety, and protect adjacent lands and 

resources. 

Renovation consists of restoring a degraded road to its original design standard (e.g., replacing both worn 

out cross drain culverts and depleted rock surfacing). Improvement consists of upgrading the original 

design standard, e.g., adding cross drain culverts and rock surfacing to an existing natural surface road. 

Table 3-236 summarizes the estimated existing road renovation and improvement for the first decade. 

Table 3-236. First decade existing road renovation and improvement. 

Alternative Renovation 

(Miles) 

Improvement 

(Miles) 

No Action 6,667 311 

Alt. A 3,669 223 

Alt. B 5,098 287 

Alt. C 7,495 526 

Alt. D 2,685 161 

In the first decade, road renovation mileages range from 2,685 miles for Alternative D to 7,495 miles for 

Alternative C, approximately 80 percent of which occurs on rock surface roads. Renovation of some 

roads will occur more than once in the first decade. Renovation tasks typically include roadside brushing, 

ditchline and culvert cleaning, culvert replacement, rock surface replacement, and pot hole patching on 

paved roads. 

In the first decade, road improvement mileages range from 161 miles for Alternative D to 526 miles for 

Alternative C, virtually all of which will consist of rocking natural surfaced roads, thus increasing the 

percentage of surfaced roads by 1 percent to 3 percent from the current 81 percent. 

Road Utilization, Maintenance, and Condition 

Table 3-237 contains a summary of estimated road utilization by surface type for the first decade for each 

of the alternatives. 

Table 3-237. First decade existing road utilization by surface type. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

652 | Page

Alternative Paved (Miles) Paved (%) Rock (Miles) Rock (%)

No Action 2,667 191% 4,115 40%

Alt. A 1,666 120% 2,561 25%

Alt. B 2,222 159% 3,416 33%

Alt. C 3,734 268% 5,741 56%

Alt. D 1,206 87% 1,854 18%

In the first decade, rock road utilization percentages range from 18 percent for Alternative D to 56 percent 

for Alternative C. Similarly, the first decade paved road utilization percentages range from 87 percent for 

Alternative D to 268 percent (i.e., meaning each paved road mile will be used 2.68 times) for Alternative 

C.

Tables 3-238 and 3-239 summarize estimated road maintenance fee collections by surface type for the 

first decade for each of the alternatives. The BLM based these estimates on both road utilization ratios 

developed from eight years (CY2005-FY2012) of BLM timber sale road use activity, at a western Oregon 

scale, and BLM’s current road maintenance fee rate schedule. Additionally, the tables compares 

maintenance fee collections to the annual maintenance need for roads as reported in the Facility Asset 

Management System (the BLM’s constructed asset inventory). 

Table 3-238. First decade road maintenance fee collections compared to annual maintenance (AM) need. 

Alternative

Paved Roads ($)

Road Use

(Mbf-Miles)

Maintenance 

Fee/Mbf-Mile

Maintenance

Fee Collected AM Need Percent of AMNeed

No Action 11.9 M $0.71 $8.4 M $80 M 10%

Alt. A 7.4 M $0.71 $5.3 M $80 M 6%

Alt. B 9.9 M $0.71 $7.0 M $80 M 9%

Alt. C 16.6 M $0.71 $11.8 M $80 M 15%

Alt. D 5.4 M $0.71 $3.8 M $80 M 5%

Table 3-239. First decade road maintenance fee collections compared to annual maintenance (AM) need. 

Alternative

Rock Roads ($)

Road Use

(Mbf-Miles)

Maintenance 

Fee/Mbf-Mile

Maintenance

Fee Collected AM Need Percent of AMNeed

No Action 5.4 M $1.46 $7.9 M $88 M 9%

Alt. A 3.4 M $1.46 $4.9 M $88 M 6%

Alt. B 4.5 M $1.46 $6.6 M $88 M 7%

Alt. C 7.5 M $1.46 $11.0 M $88 M 12%

Alt. D 2.4 M $1.46 $3.6 M $88 M 4%

In the first decade, rock road maintenance fee collection ranges from 4 percent of annual maintenance 

need for Alternative D to 12 percent for Alternative C; similarly, the first decade BST road maintenance 

fee collections range from 5 percent of annual maintenance need for Alternative D to 15 percent for 

Alternative C. 

When combined with the BLM’s other first decade sources of annual maintenance funding, which are 

common to each of the alternatives, 1) assumed annual maintenance appropriation of $63 million, and 2) 

private commercial timber haul maintenance fee collections of $25 million, the total amount available for 

annual maintenance expenditures for both rock and BST surfaced roads ranges from $95 million for 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Trails and Travel Management

653 | Page

Alternative D (57 percent of annual maintenance need) to $111 million for Alternative C (66 percent of 

annual maintenance need). 

Under all alternatives, the road utilization rates are insufficient to close the gap between annual 

maintenance expenditure and annual maintenance need, with the shortfall greatest for Alternative D and 

least for Alternative C. The BLM is likely to continue to accrue new deferred maintenance in the first 

decade under any of the alternatives. Given the higher utilization rates for paved roads relative to rock 

roads, new deferred maintenance would likely skew towards rock roads. 

Table 3-240 contains a summary of the estimated value of timber sale purchaser renovation for the first 

decade for each of the alternatives. Additionally, the table compares renovation expenditures to the 

deferred maintenance backlog for roads as reported in the Facility Asset Management System (the BLM’s 

constructed asset inventory). 

Table 3-240. First decade renovation expenditures compared to the deferred maintenance (DM) backlog. 

Alternative 

Paved and Rock Surfaced Roads ($) 

Total Harvest 

Volume (Mbf) 

Renovation 

Expenditure/Mbf 

Renovation 

Expenditure 

Current DM 

Backlog 

Percent of DM 

Backlog 

No Action 3,995,556 $9.55 $38.2 M $317 M 12% 

Alt. A 2,486,143 $9.55 $23.7 M $317 M 7% 

Alt. B 3,316,594 $9.55 $31.7 M $317 M 10% 

Alt. C 5,573,610 $9.55 $53.2 M $317 M 17% 

Alt. D 1,800,457 $9.55 $17.2 M $317 M 5% 

Renovation expenditures will therefore reduce the BLM’s $317 million deferred maintenance backlog. In 

the first decade, renovation expenditures range from 5 percent of the deferred maintenance backlog for 

Alternative D to 17 percent for Alternative C. 

When combined with the BLM’s deferred maintenance program assumed appropriation of $30 million, 

the only other first decade source of deferred maintenance funding, the total amount available for deferred 

maintenance expenditures on surfaced roads ranges from $47 million for Alternative D (15 percent of the 

deferred maintenance backlog) to $83 million for Alternative C (26 percent of the deferred maintenance 

backlog). 

In the first decade, net deferred maintenance backlog changes are likely to range from a small increase for 

Alternative D to a small decrease for Alternative C. Across alternatives, reductions in the deferred 

maintenance backlog due to timber sale purchaser renovation expenditures and deferred maintenance 

program spending are largely offset by accruing new deferred maintenance generated by the gap between 

annual maintenance need and actual annual maintenance expenditure. 

References 

USDI BLM. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Tribal Interests

654 | Page

Tribal Interests 

Key Points 

x An ongoing dialog between BLM representatives and designated Tribal representatives and their 

leadership produced the issues addressed here. A summary of Tribal listening sessions is included 

as Appendix Q and expands upon the issues in this section. 

x A large portion of the Tribally-identified issues are covered under specific resource sections (e.g., 

Fisheries, Hydrology, Socioeconomics, Cultural Resources) though the effects specific to Tribal 

communities may differ due to the unique relationships that Tribes have with the landscape and 

resources on it. The BLM summarizes these unique, and often qualitative, effects here whereas 

the specific resource sections contain the quantitative technical analyses. 

Issue 1 

How would land management actions affect sacred sites and places of traditional religious and cultural 

importance? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM described how continued management of sacred sites and places of traditional religious and 

cultural importance of which the BLM is aware would continue through tribal consultation and 

implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470) as well as Executive 

Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites (1966). 

The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, p. 167). 

Background 

The National Historic Preservation Act and the 36 CFR 800 regulations use the term “properties of 

traditional religious and cultural importance” to describe geographic places prominent in a particular 

group’s cultural practices, beliefs, or values that: 1) are widely shared within the group, 2) have been 

passed down through the generations, and 3) have served a recognized role in maintaining the group’s

cultural identity for at least 50 years. Through NEPA, NHPA, and the 36 CFR 800 regulations, federal 

agencies are required to consult with potentially affected Tribes in order to identify and evaluate such 

places that Federal actions may affect. 

EO 13007 defines sacred sites as “specific, discrete, narrowly delineated locations on Federal land that 

are identified by an Indian Tribe, or . . . authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by 

virtue of their established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion.” A Tribal 

understanding or definition of sacred sites or sacredness in general is in contrast to federal definition. 

Specifically, a narrowly delineated space does not capture the inherent sacredness of the natural 

phenomena surrounding it. 

Based on Federal definitions sacred sites are religious or spiritual places and are not limited by age. 

Places of traditional and cultural importance can be either secular or religious but are limited to being 50 

years of age or older, under this definition. Different regulations require the BLM to consider these two 

types of sites but in both cases Tribes are the only ones able to identify what sites are important to them. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Tribal Interests

655 | Page

Therefore, consultation with Tribes is necessary to identify and evaluate these sites as well as to help 

determine how actions may affect the sites and how to resolve adverse effects. 

Affected Environment 

There are both sacred sites and places of traditional and cultural importance within the planning area. 

Tribes or individual Tribal members often keep the location of these sites private; therefore, the BLM 

does not have knowledge of all the sacred sites and places of traditional and cultural importance located 

on BLM-administered lands. The BLM manages those sites of which the BLM is aware in consultation 

with Tribes. 

Environmental Effects 

The BLM will continue to avoid or mitigate effects to those sacred sites and places of traditional cultural 

importance of which it has knowledge to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly 

inconsistent with essential agency functions by: 1) accommodating access to and ceremonial use of Tribal 

sacred sites by Tribal religious practitioners; and 2) avoiding adversely affecting the physical integrity of 

such sacred sites. Any potential effects to these sites would warrant consultation and involvement from 

the Tribe on how to avoid or mitigate effects. Under all alternatives, the BLM would consult with Tribes 

early in the project planning process in order to identify currently unknown sites or sensitive areas and 

subsequently mitigate effectsif necessary. 

Issue 2 

How would land management actions affect tribal plant collection, management, and use? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In the absence of data on specific plants of cultural interest and their locations on the landscape, a 

quantified analysis of the effects on plant collection, management, and use is not possible as part of the 

RMP process. Further site-specific analysis would take place during implementation of the RMP, as 

would early consultation with interested Tribes in the planning process. This is the best way to avoid or 

mitigate effects to Tribal plant collection, management, and use. 

Multiple Tribes expressed a specific concern regarding the ability to manage for culturally-important 

plants within riparian areas. The Planning Criteria included the broader topic of Tribal plant collection 

and effects to culturally important plants within riparian areas as separate issues (USDI BLM 2014, p. 

169) but they are now combined here under the broader topic of Tribal plant collection. While this 

analysis focuses on riparian areas, it is important to state that Tribal plant collection, management, and 

use is not limited to only riparian areas. Without identifying specific plants and associated types of 

management required, the analyses can only speak generally to how variation in riparian management 

across alternatives would affect culturally-important plants. Given that the objective of the Riparian 

Reserve is to contribute to the conservation and recovery of listed fish species and their habitats and 

provide for conservation of special status fish and other riparian-associated species, treatments within 

riparian areas are restricted. 

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

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

BLM 2014, pp. 166 and 169). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Tribal Interests

656 | Page

Affected Environment 

BLM-administered lands in western Oregon provide an abundant variety of plants that Tribal members 

collect and sometimes manage for traditional uses. Tribal members collect plant materials to make 

baskets, hats, regalia, tools, and other objects of Tribal culture, as well as for food and medicine. 

Particular plants require active management in order for them to produce the desired material product. 

Two common treatments used for management of culturally-important plants are prescribed fire and 

thinning of denser forested areas to promote the growth of shrubs and a diversity of other species. 

The Coos Bay District has agreements with the Coquille Indian Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians that allow collection of specific plants on designated BLMadministered lands. The BLM and other Tribes in western Oregon are currently working together to draft 

agreements for Tribal plant collection. 

Environmental Effects 

Under all alternatives, the BLM could permit prescribed fire within riparian areas for vegetation 

management to the extent that it conforms to the management objectives and direction for riparian 

reserves under each alternative. Appendix B contains more specific details on management in the 

Riparian Reserve.

Klamath Falls Field Office 

In all alternatives, the Riparian Reserve along perennial and fish-bearing streams would be 150 feet each 

side of the stream channel in forested areas in the Klamath Falls Field Office east of Highway 97. 

Management direction includes: 

x Thinning and other silvicultural treatments 

x No mechanical treatments within 60 feet of the stream channel 

In all alternatives, the Riparian Reserve along non-fish-bearing intermittent streams would be 100 feet 

each side of the stream channel in forested areas in the Klamath Falls Field Office east of Highway 97. 

Management direction includes: 

x Thinning and other treatments to support large tree development 

x No mechanical treatments within 35 feet either side of the stream channel 

Decision Area Excluding the Klamath Falls Field Office 

In Alternative A, the Riparian Reserve along fish-bearing streams and perennial non-fish-bearing streams 

would have an inner zone of 0-120 feet; on non-fish-bearing intermittent streams the inner zone is 0-50 

feet. The BLM would not allow thinning within these inner zones. The outer zones for all fish-bearing 

and perennial non-fish-bearing streams would be 120 feet to one site-potential tree height and 50 feet to 

one site-potential tree height on non-fish bearing intermittent streams. The BLM would allow thinning in 

the outer zone for the purposes of providing wood to streams. Tree felling is limited to safety reasons and 

stream restoration activities. The BLM would not allow commercial thinning. 

In Alternative B, the Riparian Reserve along fish-bearing streams and perennial non-fish bearing streams 

would have an inner zone of 0-60 feet; on non-fish bearing intermittent streams the inner zone is 0-50 

feet. The BLM would not allow thinning within these inner zones with the exception of safety reasons, 

treatment of disease, or for dry forest resiliency. The outer zones for all fish-bearing and perennial non-
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Tribal Interests

657 | Page

fish bearing streams would be 60 feet to one site-potential tree height and 50-100 feet on non-fish-bearing 

intermittent streams. The BLM would allow thinning for development of understory plants and to 

increase diversity of riparian species. 

In Alternative C, the Riparian Reserve along fish-bearing streams and perennial non-fish-bearing streams 

would have an inner zone of 0-60 feet; on non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, the inner zone would be 

0-50 feet. The BLM would not allow thinning within these inner zones except for safety reasons, 

treatment of disease, or for dry forest resiliency. The outer zones for all fish-bearing and perennial nonfish-bearing streams would be 60-150 feet. The BLM would allow thinning for development of 

understory plants and to increase diversity of riparian species. 

In Alternative D, the Riparian Reserve along all streams would have an inner zone of 0-120 feet. The 

BLM would not allow thinning within this inner zone except for safety reasons, in-stream restoration, 

treatment of disease, or for dry forest resiliency. The outer zone for all streams is 120 feet to one sitepotential tree height. The BLM would allow thinning in the outer zone for the purposes of providing 

wood to streams and for fuel reduction in drier forests. 

In conclusion, Alternatives B and C would be most conducive to the type of management needed for 

culturally-important plants in these areas because the management direction allows for the widest range of 

management practices. 

Early consultation with Tribes prior to project implementation would identify those plants that are 

important for traditional uses, and the BLM could reduce or eliminate effects to these resources. 

Identifying plant-gathering locations can also reduce or eliminate effects by project design or mitigation. 

Issue 3 

How would land management actions affect the visibility of the historic Siletz reservation boundary? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

For this analysis, the BLM compared the extent to which each alternative would be able to maintain a 

visible boundary between the BLM-administered lands and the historic Siletz reservation boundary. To do 

this, the BLM calculated the total linear miles of BLM-administered lands touching the historic 

reservation boundary minus the total number of linear miles of those same BLM-administered lands that 

are in land use allocations allowing clear-cutting. This analysis is based on the assumption that tree 

retention would allow the BLM to maintain a visible boundary, while harvest without tree retention 

would not. 

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

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

2014, p. 169). 

Background 

President Franklin Pierce signed an Executive Order on November 9, 1855 to create a permanent 

reservation for the Coast and Willamette Valley Tribes. The original “Coast Reservation” spanned from 

Cape Lookout in the north, the Siltcoos River in the south, and the eastern edge of Range 9 West, 

covering 1.1 million acres. A series of Executive Orders and Congressional Acts in 1865, 1875, and 1894 

reduced the Coast Reservation quite significantly. The historic reservation boundary spans approximately 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Tribal Interests

658 | Page

155 miles along its north, west, and southern boundaries. About 31 of those miles touch or go through 

BLM-administered lands. 

Affected Environment 

There is interest from Siletz Tribal members to be able to go to areas on the landscape and physically see 

the historic reservation boundary where feasible. The BLM does not currently have practices in place to 

maintain visibility along the 31 miles of the historic boundary that runs between the BLM and the historic 

Coast Reservation. However, there are patches of visibility that currently exist along this historic 

boundary. These patches occur in some areas where forested BLM-administered lands are adjacent to 

private clear-cut timber lands. 

Environmental Effects 

For all alternatives, only one land use allocation proposes clear-cutting within the decision area, the High 

Intensity Timber Area (HITA). All other land use allocations that allow timber harvest include the ability 

to retain “leave trees” that could be used to mark a boundary. Alternatives B and D do not have any of the 

HITA Land Use Allocation along the historic Coast Reservation boundary. Therefore, all 31 miles of 

BLM-administered lands touching that boundary would have the ability to retain leave trees during 

harvest activities. 

In alternatives A and C, some lands with the HITA land use allocation touch the historic Coast 

Reservation boundary. In alternative A, 1.24 miles of HITA lands touch this boundary leaving over 29 

miles available for leave tree retention. In alternative C, 10.12 miles of HITA lands touch the historic 

boundary leaving almost 20 of the 31 miles available for leave tree retention. 

In conclusion, BLM-administered land touches approximately 20 percent of the historic Coast 

Reservation boundary. Alternatives B and D would allow all of those miles to retain leave trees in order 

to have a visible boundary for the historic reservation. Alternative A would allow 96 percent of those 

miles to retain leave trees and Alternative C would allow 67 percent of those miles to retain leave trees. 

Issue 4 

How would land management actions affect lamprey, fish, and fish passages? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

Large wood, stream temperature, sediment, and water flow have the greatest influence on aquatic habitat 

and the ability of aquatic habitat to support fish populations. Analysis of the effects to fish and their 

habitat are addressed in the Fisheries section. Additionally, BLM road construction could contribute 

sediment delivery to streams and that analysis is covered in the Hydrology section. 

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

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

2014, pp. 49-55, 65-88, 166-167). 

Affected Environment 

Salmon, lampreys, and other fish are a traditional cultural food for Tribes with interests in the planning 

area, and their population decline is a concern for those Tribes. Data on lamprey within the planning area 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Tribal Interests

659 | Page

is largely unavailable, and while they are not a listed species, the reduction in populations is widely 

known. 

Environmental Effects 

The alternatives have very similar potential effects to salmon and lamprey. The Fisheries and Hydrology 

sections contain the analyses of the alternatives for effects to fish and water, respectively. 

Implementation of any of the alternatives would not affect fish passages administered by the BLM within 

the decision area because 97 percent of the large culverts that serve as fish passage are in good condition. 

The majority of fish barriers within the planning area are on private lands. 

Issue 5 

How would land management actions affect migrating mule deer and resident deer and elk populations? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM analyzed the effects to deer and elk based on the availability of high-quality forage habitat by 

alternative. The early-successional stage forests represent high-quality forage habitat for this analysis. 

Deer and elk populations rely on the shrubs and forbs available in this habitat type for survival and 

successful reproduction. 

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

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

2014, pp. 167, 201, 202). 

Affected Environment 

Multiple Tribes expressed interest and concern over declining populations of migrating mule deer as well 

as the resident deer and elk populations. Deer and elk are important to Tribes as a traditional food, for the 

traditional cultural practice of hunting, and for their place in the larger eco-system. Declining timber 

harvests on Federal land in western Oregon have reduced the amount of early- successional forests that 

the deer and elk rely upon for high-quality forage. The Wildlife section that is specific to Black-tailed 

Deer and Roosevelt Elk provides a more detailed description of the current picture of deer and elk 

populations within the planning area. 

Environmental Effects 

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and No Action, higher-quality forage habitat would increase substantially for 

deer and elk populations on BLM-administered lands in 50 years. This increase in habitat is correlated to 

the combination of size of the Harvest Land Base and the harvesting methods allowed in those 

alternatives, thus creating more early-seral habitat within the decision area. These four alternatives would 

thus improve conditions for this Tribally-important resource. In alternative D, the BLM contribution to 

higher-quality forage habitat would remain unchanged, if not decrease slightly over time. The Wildlife 

section contains analysis specific to black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk, which provides a more thorough 

description of the effects by alternative. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Tribal Interests

660 | Page

Issue 6 

How would land management actions affect historic trail routes? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM considers historic trail routes as a type of cultural resource. The Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources section provides a description of the analytical methodology used to analyze effects to cultural 

resources and the results of that analysis. Historic trail routes also include, but are not limited to, those 

designated by Congress as National Historic Trails. The National Trails System section provides a more 

detailed analysis of National Historic Trails. 

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

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

2014, pp. 41-43, 167-168). 

Affected Environment 

Federal agencies and others have identified, recorded, and evaluated a portion of the historic trail routes 

within the planning area. These sites are linear features on the landscape and exist in a variety of 

conditions. The General Land Office (GLO) created some of the earliest documentation available for 

trails. Some Native American travel routes later turned into European settler travel routes, trails, or roads 

for the Forest Service and other Federal agencies, or railroad grades for hauling lumber, passengers, and 

freight. Some prominent trails such as the Oregon Trail are listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. The Salem District has at least six recorded historic trails. In order to identify important historic 

trail routes, the BLM must consult with interested Tribes in addition to conducting research of historic 

records. 

Environmental Effects 

Identification, recordation, and evaluation of historic trail routes would help avoid or mitigate effects to 

historic trail routes. The BLM does not have all historic trail routes recorded and will need to consult with 

Tribes in order to identify trail routes important to them. The Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

section provides a more detailed analysis of effects to cultural resources. 

Issue 7 

How would land management actions affect neighboring Tribally-managed lands? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

This issue touches upon many other issues analyzed in this chapter. Numerous land management actions 

could potentially affect neighboring Tribally-managed lands. 

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

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

2014, pp. 168). 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Tribal Interests

661 | Page

Affected Environment 

Tribally-managed lands exist throughout the planning area. Multiple Tribes have lands adjacent to BLMadministered lands. Some management actions or inaction may result in effects to neighboring lands. 

Effects to neighboring lands can stem from: 

x Spread of invasive species 

x Occurrence of wildfire 

x Access to Tribally-managed lands or places of importance to Tribes 

Additionally, the Coquille Forest, managed by the Coquille Tribe is “subject to the standards and 

guidelines of Federal forest plans on adjacent or nearby Federal lands, now and in the future” (Coquille 

Forest Act of 1996). This means that the final resource management plan that applies to the Coos Bay 

District will also apply to the Coquille Forest. 

Environmental Effects 

To the extent Tribal lands border BLM-administered lands, the effects listed above could occur and are 

explained further here. BLM management actions comprise only a portion of the potential affects to 

tribally managed lands. The effects to neighboring Tribally-managed lands also depends on the type of 

management taking place on those lands. 

For invasive species, the BLM would continue to implement measures to prevent, detect, and rapidly 

control new invasive species infestations as well as use manual, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and 

biological treatments to manage invasive species infestations. For wildfire, the BLM intends to manage 

for fire resilient landscapes and suppress wildfire where it threatens health and human safety. 

Additionally, all alternatives include hazardous fuels reduction strategies to varying degrees. In general, 

BLM land management actions should not affect access to Tribally-managed lands, although alternatives 

with more roads would allow for more access, and alternatives with fewer roads would possibly limit 

access (Table 3-241). Therefore, the No Action alternative and Alternatives B and C would potentially 

provide the best access whereas Alternatives A and D would provide the least. 

Table 3-241. Numbers of estimated new road and renovated or improved road by alternative. 

Alternative Total Estimated New Road 

Construction (Miles) 

Total Estimated Road 

Renovation (Miles) 

Total Estimated Road 

Improvement (Miles) 

No Action 944 6,809 170 

Alt. A 303 3,738 122 

Alt. B 687 5,229 155 

Alt. C 790 7,668 277 

Alt. D 246 2,723 87 

It is also important to note that Tribes have the ability to petition the Secretary of the Interior as 

authorized by Public Law 108-278, also known as the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004, to conduct 

activities to achieve land management goals for Federal land. These activities must be on BLMadministered lands adjacent to Tribal forestland, where the BLM-administered land poses threat of fire or 

disease or is in need of land restoration activities. Therefore, if BLM land management activities present a 

threat to neighboring Tribally-managed forestlands, the Tribes can request to take action to remedy the 

threat. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Tribal Interests

662 | Page

As noted above, the Coquille Tribe is required by law to manage the Coquille Forest “subject to the 

standards and guidelines of Federal forest plans on adjacent or nearby Federal lands, now and in the 

future.” In other words, the approved RMP will directly affect how the Coquille Tribe can manage the 

Coquille Forest. The analysis of effects to BLM-administered lands of the alternatives generally reflects 

how these alternatives would affect the Coquille Forest. 

Issue 8 

What are the social and economic effects of land management actions on Tribal communities? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The Socioeconomics section looks at the social and economic effects of the alternatives on communities 

within the planning area. Since Tribes are distinct communities that have Tribal members who live within 

the planning area, they also would be subject to these effects. Issue 2 of the Socioeconomics section looks 

at how the alternatives affect economic activity derived from BLM-administered lands. In addition, as 

part of the development of the affected environment portion of Issue 5 of Socioeconomics, the BLM 

collected data and interviewed community representatives throughout the planning area. While only two 

of the seven Tribes participated in the interviews, the information was broadly useful. 

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

techniques, and the geographic and temporal scales for all five socioeconomic issues presented (USDI 

BLM 2014, pp. 130-148). 

Affected Environment 

Federally-recognized Tribes within the planning area represent distinct communities, but are also subject 

to the economic conditions of the planning area. Issue 2 in Socioeconomics provides a detailed 

description of the current condition of employment, unemployment, and earnings in the planning area. 

Briefly, however, using employment as an example, since 2001, total employment in the planning area 

has grown by 7.2 percent. However, since 2007, which was the peak of economic activity before the 

2007-2009 recession, employment is down by 3.3 percent. Generally, throughout the planning area, 

district model areas show positive employment growth since 2001 ranging from 2.7 percent in the Coos 

Bay area to 9.8 percent in the Salem-Portland MSA area. Klamath Falls (-2.7 percent) and Roseburg (-3.9 

percent) are still down from their 2001 levels. All model areas are down from their peak in 2007, ranging 

from the deepest low in Roseburg (-10.7 percent) to a very modest low in Salem-Portland MSA (-0.1 

percent). 

Environmental Effects 

The Socioeconomics section, particularly Issue 2, contains a full description of the socioeconomic effects 

of the alternatives. With respect to effects, all the alternatives except for Alternative D would result in an 

increase in BLM-based jobs and earnings compared to what would have been generated in 2012 in the 

absence of Secure Rural Schools payments (i.e., if earnings and jobs were just based on jobs and earnings 

derived from the BLM’s actual management of the land in 2012). 

Issue 9 

How would land management actions affect water quality? 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Tribal Interests

663 | Page

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The analysis of water quality is in the Hydrology section. This analysis focuses mainly on sediment 

delivery and stream temperature. 

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

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

2014, pp. 65-89 and 168-169). 

Affected Environment 

Tribes have identified more than one issue surrounding water quality. Water quality is important as 

drinking water, as well as for fish and other aquatic species habitat. 

Environmental Effects 

The Hydrology analysis reveals that there is very little effect to water under all alternatives and that there 

is a modest difference between potential changes in stream temperature between the alternatives. The 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) regulates effects to drinking water and the BLM 

would remain compliant with those regulations. Under all alternatives, the BLM would: 

x Maintain water quality and stream flows within the range of natural variability, to protect aquatic 

biodiversity, and provide quality water for contact recreation and drinking water sources; 

x Meet ODEQ water quality targets for 303(d) water bodies with approved Total Maximum Daily 

Loads (TMDLs); 

x Maintain high-quality water and contribute to the restoration of degraded water quality 

downstream of BLM-administered lands; and 

x Maintain high-quality waters within ODEQ designated Source Water Protection watersheds. 

Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail 

How would land management actions affect Tribal resource collection of obsidian, chert, and other rocks 

and minerals for noncommercial purposes? 

The decision areas does not contain any identified locations for obsidian collection; therefore, analysis of 

effects is not possible. Chert and other non-modified rocks and minerals (including obsidian) can be 

collected anywhere within the decision area, except developed recreation areas or where it is otherwise 

prohibited and posted per CFR 8365.1-5. In the absence of specific locations identified for collection, an 

analysis of effects is not possible. 

References 

USDI BLM. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Visual Resources Management

664 | Page

Visual Resources Management 

Key Points x Under all alternatives, visual resource quality will decline to some extent over time. 

x Alternative D provides the greatest protection of visual resources within the decision area. 

x Alternatives A, B, and C provide the least protection of visual resources within the decision area. 

Issue 1 

How would varying types and intensities of forestry management and other resource uses affect visual 

resource quality on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM performed an updated visual resource inventory within western Oregon. The BLM established 

updated Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) classes. The BLM evaluated the loss or protection of visual 

quality (scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and distance zones) by alternative as compared to the affected 

environment. 

The BLM evaluated, by alternative, acres proposed for designation under each Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) class, and how these designations would affect existing visual resource quality. 

Specifically, the BLM evaluated the effects to visual resources by considering how the VRM designations 

would likely change the current acres in each VRI class over time. The BLM concluded that the 

alternative with the least acres designated as a VRM class lower than their VRI class would have the least 

effect to visual resources and the alternative with the most acres designated as a VRM class higher than 

their VRI class would have the greatest effect to visual resources. 

The BLM assumed that where an area’s VRM class matches its VRI class under any given alternative the 

area’s existing visual resource quality would not diminish. For example, an area inventoried at a VRI 

Class IV and designated as VRM Class IV, would maintain its existing visual resource quality. 

Conversely, the BLM assumed that when the BLM designates an area as a VRM class higher than its VRI 

class, that the area’s visual resource quality would diminish over time. For example, the BLM would 

expect the scenic quality of an area inventoried as VRI Class II but managed as VRM Class IV to 

diminish substantially over time, as VRM Class IV would allow for major modification of the area’s high 

level of scenic quality.

Analysis Assumptions 

For the purposes of this analysis, the BLM assumed that the following forest management activities are 

compatible with specific VRI class objectives (i.e., would not degrade the values to change the VRI 

class): 

x Visual Resource Inventory Class II: Thinning could take place within VRI II areas without 

degrading their visual resource quality to an extent that would change their VRI class. 

Regeneration harvest could not take place in VRI Class II areas without degrading visual resource 

quality to an extent that would change their VRI class 

x Visual Resource Inventory Class III: Thinning and regeneration harvest with retention could take 

place within VRI III areas without degrading their visual resource quality to an extent that would 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Visual Resources Management

665 | Page

change their VRI class. Clear-cutting could not take place in VRI Class III areas without 

degrading visual resource quality to an extent that would change their VRI class 

x Visual Resource Inventory Class IV: All harvest types could take place within VRI Class IV 

areas without degrading their visual resource quality 

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

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

2014, pp.123-124). 

Background 

Visual Resource Management is a system for minimizing the visual impacts of surface-disturbing 

activities and for maintaining scenic values. The BLM’s Visual Resource Management system consists of 

two distinct components: 

x Visual resource inventory (VRI) classes (VRI Class I through VRI Class IV) 

x Visual resource management (VRM) classes (VRM Class I through VRM Class IV) 

VRI classes portray the existing quality of visual resources. Inventory classes do not establish 

management direction and the BLM does not use them as a basis for constraining or limiting surfacedisturbing activities, except for the Class I Visual Resource Inventory class, as described below. The 

BLM assigns four inventory classes through the inventory process: 

x VRI Class I. The BLM assigns this class to areas where the management goal is to preserve a 

natural landscape. This includes areas such as Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild 

And Scenic Rivers classified as wild, and other congressionally and administratively designated 

areas. Unlikely other VRI classes, VRI class I is assigned based on a preservation management 

objective, rather than on the existing state of the visual resources. 

x VRI Class II, Class III, and Class IV. The BLM assigns these classes based on a combination 

of existing scenic qualities, sensitivity levels, and distance zones as documented through the 

inventory. Areas inventoried at a Class II have higher existing visual resource quality than do 

areas inventoried at a Class III or a Class IV. Areas inventoried at a Class IV have the lowest 

existing visual resource quality.

The BLM designates VRM classes through a resource management plan. Unlike VRI classes, which, with 

the exception of VRI I, represent an area’s existing visual quality, VRM classes define how the BLM 

intends to manage an area’s visual resources. This VRM class designation can vary from the VRI class 

designations, except for VRM Class I, which is automatically applied to VRI I areas. Chapter 2 contains a 

description of the management objectives and the allocation of Visual Resource Management classes. 

Certain sustained-yield timber management regimes are more or less compatible with the range of VRM 

class designations. Table 3-242 displays the level of compatibility for each VRM class compared to the 

High Intensity Timber Area (HITA), Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA) and Owl Habitat Timber Area 

(OHTA) management regimes and the No Action alternative (NA). 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Visual Resources Management

666 | Page

Table 3-242. Compatibility of sustained yield management regimes with VRM classifications. 

Classification HITA

(Even-aged Management)

LITA/MITA/No Action

(Two-aged Management)

OHTA/UTA

(Uneven-aged Management)

VRM 1

VRM 2

VRM 3

VRM 4

Dark grey boxes indicate that the management regime would generally be incompatible. 

Cross-hatched boxes indicate that the management regime may be compatible. 

Light grey boxes indicate that the management regime would generally be compatible. 

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 

All surface-disturbing activities, regardless of the alternative or management action, would be subject to 

the management objectives of the underlying land use allocation. The visual resource contrast rating 

system analyzes the potential site-specific impacts of surface-disturbance and the facility design and 

placement. The BLM would design surface-disturbing activities and facilities to mitigate visual effects 

and conform to the area’s designated VRM objective. 

Degradation of visual qualities would primarily occur from surface-disturbing activities, such as those 

associated regeneration timber harvest occurring within the Harvest Land Base or with construction of 

roads. Effects on visual resources would also result from some actions proposed to manage other 

resources and uses. The BLM deemed that programs not addressed in this section have no, or negligible, 

potential to impact visual resources under any of the alternatives. 

Table 3-243 shows the VRI acreage and Figure 3-156 shows the VRI class distribution in the decision 

area. 

Table 3-243. Visual Resource Inventory class distribution by district/field office. 

District/Field Office VRI Class II (Acres) VRI Class III (Acres) VRI Class IV (Acres)

Coos Bay 16,382 61,070 246,829

Eugene 60,556 123,517 126,977

Klamath Falls 6,584 14,992 192,496

Medford 293,850 210,068 301,954

Roseburg 71,759 102,000 249,805

Salem 103,920 66,769 227,666

Totals 553,052 578,415 1,345,726
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Visual Resources Management

667 | Page

Figure 3-156. Visual Resource Inventory class distribution within the decision area.

Effects from VRM Designation 

Table 3-244 shows the acres of the current VRI and designated VRM class under each alternative. Areas 

designated as VRM Class III or IV would allow more surface- and forest-disturbing effects and 

potentially have greater adverse effects on visual resources and scenic quality than those areas designated 

as VRM Class I or II. As described in the analytical methods section, the BLM assumed that current 

visual resource quality would degrade if the BLM designates areas as a VRM class higher than their VRI 

class. 

Table 3-244. Acres of Visual Resource Inventory and Visual Resource Management classes by 

alternative. 

VRM Class VRI Class No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Class I N/A 22,165 21,131 21,131 21,131 21,131 

Class II 553,052 125,220 135,869 99,749 99,790 58,397 

Class III 578,415 633,537 30,137 34,339 34,246 1,048,902 

Class IV 1,345,726 1,691,128 2,283,679 2,315,571 2,315,623 1,342,361 

Unknown* 1,668 6,812 8,046 8,072 8,072 8,072 

Totals 2,478,862 2,478,862 2,478,862 2,478,862 2,478,862 2,478,862 

*Unknown acres result from GIS analysis resulting in small portions of slivering. 

Under all alternatives, there would likely be a general decrease in visual quality in the decision area over 

time as the BLM would manage a substantial acreage of BLM-administered lands at a higher VRM class 

than the VRI class at which the acreage was inventoried (Table 3-244). Compared to the other 

alternatives, Alternative D would likely have the least decrease in visual quality as it has the fewest acres 

of land that are designated as a VRM Class that is higher than their VRI class. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the VRM classes set under the 1995 RMPs would continue. Under this 

continued management, there would be virtually no change to the visual character of areas designated 

VRM I. There would be an effect on the visual quality of the landscape in Class II areas. Ongoing 

553,052 578,415 

1,345,726 

0

300,000

600,000

900,000

1,200,000

1,500,000

Class II Class III Class IV

Acres 

VRI Class Distribution 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Visual Resources Management

668 | Page

resource use and development in areas managed as Class III and IV would have the potential to degrade 

visual resources. 

The No Action alternative would result in a general decrease in visual quality in the planning area as a the 

number of acres within VRI Class III and Class IV would likely increase over time compared to the 

current condition (Table 3-244). However, this decrease would be slightly less in the No Action 

alternative compared with Alternatives A, B, and C, all of which would manage more acres than the No 

Action under VRM classes that are higher than their VRI classes. While Alternative D has fewer acres 

than the No Action alternative in VRM IV, it has substantially more acres in VRM III and fewer acres in 

VRM II. Of the alternatives, the No Action alternative is likely to have the least impact on visual 

resources. 

Alternatives A, B, and C 

In Alternatives A, B, and C, the BLM would manage visual resources on Congressionally reserved lands 

and ACECs according to their established class, except that the BLM would manage ACECs within the 

Harvest Land Base that are VRI II as VRM III. The BLM would manage all other lands as VRM Class 

IV, which would allow management activities that result in major modifications to the existing character 

of the landscape. 

Alternatives A, B, and C would decrease the quality of visual resources within the decision area as a 

result of shifting VRI Class II to VRM Class III and IV, and shifting VRI Class III to VRM Class IV 

(Table 3-245). Under Alternatives A, B, and C, the BLM would manage 1,041,457 acres under a higher 

VRM class than the VRI class than at which they inventoried. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Visual Resources Management

669 | Page

Table 3-245. Visual Resource Inventory class designations. 

Alternatives VRM 

Management Class 

Designations

VRI Class I 

(Acres)

VRI Class II 

(Acres)

VRI Class III 

(Acres)

VRI Class IV 

(Acres)

VRI Unknown 

(Acres)

No Action (Acres) Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

VRM I 22,165 - - 11,413 2% 7,726 1% 2,752 >1% 273 16% 

VRM II 125,220 - - 67,506 12% 17,872 3% 39,743 3% 100 6% 

VRM III 633,537 - - 186,340 34% 218,511 39% 227,592 17% 1,094 66% 

VRM IV 1,691,128 - - 285,702 52% 333,010 57% 1,072,258 80% 157 9% 

Unknown 6,812 - - 2,091 >1% 1,296 >1% 3,381 >1% 44 3% 

Totals 2,478,862 - - 553,052 100% 578,415 100% 1,345,726 100% 1,668 100%

Total acres with a lower VRI class than VRM Class 1,019,335 

Alt. A (Acres)

VRM I 22,131 - - 6,154 1% 5,236 >1% - - 273 16% 

VRM II 135,869 - - 52,293 10% - - - - 100 6% 

VRM III 30,898 - - 976 >1% 29,922 5% - - 1,094 66% 

VRM IV 2,283,679 - - 491,537 89% 541,962 94% 1,342,346 99% 157 9% 

Unknown 8,046 - - 2,091 >1% 1,296 >1% 3,381 >1% 44 3% 

Totals 2,478,862 - - 553,051 100% 578,416 100% 1,345,727 100% 1,668 100%

Total acres with a lower VRI class than VRM Class 1,041,457 

Alt. B (Acres)

VRM I 21,131 - - 6,154 1% 5,236 >1% - - 273 16% 

VRM II 99,749 - - 49,032 9% - - - - 100 6% 

VRM III 34,339 - - 976 >1% 29,534 5% - - 1,094 66% 

VRM IV 2,315,571 - - 494,798 89% 542,350 94% 1,342,346 99% 157 9% 

Unknown 8,072 - - 2,091 >1% 1,296 >1% 3,381 >1% 44 3% 

Totals 2,478,862 - - 553,051 100% 578,416 100% 1,345,727 100% 1,668 100%

Total acres with a lower VRI class than VRM Class 1,041,457 

Alt. C (Acres)

VRM I 21,131 - - 6,154 1% 5,236 >1% - - 273 16% 

VRM II 99,790 - - 49,073 9% - - - - 100 6% 

VRM III 34,246 - - 976 >1% 29,441 5% - - 1,094 66% 

VRM IV 2,315,623 - - 494,757 89% 542,443 94% 1,342,346 99% 157 9% 

Unknown 8,072 - - 2,091 >1 1,296 >1% 3,381 >1% 44 3% 

Totals 2,478,862 - - 553,051 100% 578,416 100% 1,345,727 100% 1,668 100%

Total acres with a lower VRI class than VRM Class 498,000 

Alt. D (Acres)

VRM I 21,131 - - 6,154 1% 5,236 >1% - - 273 16% 

VRM II 58,397 - - 52,293 9% - - - - 100 6% 

VRM III 1,048,902 - - 480,729 87% 564,141 98% - - 1,094 66% 

VRM IV 1,342,361 - - 11,784 2% 7,743 1% 1,342,346 99% 157 9% 

Unknown 8,072 - - 2,091 >1% 1,296 >1% 3,381 >1% 44 3% 

Totals 2,478,862 - - 553,051 100% 578,416 100% 1,345,727 100% 1,668 100%

Alternative D 

In Alternative D, the BLM would manage visual resources on Congressionally reserved lands and ACECs 

according to their established class, except that the BLM would manage ACECs within the Harvest Land 

Base that are VRI II as VRM III. The BLM would manage all other lands according to their VRI Class, 

except that in the Harvest Land Base, the BLM would manage lands inventoried as VRI Class II as VRM 

Class III. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Visual Resources Management

670 | Page

While visual resource quality is likely to decline over time under Alternative D, the decline would be 

substantially less than under the other alternative. Under Alternative D only 489,000 acres at a VRM class 

that is higher than the VRI class at which they inventoried. 

Effects to Visual Resources from Forest Management 

Table 3-246 presents the acres of each VRI class that are in the Harvest Land Base under each 

alternative. Regeneration timber harvest would not diminish the existing visual quality of areas that are 

VRI IV. Areas inventoried as VRI Class II and VRI Class III have higher degrees of scenic quality and 

sensitivity levels and are typically more visible to the public than areas inventoried as Class IV. Clearcutting would diminish the visual resource quality of both VRI Class II and VRI Class III areas, but 

regeneration harvest with retention would only diminish the visual resource quality of VRI Class II areas. 

It is worth noting that under all alternatives, the largest designated VRI Cass of the Harvest Land Base 

would be VRI Class IV; timber harvest would not degrade the visual quality of these areas.

Table 3-246. The Harvest Land Base within each Visual Resource Inventory class by alternative. 

Visual Resource 

Inventory Classes

Harvest Land Base by Alternative (Acres)

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Class I - - - - -

Class II 174,030 69,785 116,425 141,535 133,680

Class III 209,996 82,103 117,755 154,676 168,159

Class IV 381,717 191,595 321,557 444,543 348,026

Unknown VRI 208 418 599 580 518

Totals 765,951 343,901 556,336 741,334 650,383

No Action Alternative 

In the No Action alternative, effects to visual resources from sustained-yield timber management, all of 

which would include some level of retention, would occur on 173,030 acres. This would degrade the 

visual resource quality of 174,030 acres of VRI II Class lands. Timber harvest activities under the No 

Action alternative would affect visual resource quality on the second most acreage compared to other 

alternatives. The No Action alternative would affect visual resource quality on fewer acres than 

Alternative C, but on slightly more acres than alternatives A, B, and D. 

Alternative A 

In Alternative A, effects to visual resources from sustained-yield timber management regimes, including 

clear-cutting would occur on 151,888 acres. This would degrade the visual resource quality of 69,785 

acres of VRI Class II lands and to a lesser extent of 82,103 acres of VRI Class III land. Timber harvest 

activities under Alternative A would impact visual resource quality on more acres than Alternatives B and 

D, but fewer acres than the No Action alternative and Alternative C. 

Alternative B 

In Alternative B, effects to visual resource from sustained-yield timber management regimes, including 

clear cutting would occur on 116, 425 acres. This would degrade the visual resource quality of 116, 425 

acres of VRI II Class land. Timber harvest activities under Alternative B would affect visual resource 

quality on the least acreage of the alternatives. 

Alternative C 

In Alternative C, effects to visual resource from sustained-yield timber management regimes, including 

clear-cutting, would occur on 296,211 acres, resulting in the greatest impact of any action alternative. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Visual Resources Management

671 | Page

This would degrade the visual resource quality of 141,535 acres of VRI Class II lands and to a lesser 

degree on 154,676 acres of VRI Class III lands. Compared with Alternative A, B, and D, Alternative B 

would have the greatest acreage affected by timber harvest activities. Timber harvest activities under 

Alternative C would affect visual resource quality on more acreage than the No Action alternative or than 

Alternatives A, B, and D. 

Alternative D 

In Alternative D, impacts to visual resource from sustained yield timber management activities, all of 

which would include some level of retention, would occur on 133,680 acres Timber harvest activities 

under Alternative D would impact visual resource quality on more acres than Alternatives B, but fewer 

acres than the No Action alternative and Alternatives A and C.

References 

USDI BLM. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Bald Eagle

672 | Page

Wildlife 

Bald Eagle 

Key Points x All action alternatives would lead to an increase in bald eagle nesting habitat in 50 years. 

x All action alternatives would have a slight loss of bald eagle habitat in the first decade or two, but 

additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would eventually surpass current 

conditions. 

Background 

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalis), nest in large diameter trees within 2 miles of large, permanent 

water bodies (Isaacs and Anthony 2011). 

There are 149 bald eagle nest trees amongst 89 breeding territories in the decision area (USDI BLM 

2008). The number of occupied bald eagle breeding territories in Oregon increased from 65 in 1978, to 

496 in 2007, and to 636 in 2010 (Isaacs 2011, Isaacs and Anthony 2011). Isaacs and Anthony (2011)

suggest that the bald eagle population could double or triple before population growth stabilizes. 

The bald eagle population in Oregon and along the lower Columbia River grew by 7.3 percent per year 

from 1978 to 2007 (Isaacs and Anthony 2011). Annual population growth from 2008 to 2010 was 3.5 

percent per year (Isaacs 2011). The reduction in the rate of population growth may be an artifact of 

reduced monitoring effort between the two time periods since State-wide monitoring ended in 2007 (i.e., 

96 percent of breeding areas were surveyed in the 1978 to 2007 period, whereas 67 percent were surveyed 

in the 2008-2010 period).

Under the 1995 RMPs, there are 176 Bald Eagle Management Areas designated in the decision area 

totaling 17,945 acres (Table 3-247), and they vary in size from three to 962 acres each. The 1995 RMPs 

included designations of Bald Eagle Management Areas to protect existing nest sites, winter and 

communal roosting areas, and potential nesting habitat. 

Table 3-247. Bald Eagle Management Areas within the decision area. 

District/Field Office Bald Eagle

Management Areas Acres

Coos Bay 26 765

Eugene 73 8,254

Klamath Falls 21 1,921

Medford 20 1,057

Roseburg 25 3,731

Salem 11 2,217

Totals 176 17,945

The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service listed bald eagles as an endangered species under the Endangered 

Species Act on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), reclassified as a threatened species July 12, 1995 (60 FR 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Bald Eagle

673 | Page

36000), and delisted due to recovery on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37346). Currently, bald eagles are protected 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Under the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act, the BLM issued policy guidance directing analysis of impacts on bald 

eagles. The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides more 

information on the obligations of BLM for bald eagles under these acts, which is incorporated here by 

reference (USDI BLM 2013, p. 144). 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the bald eagle would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered nesting habitat for bald eagle to be mature forests with multi-layered 

canopy and structurally-complex forests within 2 miles of large water bodies (reservoirs or lakes greater 

than 10 acres or streams larger than 7th order). The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information 

on analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 195-196). 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative implementation on bald 

eagle habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on bald eagle habitat of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including land management activities on BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The BLM modeled habitat on 

non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 2012 GNN structural condition. The 

discussion of analytical methods for the marbled murrelet describes GNN. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There are 247,608 acres of nesting habitat for bald eagles on BLM-administered lands (Figure 3-156). Of 

the forested lands capable of providing nesting habitat, 36 percent is currently nesting habitat in the 

decision area. 

Figure 3-157. Bald eagle habitat in the decision area- current conditions and by alternatives in 50 years. 

247,608 

300,862 322,298 325,246 288,660 

338,378 345,936 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Bald Eagle Habitat (Acres) 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Bald Eagle

674 | Page

There are 1,146,747 acres of nesting habitat for bald eagles across all land-ownerships in the planning 

area (Figure 3-158). Of the forestlands capable of providing nesting habitat, 20 percent is currently 

nesting habitat in the planning area. BLM-administered lands currently provide 22 percent of the 

available nesting habitat for bald eagles. 

Figure 3-158. Bald eagle habitat in the planning area. 

Under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, there would be 345,936 acres of bald eagle nesting 

habitat in 50 years in the decision area (Figure 3-158). Under all action alternatives and the No Action 

alternative, the amount of bald eagle habitat on BLM-administered lands increases between 17 to 37 

percent. Habitat development under the action alternatives would be 83 to 98 percent of the habitat 

development as under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 

D would provide the most bald eagle habitat development and Alternative C would provide the least 

development. The No Action alternative would produce 87 percent as much habitat as under No Timber 

Harvest. The action alternatives would have a 1 to 4 percent loss of bald eagle habitat in the first decade 

(the first two decades for Alternative C and the No Action alternative), but additional habitat would 

develop in subsequent decades that would surpass current conditions (Appendix R).

At the planning area scale, the No Timber Harvest reference scenario would lead to 1,742,817 acres of 

bald eagle nesting habitat in 50 years (Figure 3-158). Bald eagle habitat would increase by 47 to 50 

percent under the alternatives in 50 years in the planning area. Differences in habitat development among 

Alternatives A, B, and D would be indistinguishable since they are within one percent of the No Timber 

Harvest Reference Analysis. Alternative C and the No Action alternative would yield less bald eagle 

habitat at the planning area scale but the difference is insubstantial (three percent less than the No Timber 

Harvest Reference Analysis). The action alternatives would have > 1 percent loss of bald eagle habitat in 

the first decade (the first two decades for Alternative C and the No Action alternative), but additional 

habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would surpass current conditions (Appendix R).

899,139

1,396,881 1,396,881 1,396,881 1,396,881 1,396,881 1,396,881

247,608

300,862 322,298 325,246 288,660 338,378 345,936

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Bald Eagle Habitat (Acres)

Planning Area and BLM's Contribution

Non-BLM BLM Decision Area
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Bald Eagle

675 | Page

Under all alternatives, the BLM would restrict activities near bald eagle nests that would disrupt nesting 

during the breeding season. Therefore, the BLM assumed that there would not be any disruption effects to 

nesting bald eagles under any of the alternatives. 

Overall, the BLM expects bald eagle populations in the decision area and planning area to continue to 

grow under the No Action Alternative and the action alternatives. Habitat availability for bald eagles 

increases under the alternatives and there is no newly identified threat that BLM expects to curtail the 

observed trend (since 1978) in population growth of bald eagles. There would be little differentiation in 

effects among the alternatives, since habitat development would vary by no more than 3 percent among 

the alternatives and seasonal restrictions would avoid disruption of nesting under all alternatives. 

Appendix R contains additional information and supporting data on bald eagles. 

References 

Isaacs, F. B. 2011. Summary of reports on bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalis) nesting in Oregon and along the lower 

Columbia River, 2008-2010. Oregon Eagle Foundation, Inc., Klamath Falls, OR. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/inventories/inv-rpt-bi-hale-oregon-2008-2010-2011-07.pdf.

Isaacs, F. B., and R. G. Anthony. 2011. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalis) nesting in Oregon and along the lower Columbia 

River, 1978-2007. Final Report, 18 March 2011. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of 

Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/inventories/inv-rpt-bi-hale-oregon-1978-2007-2011-03.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final environmental impact statement for the revision of the resource management plans of the western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. BLM, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php.

---. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-western-oregon.pdf.

---. 2014. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Black-tailed Deer and Roosevelt Elk

676 | Page

Black-tailed Deer and Roosevelt Elk 

Key Points 

x Alternatives A, B, C, and the No Action alternative would increase the amount of high-quality 

forage habitat for deer and elk on BLM-administered lands in 50 years, but there would be an 

overall decrease in forage habitat in the planning area. 

Background 

Populations of black-tailed deer in western Oregon have been declining since the 1980s, based on Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife information (ODFW 2014a). The Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife estimates that the black-tailed deer population in Oregon declined from 452,000 animals in 1979, 

to 320,000 animals in 2004. Declines in the population of black-tailed deer are likely due to reductions in 

the quantity and quality of habitat, disease, and increased predation. 

The current populations of Roosevelt elk (30,034 individuals) are below the management objectives 

established by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (42,900 individuals) in all nine wildlife 

management units reporting (ODFW 2014b).

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife associates differences in habitat quality for black-tailed deer 

and elk with differences in forage quality and forest structural stages. Early-successional forests provide 

more diverse, abundant, and nutritious forage through the forbs and shrubs that grow for 10 to 15 years 

following a clear-cut or stand-replacing natural disturbance (ODFW 2008, 2014a). Black-tailed deer

densities are higher in early-successional forests. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identifies 

availability of early-successional forest stages as a potential limiting factor for black-tailed deer (ODFW 

2014a). These high-quality forage conditions persist until the canopy from regenerating conifer seedlings 

restricts sunlight to the low-lying forbs and shrubs. 

Similarly, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identified that Federal forestlands in western 

Oregon are lacking in adequate forage conditions for elk due to drastic reductions in timber harvest under 

the Northwest Forest Plan (ODFW 2003). Summarizing results from the elk nutrition model by Rowland 

et al. (2013), White (2015) found lower canopy closure and higher elevation increases the abundance of 

high-quality forage for elk. Forage nutrition for elk in the Coast Range and many areas of the Cascades is 

relatively poor, and even in early-successional forest stages (e.g., clear-cuts), the nutritional value of the 

forage is below maintenance levels for lactating elk. However, early-successional forests provide much 

better nutritional benefits to elk than large areas of closed-canopy forest. Elk benefit from forest 

management activities that reduce forest cover, but usage of the additional forage that develops depends 

on nearby cover and human disturbance. 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for black-tailed deer and elk would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered that all forested lands provide habitat for black-tailed deer and elk 

within the planning area. The BLM assumed that early-successional stage forest represents high quality 

forage habitat for deer and elk in this analysis. The BLM tested this assumption against the elk nutrition 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Black-tailed Deer and Roosevelt Elk

677 | Page

model by Rowland et al. (2013), and found that using the early-successional structural stage as highquality forage habitat was reasonable. 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative implementation on 

black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects 

on black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk habitat of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

including land management activities on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area. The BLM modeled habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area 

using the 2012 GNN structural condition. 

The BLM did not model changes in the black-tailed deer or Roosevelt elk populations, because there are 

other factors that influencing populations outside the scope of BLM land management decisions, such as 

harvest levels of deer and elk authorized by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and mortality from 

predators or vehicle collisions. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There are 46,249 acres of high-quality forage habitat for deer and elk in the decision area (Figure 3-159), 

which is 2 percent of the 2,161,690 habitat-capable acres. There are 1,112,694 acres of high-quality 

forage habitat for deer and elk in the planning area (Figure 3-160), which is 6 percent of the 17,403,114 

habitat-capable acres. The BLM-administered lands contribute 4 percent of the available high-quality 

forage habitat available in the planning area. 

Figure 3-159. Black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk high-quality forage habitat in the decision area. 

46,249 

110,566 

80,089 

118,311 131,001 

46,001 

14,418 0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Black-tailed Deer/Elk 

Habitat (Acres) 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Black-tailed Deer and Roosevelt Elk

678 | Page

Figure 3-160. Black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk high-quality forage in the planning area. 

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, and the No Action alternative, high-quality forage habitat would increase 

substantially for deer and elk populations on BLM-administered lands in 50 years (Figure 3-159). 

Alternatives B, C, and the No Action alternative would provide two to three times as much high-quality 

forage habitat in 50 years than current amounts. Alternative A would double the amount of high-quality 

forage habitat in 50 years. The amount of habitat would be unchanged under Alternative D in 50 years. In 

contrast, the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would decrease the amount of habitat; in 50 years, 

there would be 31 percent of the current amount of high-quality forage habitat available. 

At the planning area scale, Alternative C would maintain the amount of high-quality forage habitat for 

deer and elk. The other alternatives would lead to a 1 to 7 percent decrease in habitat (Figure 3-160). The 

No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would reduce by 10 percent high-quality forage habitat for deer 

and elk. The reduction in high-quality forage habitat across all ownerships would be a result of the loss of 

early-successional habitat from lands in the reserve land use allocations of the BLM-administered lands 

and U.S. Forest Service lands, as these stands develop and mature. In 50 years, the BLM-administered 

lands would contribute 12 percent of the available high-quality forage habitat in the planning area, while 

the No Action alternative and Alternatives A and B would result in contributions of 10, 8, and 11 percent, 

respectively. Alternative D and the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would result in smaller 

contributions from BLM-administered lands to high-quality forage habitat in the planning area in 50 years 

(4 and 1 percent, respectively). 

Alternatives A, B, and C, and the No Action alternative would increase the amount of high-quality forage 

habitat for deer and elk on BLM-administered lands in 50 years, but there would be an overall decrease in 

forage habitat in the planning area due to stand development in the reserve land use allocations on BLMadministered lands and Forest Service lands. Alternative D would maintain current amounts of highquality forage habitat available in 50 years on BLM-administered lands. Increased availability of highquality forage through early-successional structural stages would benefit deer and elk populations, since 

early seral habitats are required for maintaining productive ungulate populations (Cook et al. 2013). 

Greater availability of high-quality forage would improve ungulate survival and reproduction (e.g., 

1,066,445 986,909 986,909 986,909 986,909 986,909 986,909

46,249 110,566 80,089 118,311 131,001 46,001 14,418

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Black-tailed Deer/Elk Habitat (Acres)

Planning Area and BLM's Contribution

Non-BLM BLM Decision Area
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Black-tailed Deer and Roosevelt Elk

679 | Page

pregnancy rates, fetal survival, neonatal survival, juvenile growth rates, vulnerability to overwinter 

starvation, and age at first breeding). 

Appendix R contains additional information and supporting data on black-tailed deer and elk. 

References 

Cook, R. C., J.G. Cook, D. J. Vales, B. K. Johnson, S. M. McCorquodale, L. A. Shipley, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, S. L. Murphie,

B. L. Murphie, K. A. Schoenecker, F. Geyer, P. Briggs Hall, R. D. Spencer, D. A., Immell, D. H. Jackson, B. L. Tiller, P. J. 

Miller, and L. Schmitz. 2013. Regional and seasonal patterns of nutritional conditions and reproduction in elk. Wildlife 

Monographs 184(1):1-45. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.1008/full.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003. Oregon’s Elk management plan. Portland, OR. 63 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/management_plans/docs/ElkPlanfinal.pdf. 

---. 2008. Oregon black-tailed management plan. Salem, OR. 69 pp. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/docs/Oregon_BlackTailed_Deer_Management_Plan.pdf. 

---. 2014a. Oregon black-tailed deer management plan implementation. Salem, OR. 83 pp. 

---. 2014b. Northwest archery review. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/archery/docs/Presentations/Northwest_archery_review_Jan_25_2014.pdf. 

(Accessed 02/04/2015). 

Rowland, M. M., J. M. Hafer, B. J. Naylor, P. K. Coe, M. J. Wisdom, J. G. Cook, R. C. Cook, R. M. Nielson, B. K. Johnson. 

2013. User guidelines for the application, summary, and interpretation of Westside elk nutrition and habitat use models. 

Draft Version 2.0. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. General Technical Report. 67 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/elk/data/WestsideElkModelInstructions_31Jan2013_v2.pdf.

White. R. 2015. Elk habitat selection in western Oregon and Washington: models for a new century. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/elk/westside/WestsideElkModelingFinalSummary.pdf (Accessed 02/10/2015). 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

680 | Page

Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, Survey & Manage Species, 

and Landbird Focal Species 

Key Points x All alternatives would lead to an increase in habitat for a majority of Bureau Sensitive, Bureau 

Strategic, Survey & Manage wildlife species, and landbird focal species in 50 years. 

x Under all alternatives, the distribution of structural stages in the decision area in 50 years would 

be within the range of the average historic conditions, increasing the habitat availability for many 

Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and Survey & Manage species. 

x The lack of green tree retention or snag and down woody material retention under Alternatives A 

and C would lead to the least amount of habitat for species associated with legacy structures in 

younger stands in 50 years. 

x Although none of the action alternatives would include the Survey & Manage standards and 

guidelines, there would be sufficient habitat to support stable populations for most of the Survey 

& Manage wildlife species under all alternatives. 

Background 

Within the planning area, there are 74 Bureau Sensitive wildlife species, 52 Bureau Strategic wildlife 

species, 28 Survey & Manage wildlife species, and 45 focal species of landbirds for consideration in this 

analysis (Appendix R). 

Based on BLM Manual 6840, the BLM shall address Bureau Sensitive species and their habitats in land 

use plans and shall implement measures to conserve these species and their habitats, to promote their 

conservation, and reduce the likelihood and need for these species to be listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. Bureau Strategic species are not special status for management purposes (IM-OR-2012-018). 

The only requirement for this group of species is that information for species sites located during any 

survey efforts shall be entered into the BLM corporate database (GeoBOB). The BLM has the authority to 

update, amend, modify, change, or eliminate policies it uses to manage species within the Special Status 

Species program (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004). The BLM updates its Special Status Species list on a 

regular schedule, when state heritage programs publish new rankings or when other information indicates 

a need. 

The 2000 Final Supplemental EIS for Amendment to the Survey & Manage, Protection Buffer, and other 

Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines and the 2004 Final Supplemental EIS to Remove of 

Modify the Survey & Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines discussed the origin and 

implementation of the Survey & Manage standards and guidelines and the need for changes to the 

standards and guidelines (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000, pp. 3-10, 16-24; USDA FS and USDI BLM 

2004, pp. 3-9, 15-21), and those discussions are incorporated here by reference. 

Those two Supplemental EISs also described the Survey & Manage species and their habitat, distribution, 

and occurrence (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000, pp. 213-394; USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004, pp. 141-

208), and those descriptions are incorporated here by reference. 

The 2012 Resource Management Plan Evaluation Report (USDI BLM 2012) summarized the history of 

proposed changes to the Survey & Manage standards and guidelines: 

“The 1995 RMPs were amended by the January 2001, Record of Decision and Standards and 

Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife - SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

681 | Page

Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents within the Range of the northern spotted owl. 

In March 2004, the BLM completed a supplemental environmental impact statement and issued a 

record of decision to remove the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. The U.S. District Court 

for the Western District of Washington found the Record of Decision invalid since it relied on a 

supplemental environmental impact statement that the Court found deficient. In 2006, the Court 

issued an order of relief which allowed the BLM to eliminate the Survey and Manage requirement 

for four types of activities, commonly called the ‘Pechman Exemptions.’

Another interagency supplemental environmental impact statement was prepared to address 

deficiencies in the 2004 supplemental environmental impact statement. The BLM issued a record 

of decision in July, 2007 to amend the plans within the Northwest Forest Plan area to remove the 

Survey and Manage mitigation measure. 

In January 2008, a lawsuit was filed, and in December 2009, the presiding judge issued an Order 

granting Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. The judge found that the SEIS violated 

NEPA due to a lack of a true No Action alternative; lack of new information warranting 

elimination of Survey and Manage; and lack of high-quality information and accurate scientific 

data related to fire and fuels treatments, costs, and species data. 

A settlement agreement between the parties was approved by the court on July 6, 2011. The 

agreement stipulates that projects within the range of the northern spotted owl are subject to the 

survey and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 Record of Decision without 

subsequent 2001-2003 Annual Species Reviews as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. 

The Settlement Agreement modifies the 2001 Survey and Manage species list; establishes a 

transition period for application of the species lists; acknowledges existing exemption categories 

(2006 Pechman Exemptions); and, establishes exemptions from surveys for certain activities. The 

settlement agreement is in effect until the BLM conducts further analysis and decision making 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and issues a record of decision to supersede 

the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. 

The 2008 RMP revision did not include management objectives or direction for Survey and 

Manage Species. A plan revision would provide an opportunity to determine whether to retain, 

modify, or eliminate the Survey and Manage mitigation measure.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on April 25, 2013, that reversed the District Court for 

the Western District of Washington’s approval of the 2011 Survey & Manage Settlement Agreement. On 

February 18, 2014, the District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a remedy order in the 

case of Conservation Northwest et al. v. Bonnie et al., No. 08-1067- JCC (W.D. Wash.)/No.11-35729 (9th

Cir.). This was the latest step in the ongoing litigation challenging the 2007 Record of Decision (ROD) to 

modify the Survey & Manage Standards and Guidelines. 

The remedy order contained two components. The order—

a) Vacated the 2007 ROD to Remove or Modify the Survey & Manage Mitigation Measures 

Standards and Guidelines; and

b) Allowed for continued project planning and implementation for projects that relied on the 2011 

Consent Decree that were being developed or implemented, on or before April 25, 2013 (the date 

of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling invalidating the 2011 Consent Decree). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

682 | Page

The No Action alternative, as analyzed in this Draft EIS/RMP and described in Chapter 2, includes 

Survey & Manage measures, consistent with—

x The January 2001, Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the 

Survey & Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines 

in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of 

the Northern Spotted Owl; 

x The 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Review modifications to the Survey & Manage 

species list, except for the changes made for the red tree vole; and 

x The Pechman exemptions. 

Direction in the Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

promote the conservation of migratory birds (BLM MOU WO-230-2010-04) states that the BLM shall 

address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, or 

revising management plans for BLM-administered lands. 

Oregon-Washington Partners-In-Flight, American Bird Conservancy, and Klamath Bird Observatory have 

prepared a series of conservation plans for landbirds intended to inform planning efforts and habitat 

management actions (Altman and Alexander 2012). The strategy for achieving functioning ecosystems 

for landbirds is described through the habitat requirements of “focal species.” By managing for a suite of 

species representative of important habitat attributes in functioning ecosystems, many other species and 

elements of biodiversity also could also be conserved. Inclusion of these focal species in the analysis 

could help inform what the differences in effects amongst the alternatives are for landbirds, as well as the 

habitat attributes and forest stages/ecosystems they represent. 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat would be available under each alternative for Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, 

or Survey & Manage wildlife species and landbird focal species? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that the structural stages used in the vegetation modeling represent 

habitat conditions for Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, or Survey & Manage wildlife species and 

landbird focal species; this modeling is based on structural stage output from the Woodstock model and 

using the analytical assumptions of habitat relationships described in Appendix R. Based on existing 

data, the BLM delineated a range for each species based on county boundaries and occurrences within the 

planning area. The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, 

methods and techniques, and geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference 

(USDI BLM 2014, pp. 193-195). 

The BLM combined the issues of habitat availability for Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, or Survey & 

Manage wildlife species, and landbird focal species into one issue, because the analytical procedures used 

were similar and the discussion of results would be similar for species with similar habitat associations 

(e.g., early-successional forest habitat development under the alternatives is the same, irrespective of a 

species’ status).

In this analysis, the BLM did not assess the number of known sites by land use allocation or harvest 

scenario. This is a change from the analytical methodology described in the Planning Criteria (USDI 

BLM 2014, p. 194) because there is great disparity in survey efforts available among species, districts, 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife - SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

683 | Page

and land use allocations. That is, survey efforts for these species have been biased in their location based 

on proposed land management projects. This disparity would not lend itself to an effects analysis that 

would be informative in discerning among the alternatives. 

 

The BLM tabulated the amount of early-successional, stand establishment, young, mature, and 

structurally-complex forest habitats available in 50 years under the alternatives. Appendix R contains 

species-specific information regarding the effects of forest habitat development under the alternatives, as 

tabulated by the BLM. 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative implementation on 

habitat for Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, or Survey & Manage wildlife species and landbird focal 

species in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on habitat for Bureau Sensitive, 

Bureau Strategic, or Survey & Manage wildlife species and landbird focal species of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land management on BLM-administered lands and 

non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

The BLM modeled non-forest habitat on BLM-administered lands using the 2012 GNN ecological 

systems description (LEMMA 2014). The BLM assumed that non-forest habitat would remain constant 

over time under the alternatives, because there is no management direction under any alternatives that 

would substantively alter the structural characteristics of such habitats. 

The BLM calculated the average number of snags (trees per acre) and amount of down woody material 

(percent cover) per structural stage and structural group using data from BLM’s current vegetation survey 

(CVS) plots. Appendix R contains snags and coarse woody debris values. The BLM did not model future 

snag or down woody material abundance on a per acre basis. However, the BLM assumed that earlysuccessional, stand establishment, and young structural stages “with structural legacies” would provide 

greater amounts of snags and down woody material than those stages “without structural legacies” on 

BLM-administered lands. The BLM also assumed that mature and structurally-complex structural stages 

would provide snag and down woody material as habitat components for wildlife but did not distinguish 

among them for modeling purposes. 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that the effects of BLM management on special habitats, and the 116 

Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, Survey & Manage, or landbird species that use them, would not differ 

amongst the alternatives. Under all alternatives, the BLM would manage naturally-occurring special 

habitats–seeps, springs, wetlands, natural ponds, streams, natural meadows, rock outcrops, caves, cliffs, 

talus slopes, mineral licks, oak savannah/woodlands, sand dunes, and marine habitats–to maintain their 

ecological function. The BLM would manage human-made special habitats–bridges, buildings, quarries, 

pump chances/heliponds, abandoned mines, and reservoirs–as special habitats when compatible with their 

engineered function. The Planning Criteria provides more detailed information on the 116 wildlife species 

that are associated with special habitats, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 

198-199, 213-225). 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

On BLM-administered lands, forest habitat currently occupies 96 percent of the decision area. Young 

forest habitat is the most prevalent type of habitat (28 percent), with slightly smaller acreages of 

structurally-complex forest and mature forest habitat. Forests in the stand establishment stage are less 

abundant (17 percent), and early-successional habitat is the least abundant (2 percent) on BLMadministered lands. Table 3-248 displays the acreages of non-forest, early-successional forest, stand 

establishment forest, young forest, mature forest, and structurally-complex forest habitat in the decision 

and planning areas. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

684 | Page

For all ownerships, young forest is the predominant habitat stage comprising 45 percent. Earlysuccessional forest habitat is the least abundant habitat stage at 5 percent, and 18 percent is currently 

mature or structurally-complex forest. 

Table 3-248. Current condition in 2013 of habitat expressed by structural stage. 

Structural Stage

BLM-administered Lands All Ownerships

(Acres) (Percentage) (Acres) (Percentage)

Non-Forest Habitat 91,752 4% 4,342,361 20%

Early-successional Habitat 46,249 2% 1,112,694 5%

Stand Establishment Habitat 388,767 17% 2,473,304 11%

Young Forest Habitat 622,916 28% 9,807,038 45%

Mature Forest Habitat 515,324 23% 2,431,709 11%

Structurally-complex Habitat 588,435 26% 1,578,370 7%

Totals 2,253,442 100% 21,745,475 100%

The 2008 RMP/EIS summarized the average historical conditions of forest structural stages in Western 

Oregon from Nonaka and Spies (2005), which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2008, pp. 

211-212). The summarization of average historical conditions from the 2008 RMP/EIS combined the 

stand establishment and early-successional stages described in this Draft RMP/EIS into a single stage of 

“stand establishment.” This characterization of average historical conditions correlates to 5 percent stand 

establishment, 15 percent young, 25 percent mature, and 55 percent structurally-complex, respectively, 

and is displayed in Figures 3-161 and 3-162. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife - SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

685 | Page

Figure 3-161. Structural stage development in the decision area compared with average historic 

condition. 

27% 30% 35% 34% 31% 35% 36% 

55%

24% 

42% 

41% 42% 

37% 

45% 48% 

29% 25%

17% 

16% 17% 

18% 

15% 

14% 18% 15%

6% 5% 1% 8% 

3% 1% 5% 

2% 

5% 4% 5% 6% 

2% 1% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Average

Historic

Condition

Decision Area Forest Habitat (%) 

Structurally-complex Mature Young Stand Establishment Early-successional
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

686 | Page

Figure 3-162. Structural stage development in the planning area compared with average historic 

condition. 

Compared against the average historic conditions, the current combined amount of mature and 

structurally-complex forest in the decision area (51 percent) is less than the average historical condition 

(58-80 percent) (Figure 3-161). The prevalence of young and stand establishment stands is greater in the 

decision area than average historic conditions. Under all alternatives, the combined amount of mature and 

structurally-complex forest habitat in the decision area in 50 years (68-80 percent) would be within the 

range of the average historic conditions, as would the amount of young and stand establishment forests. In 

50 years, the amount of mature and structurally-complex forest in the decision area under the No Timber 

Harvest Reference Analysis (84 percent) would exceed the average historic condition. 

At the planning area scale, the amount of mature and structurally-complex forest currently (23 percent) is 

substantially less than the average historical condition (58-80 percent) (Figure 3-162). There is a 

preponderance of young forest (56 percent) that is well above the average historic condition (15 to 21 

percent). However, the amount of stand establishment forest in the planning area currently (21 percent) is 

currently near average historic condition (5 to 17 percent). In 50 years, the all alternatives would move 

the distribution of structural stages towards the average historic conditions, but there would still be 

successional considerable disparity. 

Structurally-complex forest habitat in the decision area would increase from 27 percent of the 2,161,690 

habitat-capable acres to 36 percent of the habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest Reference 

Analysis in 50 years (Figure 3-161). Under Alternatives A, B, and D, there would be little difference in 

the development of structurally-complex forest habitat, as it would increase from 27 percent of habitatcapable currently to 35, 34, and 35 percent of habitat-capable, respectively, in 50 years. Alternative C and 

the No Action alternative would result in the least amount of structurally-complex forest in 50 years (31 

and 30 percent of habitat-capable respectively) but would still represent an increase over current 

9% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%

55%

14%

21% 20% 21% 20% 21% 21%

25%

56%

48% 48% 48% 48% 47% 47%

14% 12% 12% 11% 12% 11% 11% 15%

6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Average

Historic

Condition

Planning Area Forest Habitat (%)

Structurally-complex Mature Young Stand Establishment Early-successional
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife - SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

687 | Page

conditions (27 percent of habitat-capable). Of the current structurally-complex forest in the planning area, 

37 percent is on BLM-administered lands. In 50 years, the contribution of BLM-administered lands to 

structurally-complex forest habitat in the planning area would increase to 27 to 31 percent under the 

alternatives, as additional non-BLM-administered lands, especially Reserves on U.S. Forest Service lands, 

develop into structurally-complex forest habitat. 

Mature forest habitat in the decision area would increase from 24 percent of the 2,161,690 habitat-capable 

acres to 48 percent of the habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis in 50 

years (Figure 3-161). Under Alternatives A, B, D, and the No Action alternative, there would be little 

difference in the development of mature forest habitat as it would increase from 24 percent of habitatcapable currently to 41, 42, 45, and 42 percent of habitat-capable, respectively, in 50 years. Alternative C 

would result in the least amount of mature forest development in 50 years (37 percent of habitat-capable) 

but would still represent an increase over current conditions (24 percent of habitat-capable). Of the 

available mature forest in the planning area, 21 percent is currently on BLM-administered lands and that 

proportion would increase to 23-27 percent under the alternatives (including the No Action alternative) as 

additional non-BLM-administered lands mature. 

Young forest habitat in the decision area would decrease from 29 percent of the 2,161,690 habitat-capable 

acres to 14 percent of the habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis in 50 

years (Figure 3-161). Under the action alternatives and the No Action alternative, there would be little 

difference in the loss of young forest habitat, as it would decrease from 29 percent of habitat-capable 

currently to 15-18 percent of habitat-capable in 50 years. Alternative C would result in the least reduction 

of young forest in 50 years (18 percent of habitat-capable) but would still represent a decrease below 

current conditions (29 percent of habitat-capable). Of the available young forest in the planning area, 6 

percent is currently on BLM-administered lands and that proportion would decrease slightly to 4-5 

percent under the alternatives (including the No Action alternative) as BLM-administered lands continue 

to develop and mature. 

Stand-establishment forest habitat in the decision area would decrease from 18 percent of the 2,161,690 

habitat-capable acres to 1 percent of the habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest Reference 

Analysis in 50 years (Figure 3-161). Under the action alternatives and the No Action alternative, the 

amount of stand establishment forest habitat would decrease from 18 percent of habitat-capable currently 

to 1-8 percent of habitat-capable in 50 years. Alternative C would result in the least reduction of young 

forest in 50 years (8 percent of habitat-capable), while Alternative B would result in the largest reduction 

in 50 years (1 percent of habitat-capable). Of the available stand establishment forest in the planning area, 

16 percent is currently on BLM-administered lands and that proportion would decrease to 1-8 percent 

under the alternatives, as BLM-administered lands continue to develop and mature. 

Early-successional forest habitat in the decision area would decrease from 2 percent of the 2,161,690 

habitat-capable acres, to 1 percent of the habitat-capable acres under the No Timber Harvest Reference 

Analysis in 50 years (Figure 3-161). Under all action alternatives and the No Action alternative, the 

amount of early-successional forest habitat would increase in abundance in 50 years. Alternative D would 

result in the smallest increase of early-successional forest habitat in 50 years (2 percent of habitatcapable), and Alternative C would result in the greatest development of early-successional forest habitat 

(6 percent of habitat-capable). Alternatives A and B, and the No Action alternative would result in 4, 5, 

and 5 percent, respectively, of habitat-capable in an early-successional condition in 50 years. Of the 

available early-successional forest in the planning area, 4 percent is currently on BLM-administered lands 

and that proportion would increase to 4-12 percent under the alternatives, as regeneration timber harvest 

occurs on BLM-administered lands. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

688 | Page

At the planning area scale, there would be little difference (less than 1 percent) in the distribution of 

structural stages in 50 years among the alternatives or the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis (Figure 

3-162). Currently, within the planning area, 9 percent is structurally-complex, 14 percent is mature, 56 

percent is young, 14 percent is stand establishment, and 6 percent is early-successional. In 50 years within 

the planning area, there would be 14 percent structurally-complex, 21 percent mature, 48 percent young, 

12 percent stand establishment, and 6 percent early-successional. The proportion of structural stages 

would vary by 1 percent or less among any of the alternatives. 

Overall, Alternatives A, B, and D would lead to the development of the greatest amount of structurallycomplex and mature forest habitats, and Alternative C would lead to the greatest development of earlysuccessional, stand establishment, and young stands (Figures 3-161 and 3-162). Appendix R provides 

more detailed information on the development of structural stages in the decision and planning areas by 

decade through 2063. 

Current snag density is greater in mature and structurally-complex stands (28.1 and 19.8 snags per acre, 

respectively) than in early-successional, stand establishment, and young stands (15.7, 7.8, and 18.1 snags 

per acre respectively, Appendix R). Similarly, the amount of down woody material in mature and 

structurally-complex stands (5.0 and 4.9 percent cover, respectively) is greater than in early-successional, 

stand establishment, and young stands (3.8, 4.1, and 3.6 percent, respectively). The abundance of snags 

and down wood also is greater in the coastal/north (22.0 snags per acre and 5.2 percent cover in the Coos 

Bay, Eugene, and Salem Districts) than in the interior/south (16.1 snags per acre and 3.7 percent cover in 

the Medford and Districts, and the Klamath Falls Field Office). The more frequent wildfire return interval 

and greater wildfire intensity in the interior/south likely is responsible for this observed trend, as more 

fires consume more of the dead woody material. 

Under all alternatives, habitat abundance would increase for at least 83 percent of species associated with 

young, mature, or structurally-complex forests in 50 years (Table 3-249). 

Table 3-249. Habitat effects summary to Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and Survey & Manage 

wildlife species, and to landbird focal species* based on structural stage association. 

Alternative

Number of Species* That Would Have an Increase in Habitat by 2063

by Structural Stage Association (Percent of Species in Group)

Earlysuccessional

(n=17)

Young or 

Mature 

(n=6)

Mature or 

Structurally

-complex

(n=9)

Forest 

Floor 

(n=16)

Legacy 

Structure in 

“Younger”

Stands (n=5)

Legacy 

Structure in 

“Older”

Stands (n=4)

Totals 

(n=55)

No Action 11 (65%) 5 (83%) 8 (89%) 15 (94%) 4 (80%) 4 (100%) 45 (82%)

Alt. A 10 (59%) 5 (83%) 9 (100%) 16 (100%) 1 (20%) 4 (100%) 43 (78%)

Alt. B 10 (59%) 5 (83%) 9 (100%) 15 (94%) 4 (80%) 4 (100%) 45 (82%)

Alt. C 10 (59%) 5 (83%) 9 (100%) 15 (94%) - 4 (100%) 41 (75%)

Alt. D 2 (12%) 5 (83%) 9 (100%) 16 (100%) 4 (80%) 4 (100%) 38 (69%)

No Timber Harvest - 5 (83%) 9 (100%) 16 (100%) 2 (40%) 4 (100%) 34 (62%)

* Appendix R contains information on species-specific effects. 

Young and mature forest habitat would increase in abundance from 53 percent of the 2,161,690 habitatcapable acres to 55-60 percent of the habitat-capable acres in 50 years under all alternatives (Figure 3-

161). Under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, young and mature forest habitat would increase 

to 62 percent of habitat-capable in 50 years. The average historic condition was 40 percent of habitatcapable was young and mature forest habitat. The amount of young and mature forest habitat under all 

alternatives and the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would exceed the average historic condition. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife - SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

689 | Page

Under all alternatives, 83 percent of the species BLM modeled as using young and mature forest habitat 

would have increased availability of that habitat (Table 3-249). The benefit of increased habitat 

availability may not translate directly to proportional increase in population numbers, since some Bureau 

Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and Survey & Manage species have limited ranges or low mobility. 

Mature and structurally-complex forest habitat would increase in abundance from 51 percent of the 

2,161,690 habitat-capable acres to 68-80 percent of the habitat-capable acres in 50 years under the action 

alternatives and the No Action alternative (Figure 3-161). Under the No Timber Harvest Reference 

Analysis, mature, and structurally-complex habitat would increase to 84 percent in 50 years. The amount 

of mature and structurally-complex habitat under the action alternatives would approach the amount 

available under the average historic condition and the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would 

exceed the average historic condition. Under the action alternatives, 100 percent of the species BLM 

modeled as using mature and structurally-complex forest habitat would have increased availability of that 

habitat and under the No Action alternative 89 percent of species would have increased habitat 

availability (Table 3-249). The benefit of increased habitat availability may not translate directly to 

proportional increase in population numbers, since some Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and Survey 

& Manage species have limited ranges or low-mobility. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and the No Action alternative, 94 percent of the species BLM modeled as using 

forest floor habitats would have increased availability of that habitat. Under Alternatives A and D (as well 

as the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis), 100 percent of forest floor species would have increased 

habitat availability. The benefit of increased habitat availability may not translate directly to proportional 

increase in population numbers, since some Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and Survey & Manage 

species have limited ranges or low mobility. 

Habitat for 80 percent of the species associated with snags and down woody material in younger stands 

would increase under Alternatives B, D, and the No Action alternative, while 0-20 percent of the species 

would experience an increase in habitat under Alternative A or C (Table 3-249; Figure 3-163). Under the 

No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, 40 percent of species associated with snags or down woody 

material in younger stands would have increased habitat availability (Table 3-249). For this discussion, 

species associated with “younger stands” refers to those that use some combination of the earlysuccessional, stand establishment, or young structural stages but do not typically use mature or 

structurally-complex stages. The lack of green tree retention or snag and down woody material retention 

would result in Alternative A and C providing the least amount of habitat for species associated with 

legacy structure in younger stands. The benefit of increased habitat availability may not translate directly 

to proportional increase in population numbers since some Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and 

Survey & Manage species have limited ranges or low mobility. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

690 | Page

Figure 3-163. Early-successional, stand establishment, and young stands with structural legacies in the 

decision area. 

The alternatives would have similar effects on wildlife species associated with stream habitat, or nearstream riparian habitats, as they would for fish species. All of the alternatives would increase the potential 

large wood and small functional wood contribution to streams from the current conditions over time. 

Sediment production from road construction and operation would increase by > 1 percent under all 

alternatives, and the effects would not differ meaningfully among the alternatives. Under the No Action 

alternative, and Alternatives A and D, > 0.5 percent of all perennial and fish-bearing reaches in the 

decision area would currently be susceptible to shade reductions that could affect stream temperature if 

the BLM applies thinning in the outer zone of the Riparian Reserves. Under Alternative B and C, 

approximately 5 percent of all perennial and fish-bearing reaches in the decision area would currently be 

susceptible to shade reductions that could affect stream temperature if the BLM applies thinning in the 

outer zone of the Riparian Reserves. The Fisheries section contains more detail. 

All species associated with legacy structures in older stands would have an increase in habitat under all 

alternatives, including the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis (Table 3-249, Figure 3-164). For this 

discussion, species associated with “older stands” refers to those that use young, mature, or structurallycomplex structural stages but do not typically use the early-successional or stand establishment stages. 

The benefit of increased habitat availability may not translate directly to a proportional increase in 

population numbers since some Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and Survey & Manage species have 

limited ranges or low mobility. 

223,475

367,349

123,248

265,647

124,348

226,262

128,372

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

ES, SE, and Young Stand Habitat 

with Structural Legacies (Acres)
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife - SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

691 | Page

Figure 3-164. Mature and structurally-complex stands with structural legacies within the decision area. 

All alternatives would lead to an increase in habitat for a majority of Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, 

Survey & Manage wildlife species, and landbird focal species in 50 years (Table 3-250). Alternative B 

and the No Action alternative would provide the most species with increased habitat abundance in 50 

years, while the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would provide increased habitat abundance for 

the fewest species. 

Table 3-250. Habitat effects summary to Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, or Survey & Manage 

wildlife species and to landbird focal species.* 

Alternative

Number of Species That Would Have an Increase in Habitat by 2063 

(Percent of Species in Group)

Bureau 

Sensitive 

Species (n=17) 

Bureau 

Strategic 

Species (n=3) 

Survey & 

Manage 

Species (n=10) 

Landbird 

Focal Species 

(n=35) 

Totals 

(n=56) 

No Action 17 (100%) 3 (100%) 9 (90%) 27 (77%) 46 (82%) 

Alt. A 15 (88%) 3 (100%) 10 (100%) 24 (69%) 44 (78%) 

Alt. B 16 (94%) 3 (100%) 9 (90%) 27 (77%) 46 (82%) 

Alt. C 14 (82%) 3 (100%) 9 (90%) 23 (66%) 42 (75%) 

Alt. D 15 (88%) 3 (100%) 9 (90%) 19 (54%) 38 (68%) 

No Timber Harvest 13 (76%) 3 (100%) 9 (90%) 15 (43%) 34 (61%) 

* Appendix R contains information on species-specific effects. 

Under the alternatives, between 64-80 percent of BLM-administered lands would be included in the 

reserve network, and between 14-30 percent of BLM-administered lands would be included in the 

Harvest Land Base. Under all alternatives, 6 percent of BLM-administered lands would be included in the 

Eastside Management Lands. The action alternatives would remove Survey & Manage standards and 

guidelines that require pre-disturbance surveys and protection of known sites, but even in the absence of 

such guidelines, habitat and sites of Survey & Manage species that fall within the reserve system would 

receive protection. 

862,411 961,980 1,058,410 1,087,349 

962,201 

1,141,298 1,136,633 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Mature and SC Habitat with 

Structural Legacies (Acres) 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

692 | Page

The Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, and Survey & Manage species generally are associated with 

mature or structurally-complex forest habitats, which increase in abundance under all alternatives as

described in Table 3-250. In addition, one of the basic criteria for Survey & Manage species is that they 

must be closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forest (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004).

Of the 28 Survey & Manage wildlife species considered in this analysis within the planning area, 5 are 

concurrently listed as Bureau Sensitive while 23 are not concurrently listed as Bureau Sensitive. 

The BLM does not always conduct field surveys in order to conserve Bureau Sensitive wildlife species.

Instead, the BLM conducts evaluations of the distribution, abundance, population trends, current 

threats, or habitat for those species using available information in regards to actions the BLM proposed to 

undertake, consistent with 6840 policy.

Under the No Action alternative, the BLM would continue to implement Survey & Manage Measure to 

conduct pre-disturbance surveys and protect known sites for the Survey & Manage species. Therefore, 

continued implementation of the Survey & Manage Measure under the No Action alternative would 

provide habitat and known sites sufficient to support stable populations on most wildlife species in 

patterns similar to the their historic reference distributions, with varying levels of certainty (USDA FS

and USDI BLM 2000). In addition, as discussed previously, mature and structurally-complex forest 

habitats for Survey & Manage wildlife species would increase under the No Action alternative in the 

decision area (Figure 3-161) and in the planning area (Figure 3-162). 

The action alternatives would remove the Survey & Manage Measure that requires pre-disturbance 

surveys and protection of known sites. 

There is incomplete and unavailable information relevant to the effects of the action alternatives on 

Survey & Manage species. With complete and species-specific survey information on the location of 

habitat and species sites for all Survey & Manage species, the BLM would be able to analyze the effects 

of all alternatives on Survey & Manage species and compare the effects under each action alternative to 

the No Action alternative, which would continue to implement the Survey & Manage Measure. However, 

the BLM lacks complete and species-specific survey information for most Survey & Manage species 

(USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM 2004). It would be exorbitantly expensive and time-consuming to 

conduct random surveys across the decision area for all Survey & Manage species. Consistent with 

Council on Environmental NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 1502.22, this analysis summarizes the 

information that is currently available on the effects of the alternatives on Survey & Manage species. The 

2004 Final SEIS to Remove or Modify the Survey & Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and 

Guidelines (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004) analyzed the removal of Survey & Manage standards and 

guidelines for known site management and pre-disturbance surveys, and that analysis is incorporated here 

by reference. However, the U.S. District Court in Conservation Northwest et al. v. Rey et al.(Case No. 

C08-1067- JCC) found that the analysis of effects to species in the 2004 Final SEIS and the 2007 Final 

SEIS was insufficient to support the conclusion that the Survey & Manage measure was no longer 

necessary to meet the goals of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Nevertheless, the information in the 2004 SEIS and 2007 SEIS does present analysis based on the 

incomplete survey information available that concludes that most Survey & Manage species would have 

sufficient habitat to support stable populations under the No Action alternative without the Survey & 

Manage measure. 

Even in the absence of the Survey & Manage Measure, habitat and sites of species that fall within the 

reserve system would receive protection. Compared to the No Action alternative, all action alternatives 

allocate more acres to the Late-Successional Reserve, which the Northwest Forest Plan expected to meet 

the needs of late-successional and old-growth related species (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000). To the 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife - SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

693 | Page

extent that the No Action alternative without the Survey & Manage Measure would provide sufficient 

habitat for Survey & Manage species, as analyzed in the 2004 SEIS, the action alternatives would provide 

additional habitat within the Late-Successional Reserve. 

The Survey & Manage species are species associated with “late-successional and old-growth forests” 

(USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000). To the extent that older and more structurally-complex multi-layered 

conifer forests as defined in the action alternatives encompass the “late-successional and old-growth 

forests” that provide habitat for Survey & Manage species, all action alternatives reserve such forests 

from timber harvest within the Late-Successional Reserve. Under all action alternatives, there would be 

no timber harvest of older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests, although each 

alternative uses a different definition to identify older and more structurally-complex multi-layered 

conifer forests. Therefore, all of the action alternatives, in contrast to the No Action alternative, would 

protect from timber harvest the forest conditions with which the Survey & Manage species are associated. 

In addition to reserving existing older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests, the 

acreage of mature and structurally-complex forest (which is a broader category than older and more 

structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests) in the decision area would increase over time under all 

alternatives. Therefore, the amount of habitat for Survey & Manage wildlife species would increase under 

all alternatives. 

In summary, all action alternatives would remove the Survey & Manage Measure that requires predisturbance surveys and protection of known sites. There is incomplete and unavailable information 

relevant to the effects of the action alternatives on Survey & Manage species. The 2004 FSEIS provides 

an incomplete analysis, but supports the conclusion that most Survey & Manage species would have 

sufficient habitat to support stable populations under the No Action alternative without the Survey & 

Manage measure. All action alternatives allocate more acres to the Late-Successional Reserve than the No 

Action alternative, protect older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests, and would 

result in an increase in mature and structurally-complex forest over time. As a result, and in light of the 

incomplete information available to the BLM, all action alternatives would protect most existing habitat 

for Survey & Manage species and would result in an increase in the amount of habitat for Survey & 

Manage species over time. 

The landbird focal species have a broad range of associated habitats, including many species associated 

with early-successional habitats, which decrease in abundance under the No Timber Harvest Reference 

Analysis as described above. Thus, landbird focal species and the total species with increased habitat 

abundance would be lowest under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. The BLM would manage 

landbird species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and following guidance provided by WO IB 2010-

110, the Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

promote the conservation of migratory birds (August 31, 2010). The BLM would follow migratory bird 

conservation measures as appropriate and consistent with agency missions. The BLM anticipates that 

these measures, which are currently under development by the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, would contain information and recommendations regarding how to avoid disturbing raptors 

and other migratory birds and how to avoid negatively affecting their populations. At the project 

level, the BLM would implement measures to lessen take of migratory birds under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act focusing on species of concern as identified by the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Appendix R contains additional information and supporting data on Bureau Sensitive, Bureau Strategic, 

Survey & Manage wildlife species, and landbird focal species. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – SSS, S&M, and Landbirds

694 | Page

References 

Altman, B., and J. D. Alexander. 2012. Habitat conservation for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and 

Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. http://www.orwapif.org. 

Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping and Analysis (LEMMA). 2014. GNN Structure (species-size) maps. 

http://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/structure-maps. (Accessed 08/05/2014). 

Nonaka, E., and T. A. Spies. 2005. Historical range of variability in landscape structure: a simulation study in Oregon, USA. 

Ecological Applications 15(5): 1727-1746. http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub4035.pdf. 

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment to the Survey & Manage,

Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Regional Ecosystem Office. Portland, OR. 568 

pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/10-2001_fseis_v1_ch1-4.pdf. 

---. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove Survey & Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and 

Guidelines. Regional Ecosystem Office. Portland, OR. 359 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/07-

2004_fseis_v1_ch1-4.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php. 

---. 2012. Resource Management Plan Evaluation Report: Western Oregon Districts. BLM Oregon State Office. Portland, OR. 

266 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/files/RMPEvaluation.pdf. 

---. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 

Wimberly, M. C. 2002. Spatial simulation of historical landscape patterns in coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest. Canadian

Journal Forestry Research 32: 1316-1328. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Columbian White-tailed Deer

695 | Page

Columbian White-tailed Deer 

Key Points 

x Alternatives A, B, C, and the No Action alternative would increase the amount of high-quality 

forage habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer on BLM-administered lands in 50 years. 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus 

leucurus) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on March 10, 1967 (32 FR 4001). 

There are two distinct population segments of Columbian white-tailed deer in the planning area: the 

Lower Columbia River population, which occurs in Clatsop and Columbia counties, and the Douglas 

County population, which occurs in Douglas County (USFWS 2013a). Historically, the Columbian whitetailed deer’s range included 23,170 square miles from Grants Pass, Oregon north to the Cowlitz River in 

Washington (USFWS 2013b). Currently, the range of the Lower Columbia River DPS is reduced to 

approximately 93 square miles and includes portions of Clatsop and Columbia counties in Oregon but 

given their mobility, deer can periodically occur outside of these areas. In addition, Oregon Biodiversity 

Information Center data indicate that since 1990 Columbian white-tailed deer have been observed in 

Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, and Douglas counties (ORBIC 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service delisted the Douglas County distinct population segment on July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43647); the 

Lower Columbia River distinct population segment remains listed as endangered. Critical habitat for the 

Columbian white-tailed deer has not been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

At the time of listing, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the total number of deer remaining to 

be less than 1,000, but the Douglas County population segment has now increased to over 5,000 animals 

(USFWS 2013a). In 1996, the Lower Columbia River distinct population segment suffered heavy losses 

due to extensive flooding of its habitat. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expects this 

population segment to recover to pre-flood numbers within a few years. The total deer population in the 

Lower Columbia River DPS has been at least 400 animals since 1984 and in 2011 the total population 

was 603 deer (USFWS 2013b). 

Habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer in the Lower Columbia River DPS includes pastures of reed 

canary grass, tall fescue, and mixed deciduous and Sitka spruce forest (USFWS 2013b). Habitat for 

Columbian white-tailed deer in the Douglas County DPS includes predominantly oak-madrone woodland 

and riparian cover types. Columbian white-tailed deer concentrate their habitat use near streams or rivers 

(within 650 feet). Distance to stream is more important than the vegetative condition in determining 

habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer. However, Columbian white-tailed deer evolved in association 

with prairie edge and woodland habitats and were not historically confined limited to riparian and 

lowland habitats as the species now exhibits. Urban development and agricultural areas now limit the 

Columbian white-tailed deer to lower lying and wetter habitat than the species would have been 

historically associated. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife associate differences in the quality 

of habitat with forage quality and forest structural stage for related deer species (e.g., black-tailed deer). 

Early-successional forests provide more diverse, abundant, and nutritious forage through the forbs and 

shrubs that grow for 10 to 15 years following a clear-cut or stand-replacing natural disturbance (ODFW 

2014, ODFW 2008). These high-quality forage conditions persist until the canopy from regenerating 

conifer seedlings restricts sunlight to the low-lying forbs and shrubs (ODFW 2014). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Columbian White-tailed Deer

696 | Page

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the Columbian white-tailed deer would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that all forested BLM-administered lands within Clatsop, Columbia, 

Multnomah, and Douglas Counties are habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer. Preliminary analysis of 

BLM-administered lands within 650 feet of streams in the four counties encompassed 92 percent of all 

BLM-administered lands. Based on this preliminary result, and to simplify analytical procedures, the 

BLM assumed that all BLM-administered lands within the four counties could provide habitat for 

Columbian white-tailed deer. This assumption overestimates the amount of habitat for the Columbian 

white-tailed deer since the habitat modeling was not limited to mixed deciduous-Sitka spruce forest or 

oak-madrone forest. However, given that Columbian white-tailed deer are currently limited to wetter, 

more lowland habitats than existed historically, and they may occur outside their limited range due to 

their mobility, the overestimation of habitat is within the capability of the species. 

In this analysis, the BLM assumed that the early-successional stage forest represents high-quality forage 

habitat for deer. Given the similarity in habitat needs and the life history of black-tailed deer and 

Columbian white-tailed deer, the BLM assumed that early-successional forests would similarly provide 

high-quality forage habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer. Rowland et al. (2013) developed a model to 

evaluate elk nutrition and habitat use in landscape settings. The BLM ran the nutrition model on two 

watersheds (Upper Alsea River and Rock Creek watersheds) to test if using the early-successional 

structural stages as a surrogate for high-quality forage habitat is a reasonable assumption. In the Upper 

Alsea River watershed, the mean dietary digestible energy class was slightly higher in the earlysuccessional stages (low-marginal forage quality) than in the other structural stages (poor forage quality) 

although the median class was indistinguishable from the others (low-marginal forage quality). In the 

Rock Creek watershed, the mean and median dietary digestible energy classes were slightly higher in the 

early-successional stages (low-marginal forage quality) than in the other structural stages (poor forage 

quality). Based on this results from the sample watersheds, the absolute difference in forage quality 

between early-successional and the other structural stages is not dramatically different, but the earlysuccessional stage does appear to provide slightly better forage quality relative to the other stages. 

Therefore, the BLM continues to regard early-successional structural stages as a reasonable measure of 

“high-quality forage habitat” for deer and elk species. Habitat use in the Rowland et al. (2013) model was 

not used by the BLM in this analysis, because that model requires information on locations of open and 

closed roads across ownerships, which the BLM cannot reasonably predict across ownerships through 

time. 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative implementation on 

Columbia white-tailed deer habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on 

Columbia white-tailed deer habitat of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including 

land management activities on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area. The BLM modeled habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 2012 

GNN structural condition. 

The BLM did not model changes in the white-tailed deer population since there are other factors that 

influencing populations outside the scope of BLM land management decisions, such as harvest levels of 

deer authorized by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and mortality from predators or vehicle 

collisions. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Columbian White-tailed Deer

697 | Page

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are 295 acres of high-quality forage habitat (Figure 3-165) for the Lower Columbia River 

population of Columbian white-tailed deer in the decision area, which is 2 percent of the 14,186 habitatcapable acres. There are 87,711 acres of high-quality forage habitat (Figure 3-166) for the Lower 

Columbia River population in the planning area, which is 9 percent of the 938,276 habitat-capable acres. 

The current BLM contribution to high-quality forage habitat for the Lower Columbia River population is 

less than1 percent of the available higher quality forage habitat available in the planning area. 

Figure 3-165. Columbian white-tailed deer high-quality forage habitat for the Lower Columbia River 

population in the decision area. 

295 

1,400 1,502 

3,761 

3,228 

1,455 

0 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Lower Columbia River White-tailed 

Deer Habitat (Acres) 

87,416 86,059 86,059 86,059 86,059 86,059 86,059

295 1,400 1,502 3,761 3,228 1,455 0 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Lower Columbia River White-tailed 

Deer Habitat (Acres) 

Planning Area and BLM's Contribution 

Non-BLM BLM Decision Area
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Columbian White-tailed Deer

698 | Page

Figure 3-166. Columbian white-tailed deer high-quality forage habitat for the Lower Columbia River 

population in the planning area. 

Under all alternatives, higher quality forage habitat would increase substantially for the Lower Columbia 

River population on BLM-administered lands in 50 years (Figure 3-165). Alternatives B and C would 

provide 10 to 12 times as much high quality forage habitat in 50 years than there is currently. Alternatives 

A and D, and the No Action alternative would provide five times the amount of higher quality forage 

habitat than there is currently. In contrast, the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would decrease the 

amount of habitat provided, dropping to zero in 50 years. 

Across all ownership for the Lower Columbia River population, the amount of high-quality forage habitat 

would not change substantively. Alternatives B and C would have a slight increase (2 percent) and 

Alternatives A and D, and the No Action would remain essentially unchanged (Figure 3-166). Under the 

No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, there would be a two percent reduction in the amount of high 

quality forage habitat in the Lower Columbia River population. In 50 years, the BLM-administered lands 

would contribute two percent of the available higher quality forage habitat for the Lower Columbia River 

population in the planning area under Alternatives A and D and the No Action alternative, while 

Alternatives B and C would contribute 4 percent of the available higher quality forage habitat. 

There are 9,834 acres of high-quality forage habitat (Figure 3-167) for the Douglas County population of 

Columbian white-tailed deer in the decision area, which is 2 percent of the 613,019 habitat-capable acres. 

There are 133,197 acres of high-quality forage habitat (Figure 3-168) for the Lower Columbia River 

population in the planning area, which is 5 percent of the 2,885,549 habitat-capable acres. The current 

BLM contribution to high-quality forage habitat for the Douglas County population is 7 percent of the 

available high-quality forage habitat available in the planning area. 

Figure 3-167. Columbian white-tailed deer high-quality forage habitat for the Douglas County population 

in the decision area. 

9,834

18,854 21,192

26,802

35,587

8,554

2,964 0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Douglas County Columbian

White-tailed Deer Habitat (Acres)
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Columbian White-tailed Deer

699 | Page

Figure 3-168. Columbian white-tailed deer high-quality forage habitat for the Douglas County population 

in the planning area. 

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, and the No Action alternative, high-quality forage habitat would increase 

substantially for the Douglas County population on BLM-administered lands in 50 years (Figure 3-167). 

Alternatives C would result in four times as much high quality forage habitat in 50 years than there is 

currently. Alternatives A and B, and the No Action alternative would provide two to three times the 

amount of higher quality forage habitat than there is currently. In contrast, Alternative D and the No 

Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would decrease the amount of habitat provided in 50 years. 

Across all ownership for the Douglas County population, higher quality forage habitat would increase 

under Alternatives A, B, and C, and the No Action alternative (Figure 3-168). Alternatives B and C 

would provide the greatest increase in higher quality forage habitat in 50 years (7 and 13 percent more, 

respectively). The No Action alternative and Alternative A would provide a slight increase (1-3 percent). 

Under the Alternative D and the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, there would be a 7 and 11 

percent reduction in the amount of high quality forage habitat provided for the Douglas County 

population in 50 years. The reduction in higher quality forage habitat across all ownerships would be a 

result of the loss of early-successional habitat from lands in the reserves on BLM-administered lands and 

USFS lands, as these stands develop and mature. In 50 years, the BLM-administered lands would 

contribute 24 percent of the available higher quality forage habitat for the Douglas County population in 

the planning area under Alternative C and the No Action alternative, and Alternatives A and B would 

contribute 14, 16, and 19 percent of the available higher quality forage habitat, respectively. In 50 years, 

the BLM-administered lands would contribute 7percent of the available high-quality forage habitat for the 

Douglas County population in the planning area under Alternative D and the No Timber Harvest 

Reference Analysis would result in a contribution of three percent. 

Within the Lower Columbia River DPS, flooding is a threat to Columbian white-tailed deer habitat when 

inundated for prolonged periods of time (USFWS 2013b). The risk of prolonged flooding could increase 

with the effects of climate change but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not expect that increased 

flooding would put the Lower Columbia River DPS at risk of extinction. Increased flooding could force 

deer to move into more developed habitat. 

123,363 115,424 115,424 115,424 115,424 115,424 115,424

9,834 18,854 21,192 26,802 35,587 

8,554 2,964 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Douglas County Columbian 

White-tailed Deer Habitat (Acres) 

Planning Area and BLM's Contribution 

Non-BLM BLM Decision Area
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Columbian White-tailed Deer

700 | Page

Overall, Alternatives A, B, and C, and the No Action alternative would increase the amount of higher 

quality forage habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer on BLM-administered lands in 50 years. 

Alternative D would also increase the amount of higher quality forage habitat available in 50 years on 

BLM-administered lands for the Lower Columbia River Population, but decrease it for the Douglas 

County population. Increased availability of higher quality forage through early-successional structural 

stages would benefit Columbian white-tailed deer, since early seral habitats are required for maintaining 

productive ungulate populations (Cook et al. 2013). Greater availability of higher quality forage would 

improve ungulate survival and reproduction (e.g., pregnancy rates, fetal survival, neonatal survival, 

juvenile growth rates, vulnerability to overwinter starvation, and age at first breeding) (Cook et al. 2013,

p. 37). 

Appendix R contains additional information and supporting data on Columbian white-tailed deer. 

References 

Cook, R. C., J. G. Cook, D. J. Vales, B. K. Johnson, S. M. McCorquodale, L. A. Shipley, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, S. L. Murphie, 

B. L. Murphie, K. A. Schoenecker, F. Geyer, P. Briggs Hall, R. D. Spencer, D. A., Immell, D. H. Jackson, B. L. Tiller, P. J. 

Miller, and L. Schmitz. 2013. Regional and seasonal patterns of nutritional conditions and reproduction in elk. Wildlife 

Monographs 184(1): 1-45. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.1008/full. 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2014. ORBIC_ISSSSP_20130912_ssc. http://orbic.pdx.edu/data.html. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008. Oregon Black-tailed Management Plan. Salem, OR. 69 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/docs/Oregon_Black-Tailed_Deer_Management_Plan.pdf. 

---. 2014a. Oregon black-tailed deer management plan implementation. Salem, OR. 83 pp. 

Rowland, M. M., J. M. Hafer, B. J. Naylor, P. K. Coe, M. J. Wisdom, J. G. Cook, R. C. Cook, R. M. Nielson, and B. K. Johnson. 

2013. User guidelines for the application, summary, and interpretation of Westside elk nutrition and habitat use models. 

Draft Version 2.0. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. General Technical Report. 67 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/elk/data/WestsideElkModelInstructions_31Jan2013_v2.pdf. 

USDI FWS. 2013a. Species Fact Sheet: Columbian white-tailed deer. Last updated: 26 November 2013. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/ColumbianWhiteTailedDeer/. 

---. 2013b. Columbia River distinct population segment of the Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) 5-

year review: summary and evaluation. USFWS. Lacey, WA. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A002. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Fisher

701 | Page

Fisher 

Key Points 

x The No Action alternative would lead to a continual loss of fisher habitat over 50 years. 

x All action alternatives would have a slight loss of fisher habitat in the first two decades, but 

additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would eventually surpass current 

conditions. 

Background 

Historically, fishers (Pekania pennanti) occurred in Oregon throughout the Coastal and Cascade 

mountains (USDI FWS 2013). Currently, remaining populations of fishers are restricted to two separate 

and genetically isolated populations in southwestern Oregon; one in the northern Siskiyou Mountains and 

one in the southern Cascade Range (USDI FWS 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to 

list the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of fisher, referred to as “fisher” henceforth, as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419). 

Reliable fisher observations occur in 10 sub-basins in the planning area including: Applegate, Chetco, 

Illinois, Middle Rogue, Upper Klamath, Upper Klamath Lake, Upper Rogue, North Umpqua, South 

Umpqua, and Williamson (GeoBOB 2013, ORBIC 2014). 

Fisher habitat is comprised of denning habitat, resting habitat, and foraging habitat. Denning habitat is 

habitat that fishers use for reproduction, denning, and rearing of young. Cavities in live or dead trees are a 

key characteristic of denning habitat (Lofroth et al. 2010). Resting habitat is habitat that fishers use for 

thermal regulation and security, in proximity to prey. High canopy cover, an abundance of large trees, and 

incidence of mistletoe or rust brooms are characteristic of resting habitat. Fishers use foraging habitat to 

locate and capture prey. 

The main threats to fisher are habitat loss and fragmentation due to wildfire and vegetation management, 

toxicants (i.e., anti-coagulant rodenticides), and the synergistic effects of these and other factors (e.g. 

fisher mortality from vehicle collisions) on small populations (Aubry and Lewis 2003, 79 FR 60420). 

Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides more information on 

the historic range, habitat, and known populations, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2013, p. 145). 

Fisher are detected more often in areas with fewer disjunct core areas and more contiguous patches of 

habitat (Lofroth et al. 2011). Fisher are detected more in habitat that has a greater amount of Douglas-fir, 

a greater amount of 51 to 75 percent canopy cover, less barren area, a greater density of low use roads 

(closed to public or seasonal use only), and fewer disjunct core areas. “Core area” is defined as an area of 

habitat more than 328 feet from the edge of habitat. 

The mean male home range size is 20.8 square miles (13,329 acres) and the mean female home range is 

7.3 square miles (4,692 acres). Dispersing juvenile fisher are capable of moving long distances (up to 84 

miles) and navigating across or around various landscape features including rivers, highways, and rural 

communities. In the Cascade Range in southern Oregon, juvenile males dispersed an average of 18.0 

miles and juvenile females dispersed an average of 3.7 miles. 

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Fisher

703 | Page

fisher using the GeoBOB data (pp. 190-192), but subsequent inclusion of additional excellent 

observations from ORBIC data yields an additional three sub-basins in the planning area: North Umpqua, 

South Umpqua, and Williamson sub-basins. 

The Lower Rogue sub-basin does not have observations that the BLM considers to have “excellent”

reliability but is included because of the arrangement of the other sub-basins and the fisher’s ability to 

disperse. The Lower Rogue sub-basin is approximately 11 to 20 miles across, north to south, with reliable 

sightings in sub-basins to the north, east, and south. For the purpose of this analysis, the BLM assumed 

that fisher utilize the Lower Rogue sub-basin as part of their range, because fisher can disperse an average 

of 3.7 to 18.0 miles. 

In this analysis, the BLM divided habitat for the fisher into three categories: denning, resting, and 

foraging. The following structural stages represent the three categories of fisher habitat: 

x Denning Habitat – structurally-complex 

x Resting Habitat – structurally-complex and mature, multi-layered canopy 

x Foraging Habitat – structurally-complex, mature multi-layered canopy, and young with 

structural legacy 

The BLM assumed that denning habitat would also provide resting and foraging functions, resting habitat 

would also provide foraging function, and foraging habitat would only provide foraging function. 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative implementation on 

fisher habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on fisher habitat of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including land management activities on BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The BLM modeled habitat on 

non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 2012 GNN structural condition. 

The BLM assessed habitat connectivity by calculating the amount of “edge habitat” and “core habitat” on 

BLM-administered lands. Based on Lofroth et al. (2011), the BLM defined core habitat as the interior 

portion of a contiguous block of denning habitat that is more than 328 feet from non-habitat. BLM also 

defined edge as denning habitat that is no more than 328 feet from non-habitat. There are no quantified 

thresholds for the amount of core habitat needed by fishers or the effects of changes in patch size. In this 

analysis, the BLM considered habitat quality and connectivity to increase as the proportion of available 

habitat in core habitat increases and as patch size increases. 

The BLM did not forecast population trends of the fisher, because a quantified relationship between the 

specific number of individuals and the availability of habitat is unknown. Even though there are estimates 

of fisher home range size, other factors that influence fisher populations are not predictable and are 

unaffected by BLM land management actions (e.g., mortality from toxicants or vehicle collisions). 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There are currently 324,478 acres of denning habitat, 153,657 acres of resting habitat, and 96,084 acres of 

foraging habitat for fisher in the decision area (Table 3-251). Approximately 54 percent of the BLMadministered land capable of providing fisher habitat is currently providing habitat function; 31 percent as 

denning habitat, 15 percent as resting habitat, and 9 percent as foraging habitat. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Fisher

704 | Page

Table 3-251. Current fisher habitat in the decision and planning areas.

Fisher Habitat Type

Decision Area Planning Area

(Acres) (% of Habitat 

Capable) (Acres) (% of Habitat Capable)

Denning 324,478 31% 639,797 10%

Resting 153,657 15% 826,012 13%

Foraging 96,084 9% 3,019,215 49%

Total Fisher Habitat 574,219 54% 4,485,024 72%

Total Habitat-Capable 1,057,676 100% 6,224,237 100%

In the planning area, there is currently 639,797 acres of denning habitat, 826,012 acres of resting habitat, 

and 3,019,215 acres of foraging habitat for the fisher. Approximately 72 percent of land capable of 

providing fisher habitat is providing some form of habitat function. The BLM-administered lands 

contribute 51 percent of the available denning habitat and 13 percent of total fisher habitat in the planning 

area. 

Under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, there would be 644,357 acres of total fisher habitat, 

398,633 acres of denning habitat, and 160,996 acres of resting habitat on BLM-administered lands in 50 

years (Figure 3-170).93 Under all action alternatives, the amount of total habitat, denning habitat, and 

resting habitat would increase from current levels in 50 years. In 50 years, the action alternatives would 

provide 8 to 15 percent more total fisher habitat, 13 to 20 percent more denning habitat, and 5 to 26 

percent more resting habitat than current amounts. Alternative B would result in the greatest increase in 

total fisher habitat and resting habitat (662,866 and 193,001 acres respectively), Alternative D would 

result in the greatest increase in denning habitat (389,533 acres) and Alternative C the least increase of 

either (620,639 and 365,611 acres, respectively) among the action alternatives. In contrast to all action 

alternatives, the No Action alternative would decrease the amount of total habitat, denning habitat, and 

resting habitat from current levels in 50 years. 

93 Foraging habitat would decrease under all alternatives, including the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis 

(Figure 3-170). The reduction of foraging habitat would not represent a loss of overall habitat, but rather a 

consequence of foraging-only habitat developing into denning habitat or resting habitat, which provide foraging 

functions as well. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Fisher

705 | Page

Figure 3-170. Fisher habitat in the decision area. 

The action alternatives would have a 1 to 3 percent loss of denning habitat in the first decade (and in the 

second decade for Alternative C), but additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would 

surpass current conditions by 2033 (Appendix R). Similarly, total fisher habitat and resting habitat would 

decrease in the first two decades under the action alternatives (by 3-5 percent and 10-15 percent, 

respectively), but additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would surpass current 

conditions by the year 2043. In contrast, the No Action alternative would lead to a continual decrease in 

total fisher habitat, denning habitat, and resting habitat over 50 years (Figure 3-170). 

Currently, the average patch size of fisher habitat is 33.0 acres (Table 3-252). Under the No Timber 

Harvest Reference Analysis, average patch size would increase to 35.9 acres in 50 years. Under all action 

alternatives, average patch size would decrease slightly from current conditions (30.1 to 32.6 acres) in 50 

years. Under the No Action alternative, average patch size would decrease more substantially from 

current conditions (20.4 acres). Using patch size as an index of habitat fragmentation, there would be 

some fragmentation of fisher habitat under the action alternatives, but this increase in fragmentation 

would be slight and similar amongst the action alternatives. The No Action alternative would result in a 

more substantial fragmentation of fisher habitat based on patch size. 

 

324,478 292,012 

387,886 376,867 365,611 389,533 398,633 

96,084 92,080 

82,384 92,998 87,331 90,847 84,728

153,657 143,410 

162,066 193,001 167,697 172,961 160,996 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Habitat (Acres) 

Denning Habitat Foraging Habitat Resting Habitat
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Fisher

706 | Page

Table 3-252. Fisher habitat patch metrics. 

Alternative Mean Patch 

Size (Acres)

Edge vs. Core Habitat

Edge Habitat 

(Acres)

Core Habitat 

(Acres)

Percent Core 

(%)

Current Condition (2013) 33.0 393,710 180,511 31%

No Action (2063) 20.4 381,360 146,143 28%

Alt. A (2063) 31.4 428,759 203,578 32%

Alt. B (2063) 32.3 450,183 212,684 32%

Alt. C (2063) 30.1 420,919 199,721 32%

Alt. D (2063) 32.6 441,553 211,790 32%

No Timber Harvest (2063) 35.9 433,931 210,428 33%

Currently, 31 percent of total fisher habitat is core habitat (Table 3-252). Under the No Timber Harvest 

Reference Analysis, core habitat would increase to 33 percent of total fisher habitat in 50 years. Under all 

action alternatives, core habitat would increase to 32 percent of total fisher habitat in 50 years. In contrast, 

the No Action alternative would reduce the amount of core habitat to 28 percent of total fisher habitat in 

50 years. These results are similar to changes in average patch size. It is unknown whether a slight 

reduction in the proportion of core habitat (1 percent) would lead to a perceptible decrease in use by 

fisher. By comparison, the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would provide 33 percent of the total 

fisher habitat as core habitat. 

Because fishers use large contiguous tracts of habitat (Lofroth et al. 2011), increased fragmentation of 

habitat would reduce the suitability of forest stands as habitat. However, fishers typically use numerous 

patches of habitat over a large landscape, and it is unknown if the slight reductions in patch size modeled 

under the action alternatives would result in any meaningful decrease in habitat use by the fisher. 

Similarly, it is unknown whether the slight increases of core habitat under the action alternatives would 

result in any meaningful increase in habitat use by the fisher. However, the effects from fragmentation 

under the No Action alternative would be more pronounced and more likely to result in a meaningful 

decrease in habitat use by fisher than the action alternatives, because of the more substantial decrease in 

average patch size and decrease of core habitat. 

At the planning area scale, total fisher habitat would increase slightly from current amounts under the all 

alternatives, including the No Action alternative, in 50 years (Figure 3-171). Under the No Action 

alternative, total fisher habitat would increase at the planning area scale even though it would decrease on 

BLM-administered lands, because of the increase in fisher habitat on U.S. Forest Service reserve lands. 

At the planning area scale, there is little differentiation in fisher habitat development among the action 

alternatives. Under the action alternatives, BLM-administered lands would contribute 13 to 14 percent of 

the total fisher habitat and 38 to 39 percent of the denning habitat in the planning area in 50 years. Under 

the No Action alternative, BLM-administered lands would contribute 12 percent of the total fisher habitat 

and 33 percent of denning habitat in the planning area in 50 years. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Fisher

707 | Page

Figure 3-171. Fisher habitat in the planning area and BLMs contribution for denning (top), foraging 

(middle), and resting (bottom). 

315,092 

606,142 606,142 606,142 606,142 606,142 606,142 

324,478 

292,012 387,886 376,867 365,611 389,533 398,633 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Denning Habitat (Acres) 

Non-BLM BLM Decision Area

2,923,420 

2,343,363 2,343,363 2,343,363 2,343,363 2,343,363 2,343,363

96,084 

92,080 82,384 92,998 87,331 90,847 84,728 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Foraging Habitat (Acres) 

672,024 

1,097,898 1,097,898 1,097,898 1,097,898 1,097,898 1,097,898

153,657 

143,410 162,066 193,001 167,697 172,961 160,996 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Resting Habitat (Acres) 

Planning Area and BLM's Contribution 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Fisher

708 | Page

Figure 3-172 shows the amount of each type of fisher habitat within the planning area in 50 years. 

Figure 3-172. Fisher habitat in the planning area. 

Appendix R contains additional information and supporting data on fisher. 

References 

Aubry, K. B., and J. C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their 

conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (2003): 79-90. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632070300003X. 

GeoBOB. 2013a. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot – 6 March 2013. 

USDI BLM. Portland, OR. 

Lofroth, E. C., C. M. Raley, J. M. Higley, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, J. C. Lewis, P. J. Happe, L. L. Finley, R. H. Naney, L. J. 

Hale, A. L. Krause, S. A. Livingston, A. M. Myers, and R. N. Brown. 2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in 

South-Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California–Volume I: Conservation 

Assessment. USDI BLM, Denver, CO. http://www.fws.gov/yreka/PDF/Lofroth_etal_2010.pdf. 

Lofroth, E. C., J. M. Higley, R. H. Naney, C. M. Raley, J. S. Yaeger, S. A. Livingston, and R. L. Truex. 2011. Conservation of

Fishers (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California –

Volume II: key findings from fisher habitat studies in British Columbia, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and California. USDI 

BLM, Denver, CO. http://www.fws.gov/yreka/Fisher%20Habitat%20Studies%20Vol%20II.pdf. 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2014. ORBIC_ISSSSP_20130912_ssc. http://orbic.pdx.edu/data.html. 

USDI BLM. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-westernoregon.pdf. 

USDI FWS. 2013. Species Fact Sheet: Fisher. Last updated: 19 March 2013. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/Fisher/. 

639,570 898,154 994,028 983,009 971,753 995,675 1,004,775

3,019,504 2,435,443 2,425,748 2,436,361 2,430,694 2,434,211 2,428,091

825,681 1,241,308 1,259,963 1,290,899 1,265,595 1,270,859 1,258,894

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Fisher Habitat (Acres)

Denning Habitat Foraging Habitat Resting Habitat
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Golden Eagle

709 | Page

Golden Eagle 

Key Points 

x All alternatives would lead to an increase in golden eagle nesting habitat in 50 years. 

x All alternatives would have a slight loss of golden eagle habitat in the first two or three decades, 

but additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would eventually surpass current 

conditions. 

Background 

Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos canadensiss) nest in open and semiǦopen habitat; they may also nest in 

coniferous habitat when open space is available (e.g., fire breaks, clearǦcuts, burned areas, pastureǦland) 

(Pagel et al., 2010) or there are “broad expanses of open country” available for foraging (Johnsgard, 

1990). Golden eagles nest on cliffs, the largest trees in forested stands, or artificial structures. In Oregon, 

golden eagles built 82 percent of their nests on cliffs, 16 percent in trees, and 1 percent on electrical 

poles/pylons (Isaacs 2014). 

Previously, Isaacs (2011) reported that golden eagle populations in the western U.S. are suspected of a 

long-term decline. A consistent and statewide survey effort for golden eagles was conducted in 2011 and 

the results suggest that there is a long-term loss of potential breeding areas of 14.2 percent in Oregon. 

However, three years of monitoring data (2011-2013) suggest that the nesting population of golden eagles 

in Oregon may be stable (Isaacs 2014). The minimum state-wide estimate for golden eagles was 459 

nesting pairs in 2011, 571 nesting pairs in 2012, and 573 nesting pairs in 2013. Estimates of the nesting 

population from the 1980’s were 500 pairs which is comparable to the current estimates suggesting no 

substantive changes in population size. The Northwestern and southwestern portions of Oregon have not 

been fully searched for golden eagle nests and therefore population size of nesting golden eagles in the 

State may be underestimated. Potential threats to golden eagles in Oregon include reduced prey 

abundance (e.g., jackrabbits), increased off-road recreation, increased rodent shooting, and loss of 

potential nest trees (Isaacs 2011). 

Within the planning area, there are 95 golden eagle breeding areas (Table 3-253), concentrated mainly in 

the Klamath Falls Field Office, Roseburg District, and the Medford District (i.e., Klamath, Douglas, and 

Jackson counties). Based on Isaacs 2011 data, 45 percent of the 38 breeding areas surveyed in the 

planning area were occupied by golden eagles. Golden eagles nested historically within nine counties in 

the planning area (i.e., Klamath, Douglas, Jackson, Curry, Clackamas, Coos, Josephine, Lane, and Linn 

Counties). 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Golden Eagle

710 | Page

Table 3-253. Golden eagle breeding areas within the planning area. 

County* Historical

(Pre-2011) (#)

Surveyed

in 2011 (#)

Occupied

in 2011 (#)

Clackamas 2 - -

Coos 2 1 -

Curry 5 - -

Douglas 19 4 3

Jackson 17 10 4

Josephine 2 - -

Klamath 44 22 9

Lane 2 - -

Linn 2 1 1

Totals 95 38 17

* The remaining counties in the planning area (Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook, Washington, Multnomah, Yamhill, Marion, 

Lincoln, Polk, and Benton) do not have historical golden eagle breeding areas.

Over 98 percent of golden eagle observations are within 4 miles of the center of their territory center 

(McGrady et al. 2002). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Pagel et al. 2010) and Isaacs (2014)

recommend that the inventory of nesting habitat should be conducted within 10 miles of project 

boundaries when ascertaining habitat use by golden eagles. 

Golden eagles are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act. Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the BLM has issued policy guidance 

directing analysis of impacts on golden eagles. The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs 

for Western Oregon provides more information on the obligations of BLM for golden eagles under these 

acts, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2013). 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the golden eagle would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered nesting habitat for golden eagles to be mature forests with multilayered canopy and structurally-complex forests within the nine counties with historical breeding 

territories. During preliminary analyses, BLM considered nesting habitat only within proximity of large 

patches of open habitat. The BLM evaluated nesting habitat within 4, 6, and 10 miles of open habitat that 

was at least 100 acres; results indicated that each of these distances encompassed most of the BLMadministered lands within the counties with historic golden eagle nesting. Based on these preliminary 

results, and to simplify analytical procedures, the BLM assumed that all BLM-administered lands within 

the nine counties could provide nesting habitat for golden eagles, irrespective of distance to open habitat. 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative implementation on 

golden eagle habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on golden eagle habitat 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including land management activities on 

BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The BLM modeled 

habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 2012 GNN structural 

condition. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Golden Eagle

711 | Page

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

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

2014, pp. 196-197). 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There are 789,751 acres of nesting habitat for golden eagles on BLM-administered lands in the decision 

area (Figure 3-173). Of the forested lands capable of providing nesting habitat, 41 percent is currently 

nesting habitat in the decision area. 

Figure 3-173. Golden eagle habitat in the decision area. 

There are 3,225,904 acres of nesting habitat for golden eagles across all land-ownerships in the planning 

area (Figure 3-174). Of the forest land capable of providing nesting habitat, 24 percent is currently 

nesting habitat in the planning area. BLM-administered lands provide 24 percent of the available nesting 

habitat for golden eagles. 

Figure 3-174. Golden eagle habitat in the planning area. 

789,751 848,128 957,588 982,160 878,459 

1,026,264 1,018,234

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Golden Eagle Habitat (Acres) 

2,436,153 

3,764,338 3,764,338 3,764,338 3,764,338 3,764,338 3,764,338 

789,751 

848,128 957,588 982,160 878,459 1,026,264 1,018,234 

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Golden Eagle Habitat (Acres) 

Planning Area and BLM's Contribution 

Non-BLM BLM Decision Area
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Golden Eagle

712 | Page

Under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, there would be 1,018,234 acres of golden eagle 

nesting habitat in 50 years in the decision area (Figure 3-173). Under all action alternatives and the No 

Action alternative, the amount of golden eagle habitat on BLM-administered lands would increase 

between 7 to 30 percent. Habitat development under the action alternatives would be 86 to 101 percent of 

the habitat development as under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. Alternative D would 

provide the most golden eagle habitat development and would actually surpass habitat development under 

the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. Alternative C would provide the least habitat development. 

The No Action alternative would produce 83 percent as much habitat as under the No Timber Harvest 

Reference Analysis. Alternatives A, B, C, and the No Action alternative would have a 1 to 8 percent loss 

of golden eagle habitat in the first two decades (the three decades for the No Action alternative), but 

additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would surpass current conditions (Appendix 

R).

At the planning area scale, the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would lead to 4,782,572 acres of 

golden eagle nesting habitat in 50 years (Figure 3-174). Golden eagle habitat would increase by 43 to 49 

percent under the alternatives in 50 years in the planning area. Differences in habitat development among 

Alternatives A, B, and D would be indistinguishable since they are within 1 percent of the No Timber 

Harvest Reference Analysis. Alternative C and the No Action alternative would yield less golden eagle 

habitat at the planning area scale, but the difference is insubstantial (3 to 4 percent less than the No 

Timber Harvest Reference Analysis). The action alternatives would have a less than a 2 percent loss of 

golden eagle habitat in the first two decades (the first three decades for the No Action alternative), but 

additional habitat would develop in subsequent decades that would surpass current conditions (Appendix 

R).

Under all alternatives, the BLM would restrict activities near golden eagle nests that would disrupt 

nesting during the breeding season. Therefore, the BLM assumes that there would not be any disruption 

effects to nesting golden eagles under any of the alternatives. 

Overall, the BLM expects that increases in nesting habitat coupled with management direction that would 

avoid disruption of breeding and nesting activities would encourage golden eagle population growth with 

the decision and planning areas. There would be little difference in effects among the alternatives, since 

habitat development would vary by no more than 4 percent among the alternatives. 

Overall, the BLM expects golden eagle populations in the decision area and planning area to remain 

stable under the No Action Alternative and the action alternatives. Habitat availability for golden eagles 

increases under the alternatives and there is no newly identified threat that BLM expects to lead to a 

downward trend in the population of nesting golden eagles. There would be little differentiation in effects 

among the alternatives, since habitat development would vary by no more than 4 percent among the 

alternatives and seasonal restrictions would avoid disruption of golden eagle nesting under all 

alternatives. 

Appendix R contains additional information and supporting data on golden eagles. 

References 

Isaacs, F. B. 2011. Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) nesting in Oregon, 2011. 1st Annual Report-Revised 16 April 2012. Oregon 

Eagle Foundation, Inc., Klamath Falls, OR. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/data/baldeagle/Documents/GE2011AnnualReport.pdf. 

---. 2014. Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) nesting in Oregon, 2011-2013. Final Annual Report. Oregon Eagle Foundation, Inc., 

Philomath, OR. 

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press. 403 pp. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Golden Eagle

713 | Page

McGrady, M. J., J. R. Gran, I. P. Bainbridge, and D. R. A. McLeod. 2002. A model of golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) ranging 

behavior. Journal of Raptor Research 36(1 Supp.): 62-69. https://sora.unm.edu/node/53954. 

Pagel, J. E., D. M. Whittington, and G. T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and monitoring protocols; and other 

recommendations. USFWS, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Carlsbad, CA. 31 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/documents/te_species/wind%20power/usfws_interim_goea_monitoring_protoc

ol_10march2010.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-westernoregon.pdf. 

---. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Greater Sage-Grouse

714 | Page

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Points 

x There would be no discernable difference in effects to Greater Sage-Grouse among the 

Alternatives A, B, C, or the No Action alternative, and those effects from grazing would remain 

the same as under the current conditions. Alternative D, which would eliminate grazing, would 

facilitate invasive plant species expansion and contribute to the loss of habitat. 

Background 

On March 23, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife determined that the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) warrants the protection under the Endangered Species Act, but listing of the species is 

precluded by the need to address higher priority species (75 FR 13910). There are five populations of 

Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon: Northern Great Basin, Western Great Basin, Baker, Central Oregon, and 

Klamath Falls (BLM 2013b). Only the Klamath Falls population is within the planning area. The Klamath 

Falls population had few birds at four leks in 1993 (BLM 2008), but there have been no more recent 

sightings of individuals of this population despite periodic surveys (BLM 2013b). In contrast, the other 

four populations in Oregon have minimum population estimates from 835 males to 9,114 males. In total, 

there are at least 20,000 Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon (USFWS 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service identified that overhunting in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, habitat loss, habitat degradation, 

and habitat fragmentation have led to the decline of Greater Sage-Grouse populations (75 FR 13962). 

However, there is no basis that recreational hunting of sage-grouse is currently at a level that it poses a 

threat to the species. Current threats to Greater Sage-Grouse include loss of habitat through urbanization, 

energy development, invasive species (e.g., juniper, cheatgrass), intensive grazing, and wildfire. Habitat 

for the Greater Sage-Grouse is large, intact expanses of sagebrush shrubland (BLM 2013b).

Treatment of encroaching juniper affects the quantity of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (BLM 2013b). The 

effects on Greater Sage-Grouse from livestock grazing are mixed. Livestock grazing can benefit Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing fuel loading which would protect intact sagebrush habitat and would 

increase habitat extent and continuity. Livestock grazing can reduce the spread of invasive grasses if 

applied annually before the grasses have cured. Light to moderate grazing does not appear to reduce 

perennial bunchgrass cover which is important to maintain as cover from predation of Greater SageGrouse during nesting. However, heavy livestock grazing can reduce perennial bunchgrass cover, which 

would increase risk of predation and facilitate cheatgrass invasion. Livestock may also trample birds or 

nests or disrupt lekking or nesting behavior. When all rangeland health standards have been met, then 

grazing management is adequate to maintain herbaceous vegetation adequate to provide cover for Greater 

Sage-Grouse. 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

For this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse to be sagebrush habitat within 

Klamath County in the planning area (78 FR 61459). The BLM tabulated the amount of sagebrush habitat 

acres using 2012 GNN ecological systems codes for non-forest on all lands. Appendix R contains more 

details on classifying habitat for this species. The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Greater Sage-Grouse

715 | Page

Western Oregon provides more information on habitat trends and threats to the species, which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2013, p. 145). 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There are 244,934 acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within the planning area, of which, 63,877 acres 

is within the decision area. However, this habitat within the decision area has not been occupied since 

1993. Management direction common to all alternatives would treat and remove encroaching, invasive 

juniper within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in the decision area similarly among all alternatives. 

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, the BLM would reduce the acreage available for grazing by 27 percent 

(from 495,190 acres to 359,049 acres). However, the acreage in allotments that would be actively grazed 

would not change substantially. In 2013, there were 354,633 acres of allotments actively grazed; the BLM 

expects this approximate level of grazing would continue under Alternatives A, B, and C, and is roughly 

the same level of active grazing currently under the No Action alternative (L. Crumley, BLM, personal 

communication, 2014). The Grazing section contains more information. Therefore, there would be no 

discernable difference in effects from grazing to Greater Sage-Grouse among the Alternatives A, B, C, or 

the No Action alternative, and those effects from grazing would remain the same as under the current 

conditions. Under Alternative D, grazing would be eliminated on BLM-administered lands. The 

elimination of permitted grazing would increase the likelihood of undesired levels of bunchgrass 

mortality following fire, and thereby facilitate invasive plant species expansion, such as juniper, which 

would contribute to loss of habitat and habitat degradation for the Greater Sage-Grouse (USDI BLM 

2013b). However, elimination of livestock grazing would also benefit Greater Sage-Grouse by removing 

the risk of trampling, and disruption of lekking and nesting behaviors by livestock. 

Appendix R contains additional information and supporting data on greater sage grouse. 

References 

USDI FWS. 2014. Species Fact Sheet: Greater Sage-Grouse. Last updated: 22 September 2014. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/GreaterSageGrouse/. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2011. ODFW Greater Sage-Grouse backgrounder. 6 December 2011. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/sagegrouse/docs/Greater_Sage_Grouse_Candiadate_species_Backgrounder.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php. 

---. 2013a. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-western-oregon.pdf. 

---. 2013b. Oregon Sub-region Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact 

Statement. BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/energy/opportunity/sagebrush.php. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Gray Wolf

716 | Page

Gray Wolf 

Key Points 

x The amount of habitat for gray wolves will not change amongst the alternatives, given the 

plasticity of gray wolves in using the landscape and their resilience to different land-use 

management regimes. 

x The opportunities for conflicts between gray wolves and livestock would be reduced under the 

action alternatives. 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service originally listed subspecies or regional populations of wolves (i.e., the 

timber wolf, Canis lupus lycaon) under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 on March 11, 

1967 (32 FR 4001). On March 9, 1978, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the gray wolf (C. lupus)

as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act at the species level on March 9, 1978 (43 FR 

9607). Between 2003 and 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published several rules delisting gray 

wolves in most of the United States (except for populations in the southwestern United States and 

Mexico). As a result of litigation, the listing status of the gray wolf in 2010 was the same as it was in 

1978 (78 FR 35666). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the Northern Rocky Mountain distinct 

population segment of the gray wolf (except in Wyoming) on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590).The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service currently considers the gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest to be the subspecies 

Canis lupus nubilus. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to remove gray wolves, including those 

in the Pacific Northwest, from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered 

Species Act on June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35664). Critical habitat for the gray wolf has not been designated by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon. 

There is one known pack of gray wolves in the planning area, called the Rogue pack (which includes the 

radio-collared male [OR7] who became pack alpha). The Rogue pack’s area of use includes portions of 

the Klamath Falls Field Office and Medford District (Figure 3-175). There is also a second area of known 

wolf activity (called the Keno pair) in the planning area where a pair of wolves has shown repeated use. A 

wolf had been using the Keno area since December 2014, but in January 2015 the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife documented use by a second wolf which establishes this as an area of known wolf 

activity (ODFW 2015; Figure 3-175).

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Gray Wolf

718 | Page

Wolves are highly mobile habitat generalists with large home ranges. They persist where wild ungulate 

(e.g., deer and elk) populations are adequate to provide prey and conflict with humans and livestock are 

low (78 FR 35680). There is no known future condition that would cause a decline in ungulate prey 

populations sufficient to affect the gray wolf throughout its range. Attributes of wolf habitat include: 

forest cover, public land, high ungulate density, and low livestock density. Conversely, low forest cover, 

high human density, and year-round livestock presence makes lands unsuitable as wolf habitat. Due to the 

wolves being habitat generalists, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not consider them vulnerable to 

climate change. 

There is sufficient habitat in the planning area to support gray wolves. Land-use practices do not appear to 

be affecting viability of wolves and do not need modification to conserve the subspecies (78 FR 35680). 

Land development projects can render some areas less suitable for wolves, but land-use restrictions are 

not necessary to ensure conservation of the subspecies. Wolves in northwest Montana exist amidst a 

complex arrangement of different land ownerships and management practices (public land, small privateland holders, and large industrial-land holders), and it would not be unusual for wolves to traverse all of 

these land-holders in a single day (ODFW 2010). Land ownership patterns in Oregon are similar to those 

in northwestern Montana, so wolves in Oregon could similarly traverse multiple ownerships in a day. 

Management plans on public lands are more than adequate to support viable wolf populations across the 

range of the subspecies (78 FR 35681). National Parks and Monuments provide refugia from hunting, 

trapping, control activities and may act as source for dispersing wolves. Human tolerance and an active 

program to eradicate gray wolves were the primary reasons wolves were extirpated from portions their 

historical range. 

In this analysis, the BLM did not specifically model habitat for the gray wolf in the decision area, because 

gray wolves are habitat generalists, have large home ranges, are capable of dispersing long distances, and 

are resilient to land-use practices. The amount of habitat for gray wolves would not change under the 

alternatives, given the plasticity of gray wolves in using the landscape. Thus, a gray wolf habitat model 

would not be informative or discerning among the alternatives. 

The size and boundaries of a given wolf pack’s territory vary annually based on prey movements or 

movements of other packs (ODFW 2010). Territories of wolf packs first to colonize an area tend to be 

larger (e.g., 460 square miles) and as packs fully occupy the landscape, territories become smaller (e.g., 

185 square miles). Pups eventually leave their parent’s pack and either establish a new territory or join an 

existing pack. On average, male wolves disperse at 28.7 months old and travel 60 miles, and females 

disperse at 38.4 months and travel 48 miles. Dispersal distances of 221 miles have been reported. 

In time, gray wolves will likely establish additional packs in the planning area. Activity of the wolf pack 

is centered at or near the den or rendezvous sites as adult pack-members hunt and bring food to the pups 

from late-April until September (ODFW 2010). Wolf dens can be resilient to non-lethal disturbance by 

humans (78 FR 35681). 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict on BLM-administered lands? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM assumed in this analysis that opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict would be the only 

meaningful effect of BLM management on wolf populations in the decision area. Wolf-livestock conflicts 

can potentially adversely affect wolf populations through conflicts with humans. The BLM assumed that 

the acreage available for grazing would generally correspond to the opportunities for wolf-livestock 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Gray Wolf

719 | Page

conflict. However, there are no quantifiable metrics to equate a specific acreage available for grazing to a 

specific rate of wolf-livestock conflicts. 

The BLM assumed in this analysis that habitat changes in the decision area would not affect wolf 

populations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has noted that land-use practices do not appear to be 

affecting viability of wolves and do not need modification to conserve the subspecies (78 FR 35680). 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, the BLM would reduce the acreage available for grazing by 27 percent 

(from 495,190 acres to 359,049 acres) but the acreage in allotments that is actively grazed would not 

change substantively. In 2013, there were 354,633 acres of allotments actively grazed and the BLM 

expects this approximate level of grazing would continue under Alternatives A, B, and C and is roughly 

the same level of active grazing currently under the No Action alternative (L. Crumley, BLM, personal 

communication, 2014). The Grazing section contains more information on grazing levels. Therefore, the 

opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict would remain the same as under current conditions, and there 

would be no discernable difference in impacts among the Alternatives A, B, C, or the No Action 

alternative. Under Alternative D, opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict would be minimized in the 

absence of livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands. 

A reduction in the opportunities for wolf-livestock conflict would reduce potential adverse effects on 

wolves in the planning area, but there is no reasonable basis to quantifiably describe a difference in 

effects among the alternatives or on the gray wolf population. 

References 

Crumley, L. 2014 (pers. com.). December 14, 2014 e-mail re: acres of vacant allotments. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, Lakeview, OR. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2010. Oregon wolf conservation and management plan. 194 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Oregon_Wolf_Conservation_and_Management_Plan_2010.pdf. 

---. 2014. Rogue pack (OR-7) timeline of events. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/OR-7.asp (Accessed 02/09/2015). 

---. 2015. Areas of known wolf activity. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Wolf_Use_Map_141231.pdf (Accessed 

02/09/2015) 

USDI FWS. 2014. Species Fact Sheet: gray wolf. Last updated: 14 May 2014. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/GrayWolf/. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

720 | Page

Marbled Murrelet 

Key Points 

x All alternatives would result in an increase in the amount of marbled murrelet high-quality 

nesting habitat and total nesting habitat in 50 years in the decision and planning areas. 

x In the first decade, all alternatives would result in a slight decrease in the amount of high-quality 

nesting habitat. However, sufficient high-quality nesting habitat would develop by the second 

decade to surpass current amounts under all alternatives 

x Under the No Action alternative and Alternative D, the BLM would identify and protect all future 

marbled murrelet sites. Alternatives A, B, and C would result in the loss of 9 percent (96), 1 

percent (12), and 20 percent (210) future marbled murrelet sites, respectively, as a result of timber 

harvest in the Harvest Land Base in the absence of surveys. 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on October 1, 1992 (57 FR 45328). The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service identified several anthropogenic threats to the marbled murrelet at the time of listing 

and in the Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USDI FWS 1997), including—

x Habitat destruction and modification in the terrestrial environment from timber harvest and 

human development caused a severe reduction in the amount of nesting habitat; 

x Unnaturally high rates of predation at nest sites resulting from forest “edge effects;”

x Existing regulatory mechanisms, such as land management plans (in 1992), were considered 

inadequate to ensure protection of the remaining nesting habitat and reestablishment of future 

nesting habitat; and 

x Manmade factors such as mortality from oil spills and entanglement in fishing nets used in 

gill-net fisheries. 

Subsequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reported in the 2004 Marbled Murrelet 5-Year 

Review (USDI FWS 2004) and 2009 Marbled Murrelet 5-Year Review (USDI FWS 2009) that there have 

been changes in the levels of these threats since the 1992 listing. Additional mechanisms, such as the 

Northwest Forest Plan, have been implemented since 1992 that affect land management in Oregon and 

have reduced threats to marbled murrelets (USDI FWS 2004). The remaining threats (i.e., habitat loss, 

high predation rates, mortality from oil spills or entanglement in fishing nets) remained unchanged 

following the 2004 Marbled Murrelet 5-Year Review and continue to be threats as reported in the 2009 

Marbled Murrelet 5-Year Review. In the 2009 review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also identified 

additional environmental and anthropogenic factors in the marine environment that are new threats to the 

marbled murrelet as listed below: 

x Environmental factors 

o Elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls in marbled murrelet prey species 

o Changes in prey abundance and availability 

o Changes in prey quality 

o Harmful algal blooms that produce bio-toxins leading to domoic acid and paralytic 

shellfish poisoning that have caused murrelet mortality 

o Climate change in the Pacific Northwest 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

721 | Page

x Anthropogenic factors 

o Derelict fishing gear leading to mortality from entanglement 

o Energy development projects (wave, tidal, and on-shore wind energy projects) 

leading to mortality 

o Disturbance in the marine environment (from exposures to lethal and sub-lethal 

levels of high underwater sound pressures caused by pile-driving, underwater 

detonations, and potential disturbance from high vessel traffic) 

Nelson et al. (2006) completed a review of marbled murrelet biology and nesting habitat. The results 

included that—

x Marbled murrelets are secretive, non-colonial nesters that forage at sea and nest inland; 

x The majority of marbled murrelets nest within 37 miles of the coast, although nests have been 

documented up to 52 miles inland in Washington and 47 miles inland in Oregon (R. 

Espinosa, BLM, personal communication, 2007); 

x The most important component in the nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet is the presence 

of large platforms (i.e., limbs or other structures that are at least 4 inches in diameter with a 

substrate [moss or other duff] capable of forming a nest cup); 

x Other important factors include vertical and horizontal cover location with respect to forest 

openings or edge, and height of platform. Platforms should be high enough to provide for 

jump-off departures and open enough to provide for stall landings, while still providing 

protection from predators and the weather; 

x Nest trees documented in the Northwest Forest Plan area are greater than 19 inches (diameter 

at breast height) and greater than 98 feet tall. Nest trees are typically taller than the average 

non-nest tree; and 

x Vertical cover (cover above the nest) is typically above 70 percent. 

Forest stands that provide nesting habitat typically possess a high density of large trees with platforms, 

have multiple canopy layers, and are typically older. Studies summarized for Oregon indicate that the 

density of trees with platforms and the number of platforms in general were the most important variables 

in predicting marbled murrelet nesting habitat at the stand level (USDI BLM 2008).

There is a strong association between total marbled murrelet populations and total suitable habitat at the 

scale of the Northwest Forest Plan Area (Raphael et al. 2011, p. 44). The location, amount, and the 

distribution pattern of nesting habitat are predictors of the spatial distribution of marbled murrelets at sea 

(Raphael et al. in press). Raphael et al. found that inland areas with a greater amount of nesting habitat 

and high cohesion (a measure of connectivity related to the geometry of patches of habitat) had greater 

numbers of marbled murrelets at sea. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet on May 24, 1996, 

(61 FR 26256); this designation included a description of the Primary Constituent Elements that support 

nesting, roosting, and other normal behaviors that are essential to the conservation of the marbled 

murrelet. The Primary Constituent Elements include: 1) forested stands containing large sized trees, 

generally more than 32 inches in diameter with potential nesting platforms at sufficient height, generally 

greater than or equal to 33 feet in height; and 2) the surrounding forested areas within 0.5 mile of these 

stands with a canopy height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height. Designated critical habitat 

also includes habitat that is currently unsuitable, but has the capability of becoming suitable habitat in the 

future. On October 5, 2011, critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was revised, removing acres in 

northern California and southern Oregon from the 1996 designation (76 FR 61599). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

722 | Page

The Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USDI FWS 1997) outlines the conservation strategy with 

both short- and long-term objectives. This recovery plan places special emphasis on the terrestrial 

environment for habitat-based recovery actions due to nesting occurring in inland forests. 

In the short-term, specific actions identified as necessary to stabilize the population includes protecting 

occupied habitat and minimizing the loss of unoccupied but suitable habitat (USDI FWS 1997). Specific 

actions include maintaining large blocks of suitable habitat, maintaining and enhancing buffer habitat, 

decreasing risks of nesting habitat loss due to fire and windthrow, reducing predation, and minimizing 

disturbance. The designation of marbled murrelet critical habitat also contributes towards the initial 

objective of stabilizing the population size through the maintenance and protection of occupied habitat 

and minimizing the loss of unoccupied but suitable habitat. 

Long-term conservation needs identified in the Plan include—

x Increasing productivity (abundance, the ratio of juveniles to adults, and nest success) and 

population size; 

x Increasing the amount (stand size and number of stands), quality, and distribution of suitable 

nesting habitat; 

x Protecting and improving the quality of the marine environment; and 

x Reducing or eliminating threats to survivorship by reducing predation in the terrestrial 

environment and anthropogenic sources of mortality at sea. 

The recovery plan identified six conservation zones throughout the listed range of the species: Puget 

Sound (Conservation Zone 1), Western Washington Coast Range (Conservation Zone 2), Oregon Coast 

Range (Conservation Zone 3), Siskiyou Coast Range (Conservation Zone 4), Mendocino (Conservation 

Zone 5), and Santa Cruz Mountains (Conservation Zone 6). The planning area includes all of 

Conservation Zone 3 and the northern portion of Conservation Zone 4 (Figure 3-176). Recovery zones 

are the functional equivalent of recovery units as defined by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy. 

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

724 | Page

trend (1.2 percent decline per year) while in Conservation Zone 3 (0.5 percent increase per year) and 

Conservation Zone 4 (1.6 percent increase per year) marbled murrelets exhibit weak upward trends. 

Strong (2013) found no evidence of a trend in marbled murrelet populations within either Conservation 

Zone 3 or 4 from 2000 to 2012. 

Previously, Miller et al. (2012) reported that the marbled murrelet population was declining throughout 

its range (estimated at 29 percent decline for the listed population from 2001 to 2010). The annual 

population decline during 2001 to 2010 was 3.7 percent. Falxa et al. (2014) found that it is unclear what 

is driving recent population trends and also that it is premature to conclude that the marbled murrelet 

population decline observed between 2001-2010 is continuing or that the observations during 2011-2013 

indicate a change in the declining trend. 

The Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides more information 

on the species range, population trend, and threats, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2013, pp. 143, 149-150). 

Issue 1 

What levels of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet to be young forests with 

structural legacies, mature forests, and structurally-complex forests within the range of the marbled 

murrelet in the planning area (Figure 3-176).

The BLM divided nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet into two categories: high-quality nesting 

habitat and low-quality nesting habitat. In this analysis, the BLM assumed that structurally-complex 

forest stands within the range of the marbled murrelet represent high-quality nesting habitat, which 

provides trees and platforms suitable for nesting on a regular, reliable basis. Based on CVS data, the BLM 

estimates the average platform density in high-quality nesting habitat is 41.8 to 54.2 platforms/acre. 

Young stands with structural legacies and mature stands represent lower-quality nesting habitat, which 

may have trees and platforms suitable for nesting murrelets but the frequency and density of such 

structures is lower. The BLM estimates the average platform density in lower-quality nesting habitat is 

15.3 to 18.1 platforms/acre. 

This issue presents both an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of alternative implementation on 

marbled murrelet habitat in the decision area and an analysis of the cumulative effects on marbled 

murrelet habitat of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land 

management on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

The BLM modeled habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 2012 GNN 

structural condition. The BLM modeled the structural condition on non-BLM-administered lands as 

continuing to provide the same distribution of habitat through time as the current condition, except in 

Forest Service reserves (i.e., Late-Successional Reserves and Congressionally Reserved lands). The BLM 

modeled structural conditions continuing to develop on Forest Service reserve lands through time 

(Appendix R). This modeling of Forest Service reserve lands assumed that habitat would not develop on 

Forest Service reserve lands that experience wildfire in the modeling (see the vegetation modeling section 

at the beginning of Chapter 3).For the purpose of this analysis, the BLM assumed that the future 

distribution of habitat conditions on non-BLM-administered lands and burned, Forest Service reserves 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

725 | Page

would continue to reflect the current distribution of habitat conditions. On private lands, the assumption 

that the future distribution of habitat conditions would remain the same as current conditions likely 

overestimates the amount of nesting habitat since Raphael et al. (2011) found that 33.4 percent of highquality nesting habitat was lost between 1994/1996 and 2006/2007. On State and Forest Service nonreserve lands, this assumption is likely to be an underestimate of the future development of habitat. The 

BLM acknowledges that the spatial arrangement of structural conditions would change in the future, but 

lacks information to make more specific projections of how structural conditions would change over time 

on non-BLM-administered lands. This assumption is consistent with the assumption used in the analysis 

of forest structure and spatial pattern in the 2008 RMP/EIS, which describes the limitations on analyzing 

future changes on non-BLM-administered lands and is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2008, 

pp. 532-536). 

The GNN structural condition categories used for estimating high-quality nesting habitat on non-BLMadministered lands include structural components and provide a reasonable estimate of high-quality 

nesting habitat in the planning area for context. However, the GNN structural condition categories are not 

effective for estimating lower-quality nesting habitat. Initial calculations of total nesting habitat at the 

planning area scale using the GNN structural condition categories were unreasonably high when 

compared to Raphael et al. (2011). The GNN structural condition categories cannot distinguish young 

stands with structural legacies from young stands without structural legacies, and would therefore include 

all young stands in lower-quality nesting habitat, grossly overestimating the amount of lower-quality 

nesting habitat and total marbled murrelet nesting habitat. Therefore, for this analysis, the BLM limits 

discussion of marbled murrelet nesting habitat at the planning area scale to high-quality nesting habitat 

only, because of the limitations on interpreting the data available for non-BLM-administered lands. 

The BLM assessed habitat connectivity by calculating the amount of “edge habitat” and “core habitat” on 

BLM-administered lands. Following Raphael et al. (2011, p. 19), the BLM defined core habitat as the 

interior portion of a contiguous block of nesting habitat that is more than 295 feet from non-habitat. BLM 

also defined edge habitat as nesting habitat that within 295 feet of non-habitat. The distance to edge or 

core habitat is based on findings that marbled murrelets have reduced nest success along forested edges 

due to nest depredation, predominantly by species of corvids (Raphael et al. 2011, McShane et al. 2004). 

The BLM assumed that since the risk of nest predation by corvids is greater along habitat edges, there 

would be less risk of nest predation within larger patches of nesting habitat. Although there are no 

quantified thresholds for the amount of core habitat needed by marbled murrelets or the effects of changes 

in patch size, the BLM assumed in this analysis that the quality of nesting habitat would increase as the 

proportion of available habitat in core habitat increases and as patch size increases. 

The BLM did not forecast population trends of the marbled murrelet because of the uncertainty 

surrounding recent population trends as reported in Falxa et al. (2014) and discussed previously. In 

addition, there are numerous threats to marbled murrelets in the marine environment from environmental 

sources (e.g., changes in prey abundance, distribution, and quality or harmful algal blooms) or 

anthropogenic sources (e.g., derelict fishing gear and disturbance from vessel traffic) that are beyond the 

scope of land management decisions on BLM-administered lands. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There are 493,968 acres of total nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet on BLM-administered lands in 

the decision area, of which, 233,219 acres is high-quality nesting habitat (Table 3-254). Of the forested 

lands capable of providing nesting habitat in the decision area, 56 percent is currently nesting habitat, and 

26 percent is currently high-quality nesting habitat. 

Table 3-254. Current marbled murrelet nesting habitat. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

726 | Page

Marbled Murrelet Habitat

Decision Area Planning Area

(Acres) (% of Habitat 

Capable) (Acres) (% of Habitat Capable)

High-Quality Nesting Habitat 233,219 26% 573,150 9%

Lower-Quality Nesting Habitat 260,749 29% - -

Total Nesting Habitat 493,968 56% - -

Total Habitat-Capable Acres 885,590 100% 6,638,960 100%

Under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, there would be 840,024 acres of nesting habitat and 

319,070 acres of high-quality nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands in 50 years (Figure 3-177). In 

the first decade, all alternatives would reduce the amount of high-quality nesting habitat: Alternatives A, 

B, and D would have a 1 percent loss, the No Action alternative would have a 3 percent loss, and 

Alternative C would have a 4 percent loss. However, sufficient high-quality nesting habitat would 

develop by the second decade to surpass current amounts under all alternatives and the No Action 

alternative (Appendix R). The amount of total nesting habitat and the amount of high-quality nesting 

habitat would continue to increase after the second decade under all alternatives (Figure 3-177). Even 

though there would be a decline in the abundance of marbled murrelet nesting habitat in the first decade, 

there is no basis on which to conclude the temporary loss of 1-4 percent of available nesting habitat 

crosses a threshold, resulting in substantial changes to the marbled murrelet population. This slight, 

temporary loss of nesting habitat from Conservation Zones 3 and 4 could arrest, or possibly reverse, the 

observed upwards population trends in Conservation Zones 3 and 4 (0.5 percent and 1.6 percent increase 

per year, respectively). However, it seems unlikely that the loss of 1-4 percent of the available nesting 

habitat from Conservation Zones 3 and 4 in the first decade would lead to a catastrophic population 

collapse given that the marbled murrelet populations in Conservation Zones 3 and 4 are apparently 

increasing. 

233,219 294,666 305,620 308,023 276,789 310,055 319,070

260,749

479,186 451,174 463,535

378,199

503,666 520,954

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat (Acres)

Higher-Quality Low-Quality
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

727 | Page

Figure 3-177. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat in the decision area. 

Currently, the average patch size of marbled murrelet nesting habitat is 33.6 acres. Under the No Timber 

Harvest Reference Analysis, average patch size would increase to 69.7 acres in 50 years. The average 

patch size of marbled murrelet nesting habitat would decrease under Alternative C, but would increase 

under all other alternatives in 50 years (Table 3-255). 

Table 3-255. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat patch metrics. 

Alternative Mean Patch 

Size (Acres) 

Edge vs. Core Habitat 

Edge Habitat 

(Acres) 

Core Habitat 

(Acres) 

Percent Core 

(%) 

Current Condition (2013) 33.6 311,889 182,079 37% 

No Action (2063) 44.3 467,594 306,258 40% 

Alt. A (2063) 43.2 451,883 304,911 40% 

Alt. B (2063) 45.1 460,710 310,848 40% 

Alt. C (2063) 29.6 405,013 249,975 38% 

Alt. D (2063) 56.5 468,768 344,953 42% 

No Timber Harvest (2063) 69.7 472,978 367,046 44% 

Currently, 37 percent of nesting habitat is core habitat, and this percentage would increase in 50 years 

under all alternatives (Table 3-255). Alternative C would have the smallest increase in core habitat, while 

Alternative D would have the greatest increase, only slightly less than the No Timber Harvest Reference 

Analysis. 

Alternatives D, B, and A (in descending order) would provide nesting habitat in a configuration that 

would lead to reduced risk of nest predation (e.g., larger patch size, less edge habitat). In contrast, 

Alternative C would exacerbate nest predation by reducing patch size and providing the greatest amount 

of habitat subject to edge effects. 

The BLM-administered lands currently contribute 41 percent of the high-quality nesting habitat for the 

marbled murrelet in the planning area. In the planning area, there are currently 573,150 acres of highquality nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet across all ownerships, or 9 percent of the forest land 

capable of providing nesting habitat (Table 3-254). Raphael et al. (2011) report that approximately 36 

percent of habitat-capable Federal lands was higher suitability nesting habitat and 11 percent of habitatcapable non-Federal lands was high suitability nesting habitat in 2006/2007 in Oregon within Zone 1. 

Thus, the estimate of high-quality nesting habitat across all ownerships as modeled in this analysis are 

slightly lower, but comparable to estimates in Raphael et al. (2011). 

Within the planning area, high-quality nesting habitat would increase from 9 percent of all habitat-capable 

to 12 percent of all habitat-capable land under all alternatives, including the No Timber Harvest 

Reference Analysis, in 50 years (Appendix R). At the planning area scale, there is only slight 

differentiation in amount of high-quality nesting habitat development among the alternatives, which is 

only slightly less than under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis (Figure 3-178). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

728 | Page

Figure 3-178. Marbled murrelet high-quality nesting habitat in the planning area. 

There are 480,369 acres of designated marbled murrelet critical habitat in the decision area and 1,338,444 

acres in the planning area. Currently, 59 percent (273,174 acres) of designated marbled murrelet critical 

habitat on BLM-administered lands is nesting habitat, and 34 percent (154,331 acres) is high-quality 

nesting habitat. 

Within designated critical habitat, the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would result in an increase 

in nesting habitat from 59 percent of all habitat-capable land in 2013 to 97 percent of all habitat-capable 

land in 50 years and an increase in the amount of high-quality nesting habitat from 34 percent of all 

habitat-capable land to 43 percent of all habitat-capable land in 50 years (Appendix R). All action 

alternatives and the No Action alternative would develop more nesting habitat and high-quality nesting 

habitat within designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet in 50 years. Alternatives A, D, and the 

No Action alternative would result in increases in nesting habitat in designated critical habitat that are 

almost indistinguishable from the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. Alternative C would have the 

smallest increase in nesting habitat and high-quality nesting habitat (Figure 3-179).

339,931

505,861 505,861 505,861 505,861 505,861 505,861

233,219

294,666 305,620 308,023 276,789 310,055 319,070

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Marbled Murrelet High-quality 

Habitat (Acres)

Planning Area and BLM's Contribution

Non-BLM BLM Decision Area
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

729 | Page

Figure 3-179. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat in critical habitat in the decision area. 

At the planning area scale, the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis would result in an increase in highquality nesting habitat within designated critical habitat from 24 percent of all habitat-capable land in 

2013 to 37 percent of all habitat-capable land in 50 years (Appendix R). The development of high-quality 

nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet would be nearly indistinguishable among Alternatives A, B, D, 

and the No Action alternative in the planning area. These alternatives, including No Action, would be 

within 1 percent of the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis results. Alternative C would develop the 

least high-quality nesting habitat within designated critical habitat, which would be 3 percent less than the 

No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis in the planning area (Figure 3-180). 

154,331 197,017 197,646 194,091 180,763 193,961 198,051 

118,843 

237,879 245,345 225,577 199,973 

246,435 248,086 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat

in Critical Habitat (Acres) 

High-Quality Low-Quality
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

730 | Page

Figure 3-180. High-quality marbled murrelet nesting habitat in designated critical habitat in the planning 

area. 

Opportunities for marbled murrelet nesting would increase under all alternatives, including No Action, as 

the amount of nesting habitat and high-quality nesting habitat would increase. Increased nesting 

opportunities and nesting habitat would encourage population growth, thereby aiding species recovery. As 

noted above under Background, there is a strong association between total marbled murrelet populations 

and total habitat (Raphael et al. 2011). Alternative D would provide the greatest increase in nesting 

opportunity, and therefore the greatest contribution to species recovery, but Alternatives B and A (in 

descending order) would provide similar amounts of nesting habitat and opportunities. Alternative C and 

the No Action alternative would provide less of an increase in nesting opportunities, but would still 

contribute to increases in the marbled murrelet population. Alternatives D, B, and A, and the No Action 

alternative would also provide nesting habitat in configurations (larger patches) that would reduce nest 

predation, which would further aid successful marbled murrelet reproduction and population growth. 

Nesting habitat configuration under Alternative C would exacerbate nest predation, limiting opportunities 

for population growth. Overall, Alternative D would provide the most favorable habitat conditions for 

improving marbled murrelet nest success and potential population growth. Alternatives B, A, and No 

Action (in descending order) would provide comparable, but slightly less favorable habitat conditions, 

compared to Alternative D. Alternative C would provide the least improvement to marbled murrelet 

nesting opportunities and would increase the risk the of nest predation. 

Issue 2 

How would the alternatives affect known and future occupied marbled murrelet sites? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM used existing data as mapped within the BLM corporate murrelet database to identify currently 

known, occupied murrelet sites (GeoBOB, 2013). 

190,014

325,999 325,999 325,999 325,999 325,999 325,999

154,331

197,017 197,646 194,091 180,763 193,961 198,051

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Marbled Murrelet High-quality Habitat

in Critical Habitat (Acres)

Planning Area and BLM's Contribution

Non-BLM BLM Decision Area
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

731 | Page

The BLM forecast the number of marbled murrelet sites that the BLM would identify in the future by 

applying observed detection rates of occupancy and the mean size of occupied stands. Through 

preliminary analysis of previous surveys, the BLM found marbled murrelet occupancy in 24.4 percent of 

survey polygons within 0 to 25 miles of the coast (21 of 86 survey polygons) and in 5.6 percent of survey 

polygons within 25 to 50 miles of the coast (39 of 696 survey polygons) (USDI BLM, unpublished data, 

2014). The survey polygons examined in this preliminary analysis represent 62,339 acres of survey effort, 

which is a partial data-set of the total survey effort. There is approximately 26,000 acres of additional 

survey effort, but that data was not available at the time of this analysis. The BLM applied these detection 

rates to the amount of marbled murrelet nesting that would be within the Harvest Land Base under each 

alternative. The results are displayed in Figure 3-181. 

Figure 3-181. Surveys of marbled murrelet nesting habitat in the Harvest Land Base by alternative from 

2013 to 2063. 

The average size of survey polygons is 60.2 acres (USDI BLM, unpublished data, 2014), and the BLM 

assumed that survey polygons are the best available dataset depicting marbled murrelet occupancy at the 

stand level. The BLM divided the acreage of nesting habitat in the Harvest Land Base in 2013 by the 

average size of survey polygons to forecast the number of future, occupied sites that may exist in the 

Harvest Land Base in the future. While this forecast uses spatial data, the BLM did not forecast the 

specific location of future, occupied sites. Thus, the BLM did not specifically and separately analyze 

habitat development in or near these forecast sites. The BLM also used a similar methodology to forecast 

the total number of occupied marbled murrelet sites that could occur on BLM-administered lands 

irrespective of land use allocation based on the acreage of nesting habitat in 2013, the detection rates, and 

average size of survey polygons as described above. The forecast of the total number of marbled murrelet 

sites in the decision area would help to provide context for the effects of the alternatives. 

 

 140,848 

 26,737 24,282 

 114,874 

 44,348 

 12,505 

 103,268 

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Marbled Murrelet Habitat (Acres) 

Habitat with Surveys Habitat without Surveys
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

732 | Page

The alternatives present a range of pre-project survey requirements in the management direction (see 

Chapter 2). The management direction for marbled murrelet surveys is summarized briefly: 

x No Action alternative – survey nesting habitat 

x Alternative A – no surveys required 

x Alternative B – survey nesting habitat in Zone 1 (0 to 35 miles from the coast), no surveys in 

Zone 2 (35 to 50 miles from the coast) 

x Alternative C – survey nesting habitat for projects in stands 120-years-old or older 

x Alternative D – survey nesting habitat 

Depending on the management direction in the alternative and arrangement of nesting habitat, each 

alternative would have different amounts of nesting habitat that would have surveys and nesting habitat 

that would not have surveys. For this analysis, the BLM assumed future marbled murrelet sites would be 

discovered using the detection rates described above in nesting habitat with surveys. Conversely, the 

BLM assumed that nesting habitat without surveys would still contain marbled murrelet sites using the 

detection rates described above, but that these sites would remain undiscovered and that the habitat at 

these sites within the Harvest Land Base would be removed by timber harvest. 

Under all alternatives, the BLM would restrict activities that would disrupt nesting marbled murrelets 

during the nesting period. Therefore, the BLM assumed that there would not be any disruption effects to 

nesting marbled murrelets under any of the alternatives. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are 321 known, occupied marbled murrelet sites on BLM-administered lands (GeoBOB, 2013), 

encompassing 46,642 acres, as delineated by the BLM offices (Figure 3-182). 

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

734 | Page

percent of the nesting habitat in the Harvest Land Base prior to habitat modification. Under Alternative C, 

the BLM would survey approximately 19 percent of the nesting habitat in the Harvest Land Base prior to 

habitat modification. Under Alternative A, the BLM would not survey nesting habitat in the Harvest Land 

Base prior to habitat modification. 

Table 3-256. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat in the Harvest Land Base of the decision area in 2013. 

Nesting Habitat Location No Action

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

Harvest Land Base 140,848 44,348 39,241 127,550 114,874

Decision Area 493,969 493,969 493,969 493,969 493,969

Percentage of HLB with 

MaMu Nesting Habitat 29% 9% 8% 26% 23%

Under the No Action alternative and Alternative D, the BLM would identify and protect all future 

marbled murrelet sites. Alternatives A, B, and C would result in the loss of 96, 12, and 210 future 

marbled murrelet sites, respectively, as a result of timber harvest in the Harvest Land Base in the absence 

of surveys over a 50 year period Table 3-257. Based on the total amount of nesting habitat in the decision 

area, the BLM forecasts that there would be 1,065 marbled murrelet occupied sites on BLM-administered 

lands. Raphael et al. (2002) estimated 150 hectares (370 acres) of nesting habitat could support a pair of 

marbled murrelets on the Olympic Peninsula.94 Compared to the total number of occupied marbled 

murrelet sites forecast to occur on BLM-administered lands, Alternatives A, B, and C would result in the 

loss of 9 percent, 1 percent, and 20 percent of occupied sites, respectively, because of timber harvest in 

the Harvest Land Base in the absence of surveys. 

Table 3-257. Marbled murrelet occupied site forecast in the decision area under each alternative. 

Occupied Sites Forecasted 

Between 2013-2063

No Action

(Number 

of Sites)

Alt. A

(Number 

of Sites)

Alt. B

(Number 

of Sites)

Alt. C

(Number 

of Sites)

Alt. D

(Number 

of Sites)

Harvest Land Base-Protected 344 - 86 45 255

Harvest Land Base-Lost - 96 12 210 -

Not in Harvest Land Base-Protected 721 969 967 810 810

Totals 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065

Forecasted Sites Lost in the HLB 

as a Percentage of the Total - 9% 1% 20% -

Management direction under the alternatives would provide differing amounts of protection around future 

occupied marbled murrelet sites. Alternative D and the No Action alternative would provide the greatest 

acreage of protection around an individual site; all contiguous habitat within 0.5 miles would be included 

in the occupied site delineation (approximately 503 acres based on a circular radius). Alternatives B and 

C would both protect lands within 300 feet (approximately 6.5 acres based on a circular radius) of future, 

occupied site delineations, but only mature or structurally-complex stands would be included in the 

94 To evaluate the accuracy of this forecast, this analysis also estimated marbled murrelet occupied sites on BLMadministered lands using a different methodology: Raphael et al. (2002) estimated that 150 hectares (370 acres) of 

nesting habitat could support a pair of marbled murrelets on the Olympic Peninsula. Applying the estimate from 

Raphael et al. (2002) to the amount of nesting habitat currently available on BLM-administered lands (493,969 

acres), there would be 1,335 occupied marbled murrelet sites in the decision area, which is comparable to the 

estimate based on BLM survey detection rates. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

735 | Page

delineation under Alternative C. Alternative A would provide no protection to future sites, because the 

BLM would have no future discoveries of occupancy in the absence of surveys. 

Under Alternative C, designation and protection of an occupied site would last for 10 years after its 

discovery. For known, occupied sites, protection would last for 10 years after the Record of Decision for 

the RMP is signed (approximately 2026). Cessation of protection for occupied sites 10 years after 

discovery or after the Record of Decision is signed would lead to an eventual loss of occupied marbled 

murrelet sites. For the first decade or two, the BLM expects that most or all currently marbled murrelet 

sites would continue to be occupied, since murrelets tend to have high nest-site fidelity and nest locations 

of multiple birds can be aggregated. Miller et al. (2012) report that marbled murrelets re-nest in the same 

forest stands and trees in successive years which suggests they have high nest-site fidelity. Marbled 

murrelets are semi-colonial nesters, since there can be multiple, simultaneous detections of more than one 

bird at inland sites and nesting locations are often aggregated (57 FR 45328) although marbled murrelets 

are not truly colonial nesters (Raphael et al. in press). Mack et al. (2003) reported that, on average, 39 

percent of occupied sites changed status over a two-year period, and site status was not independent 

between years. The causes of changing site status between years unknown, but variation between years 

could be due to changes in ocean conditions and prey base. In the long-term (beyond the first decade or 

two), the BLM expects that there would be fewer occupied marbled murrelet sites, and there would be 

fewer birds nesting in aggregated groups at occupied sites if the observed range-wide declines (3.7 

percent annually (Miller et al. 2012) in the marbled murrelet continue. Finally, many currently occupied 

marbled murrelet sites would remain within the Late-Successional Reserve or other reserve land use 

allocations under Alternative C, even after 10 years without evidence of occupancy, because of reasons 

unrelated to marbled murrelets, such as location within structurally-complex forest or large block forest 

reserves. Because of these uncertainties related to whether current and future marbled murrelet sites 

would continue to be protected for longer than 10 years, the BLM did not model the loss of protection 

around occupied marbled murrelet sites after 10 years under Alternative C. Cessation of protection for 

occupied marbled murrelet sites after 10 years presents an unquantified level of uncertainty related to 

marbled murrelet site protection. 

The loss of future occupied sites through the lack of surveys or cessation of protection on known sites 

would adversely affect the marbled murrelet. Alternative C would result in the greatest loss of future 

marbled murrelet sites from lack of surveys, and would result in an unquantified level of loss from 

cessation of protections on sites after 10 years. Therefore, Alternative C would have the greatest impact 

on marbled murrelet populations overall, through the loss of occupied sites; the BLM forecasts that 20 

percent of the total occupied marbled murrelet sites would be lost under Alternative C (Table 3-257) 

Fewer sites for nesting marbled murrelets would lead to reduced nesting, reduced nest success, and 

ultimately to population instability or decline. Fewer occupied sites would make marbled murrelet nesting 

more susceptible to stochastic events in the terrestrial or marine environments. However, a quantified link 

between the number of occupied sites and marbled murrelet population numbers, stability, or trends is 

unknown. Loss of occupied sites could arrest, or possibly reverse, the observed upwards population trends 

in Conservation Zones 3 and 4 (0.5 percent and 1.6 percent increase per year, respectively).However, it is 

unknown if there is a critical threshold number of occupied sites on the landscape necessary to sustain 

marbled murrelet populations. 

Alternative A would result in the loss of nine percent of future, occupied marbled murrelet sites (Table 3-

257), and all existing, occupied sites would be protected. Alternative B would result in the loss of 1 

percent of future occupied sites, and all existing, occupied sites would be protected. However, there is no 

basis on which to conclude whether the number of occupied, sites lost under Alternative A, B, or C 

crosses a threshold, resulting in substantial changes to the marbled murrelet population. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

736 | Page

Under Alternative D and the No Action alternative, there would be no loss of future or existing occupied 

sites. Because of the protection of future and existing sites combined with the substantial habitat 

development, Alternative D and the No Action alternatives would have the greatest beneficial effect on 

marbled murrelets among the alternatives. 

Appendix R contains additional information and supporting data on the marbled murrelet. 

References 

Falxa, G., J. Baldwin, M. Lance, D. Lynch, S. K. Nelson, S. F. Pearson, M. G. Raphael, C. Strong, and R. Young. 2014. Marbled 

murrelet effectiveness monitoring, Northwest Forest Plan: 2013 summary report. 20 pp. 

GeoBOB. 2013. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot – 6 March 2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR. 

Mack, D. E., W. P. Ritchie, S. K. Nelson, E. Kuo-Harrison, and T. E. Hamber. 2003. Methods for surveying marbled murrelets in 

forests: A revised protocol for land management and research. Pacific Seabird Group Technical Publication Number 2. 

http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org. 

McShane, C., T. Hamer, H. Carter, G. Swartzman, V. Friesen, D. Ainley, R. Tressler, K. Nelson, A. Burger, L. Spear, T. 

Mohagen, R. Martin, L. Henkel, K. Prindle, C. Strong, and J. Keany. 2004. Evaluation report for the 5-year status review of 

the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Unpublished report. EDAW, Inc., Seattle, Washington. 

Prepared for the USFWS, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 370 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/MM/documents/mm5yr_rpt_final_web.pdf. 

Miller, S.L., M. G. Raphael, G. A. Falxa, C. Strong, J. Baldwin, T. Bloxton, B. M. Galleher, M. Lance, D. Lynch, S. F. Pearson,

C. J. Ralph, and R. D. Young. 2012. Recent population decline of the marbled murrelet in the Pacific Northwest. The 

Condor 114(4): 771-781. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/Miller_etal_2012_NWFP%20EM%20Population%20monitoring%202000%20to%202010.p

df. 

Nelson, S. Kim, Mark H. Huff, Sherri L. Miller, and Martin G. Raphael. 2006. Marbled murrelet biology: habitat relations and 

populations. In: Huff, Mark H., M. G. Raphael, S. L. Miller, S. K. Nelson, and J. Baldwin, tech. coords. Northwest Forest 

Plan—The first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trends of populations and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. USDA 

FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-650. 160 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr650.pdf. 

Raphael, M. G., D.E. Mack, and B.A. Cooper. 2002. Landscape-scale relationships between abundance of marbled murrelets and 

distribution of nesting habitat. The Condor 104: 331-342. 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1370035?sid=21105341649451&uid=4&uid=2&uid=3739856&uid=3739256. 

Raphael, M. G., G. A. Falxa, K. M. Dugger, B. M. Galleher, D. Lynch, S. L. Miller, S. K. Nelson, and R. D. Young. 2011. 

Northwest Forest Plan – the first 15 years (1994-2008): status and trend of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. USDA 

FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-858. 52 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr848.pdf. 

Raphael, M. G., A. J. Shirk, G. A. Falxa, and S. F. Pearson. In press (2014). Habitat associations of marbled murrelets during the 

nesting season in nearshore waters along the Washington to California coast. Journal of Marine Systems (accepted 17 June 

2014). 9 pp. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924796314001614 

Strong, C. S. 2013. Marbled murrelet population monitoring in Oregon and California during 2012. Annual report to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office and Arcata Office. Crescent Coastal Research. Crescent City, CA. 15 pp. 

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 2002. Memo re: results of landscape level protocol survey of survey zones 1 and 2 for marbled 

murrelets in SW Oregon. 4 March 2002. Siskiyou National Forest, Rogue River National Forest, and Medford District BLM. 

Medford, OR. 30 pp. 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php. 

---. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-western-oregon.pdf. 

USDI FWS. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, 

and California. Region 1, Portland, OR. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/USFWS%20Recovery%20Plan%201997.pdf. 

---. 2002. Memo re: technical assistance on the final results of landscape level surveys for marbled murrelets in Southwest 

Oregon [FWS reference: 1-7-02-TA-640]. 6 May 2002. Portland, OR. 2 pp. 

---. 2004. Marbled murrelet 5-year review process: overview. 31 August 2004. 28 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/Documents/Marbled%20murrelet.pdf. 

---. 2009. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 5-year review. 12 June 2009. Lacey, WA. 

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/MM/documents/Mamu2009_5yr_review%20FINAL%2061209.pdf. 

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Red Tree Vole

738 | Page

North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Red 

Tree Vole 

Key Points x All alternatives would lead to an increase in habitat for red tree voles within the North Oregon 

Coast DPS in 50 years. 

x The loss of occupied stands under Alternatives A and C, particularly north of Highway 20, would 

further reduce the distribution of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS. 

x Since every red tree vole site in the North Oregon Coast DPS is critical for persistence, the lack 

of provisions for pre-disturbance surveys and known site protection under Alternatives A and C 

would negatively affect the species. 

x Alternatives B and D and the No Action alternative would include direction to conduct predisturbance surveys and known site management, which would protect red tree voles in the North 

Oregon Coast DPS. 

Background 

On October 13, 2011, the USFWS determined that the North Oregon Coast distinct population segment 

(DPS)95 of the red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) warranted protection under the Endangered Species 

Act, but listing the species is precluded by the need to address higher priority species (76 FR 63720). The 

Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for Western Oregon provides more information on 

the species range, population trend, and threats, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 

2013, pp. 145-146). 

Based on radio-telemetry, adult male red tree voles use a mean area of 0.86 acres and females use a mean 

area of 0.37 acres (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000). The furthest observed overnight movement distance 

of an adult red tree vole is 249 feet.. 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole would be available under 

each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole to be 

mature and structurally-complex forests within the range of the DPS (Figure 3-183). The Planning 

Criteria provides more detailed information on analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, and 

geographic and temporal scales, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2014). 

95 A distinct population segment (DPS) is a discrete population of a species and the smallest portion of a vertebrate 

species that can be protected under the Endangered Species Act. 

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Red Tree Vole

740 | Page

Harvest Land Base would be lost as a result of timber harvest in alternatives that did not require surveys 

prior to habitat modification and protection of sites. The BLM assumed that sites within reserve 

allocations would be protected under all alternatives. 

Through preliminary analysis, the BLM found that surveys had a 22.9 percent detection rate (39 of 120 

survey polygons) within the range of the North Oregon Coast DPS (USDI BLM, unpublished data, 2014). 

Within the North Oregon Coast DPS, red tree voles are more abundant south of Highway 20 (49.2 percent 

detection rate) than north of Highway 20 (8.3 percent detection rate). The survey polygons the BLM 

considered in this preliminary analysis represent 6,245 acres of survey effort. The BLM applied these 

detection rates to the amount of red tree vole habitat within the Harvest Land Base within the range of the 

North Oregon Coast DPS under each alternative. 

The average size of survey polygons within the North Oregon Coast DPS is 36.7 acres (GeoBOB 2013). 

The BLM divided the acreage of habitat in the Harvest Land Base by 36.7 acres to forecast the number of 

stands that the BLM predicts to be occupied by red tree voles in the Harvest Land Base within the North 

Oregon Coast DPS. While this forecast uses spatial data, the BLM did not forecast the specific location of 

future, occupied stands. Thus, BLM did not specifically and separately analyze habitat development in or 

near these forecast sites. 

Unlike the analysis for marbled murrelet and fisher, BLM did not calculate core and edge habitat since the 

available scientific literature has not established an effective “edge” distance for red tree voles. 

In this analysis, the BLM did not evaluate changes in the population of red tree voles as a result of 

changes in habitat, because quantifiable relationships between habitat availability and numbers of 

individual red tree voles in populations are unavailable. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There are currently 174,495 acres of habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole in the 

decision area (Figure 3-184). Of the forested lands capable of providing habitat, 53 percent is currently 

habitat in the decision area. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Red Tree Vole

741 | Page

Figure 3-184. Red tree vole habitat within the North Oregon Coast DPS in the decision area. 

There are currently 3,728,250 acres of habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole across 

all land ownerships in the planning area (Figure 3-185). Of the forested land capable of providing habitat, 

20 percent is currently habitat within the planning area. The BLM-administered lands provide 24 percent 

(174,495 acres) of the available habitat for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole. 

Figure 3-185. Red tree vole habitat within the North Oregon Coast DPS in the planning area. 

Under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, there would be 313,820 acres of habitat in the decision 

area in 50 years (Figure 3-185). Under all alternatives, habitat for red tree voles within the North Oregon 

Coast DPS would increase from current conditions in 50 years. The action alternatives would develop 75 

to 94 percent as much habitat as under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. Alternative D and the 

No Action alternative would develop the greatest amount of habitat among the alternatives; Alternatives 

A and B would develop almost as much habitat as Alternatives D and the No Action alternative. 

Alternative C would develop the least amount of habitat of all alternatives, substantially less than the 

other alternatives. 

174,495 

289,971 279,899 279,489 

236,047 

294,208 313,820 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

 2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Red Tree Vole Habitat (Acres) 

566,768 688,959 688,959 688,959 688,959 688,959 688,959

174,495 

289,971 279,899 279,489 236,047 294,208 313,820

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Current

Condition

2013

No Action

2063

Alt. A

2063

Alt. B

2063

Alt. C

2063

Alt. D

2063

No Timber

Harvest

2063

Red Tree Vole Habitat (Acres) 

Planning Area and BLM's Contribution 

Non-BLM BLM Decision Area
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Red Tree Vole

742 | Page

Under the Alternatives A, B, D, and the No Action alternative, the amount of red tree vole habitat within 

the North Oregon Coast DPS would continually increase. That is, there would be no net loss of habitat at 

any time period relative to current conditions. Under Alternative C, there would be a 4 percent loss (-

7,339 acres) of habitat in the first decade. However, sufficient habitat would develop by the second 

decade to surpass current amounts (Appendix R) 

At the planning area scale, red tree vole habitat within the North Oregon Coast DPS would increase by 25 

to 33 percent under the alternatives in 50 years (Figure 3-185). The No Action alternative and 

Alternatives A, B, and D would have the similar gains in habitat (32, 31, 31, and 33 percent respectively), 

only slightly less than the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. Alternative C would have the least 

gain in habitat development (25 percent). 

Under Alternatives A, B, D, and the No Action alternative, BLM-administered lands would contribute 29 

to 30 percent of the habitat for red tree voles within the North Oregon Coast DPS in the planning area in 

50 years. The BLM-administered lands would contribute 26 percent of the habitat under Alternative C 

(Figure 3-185). At the planning area scale, Alternatives A, B, D, and the No Action alternative would 

provide 92 to 98 percent of the habitat projected under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, with 

Alternative C providing the least habitat development (92 percent). 

Currently, the average patch size of red tree vole habitat in the North Oregon Coast DPS is 29.3 acres. In 

50 years, the average patch size would decrease under Alternative C but would increase under all the 

other alternatives, including the No Action alternative and under the No Timber Harvest Reference 

Analysis. The average patch size would increase to 64.4 acres under the No Timber Harvest Reference 

Analysis in 50 years. Alternative C would reduce average patch size to 25.6 acres, the No Action 

alternative and Alternatives A, B, and D would increase patch size (42.0, 40.0, 39.2, and 47.2 acres, 

respectively). Alternative C would lead to additional fragmentation of red tree vole habitat, while the 

other alternatives would increase connectivity and suitability of habitat, based on trends in patch size. 

Larger patches of habitat would encourage higher local populations and higher nest numbers at a site, 

since the home ranges (0.37 to 0.86 acres) of multiple individuals could be contained within a single 

patch. Larger sites containing multiple nests would better support red tree vole population persistence in 

localized areas (USDI USDA 2000, p. 5). 

There are 395 observations of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS within the decision area 

(Table 3-258), and an additional 14 observations on non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area 

(GeoBOB 2013). The small number of observations on non-BLM-administered lands is not necessarily 

reflective of population numbers, given the general lack of surveys outside of Federal lands within the 

range of the North Oregon Coast DPS. On BLM-administered lands, the currently known observations of 

red tree voles are biased towards pre-disturbance surveys that the BLM conducted within timber sale 

project areas typically located within the Harvest Land Base. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Red Tree Vole

743 | Page

Table 3-258. Known observations (395) of red tree voles within the North Oregon Coast DPS by land use 

allocation.

Alternative Observations in the 

Harvest Land Base1 (%) 

Observations in the 

Reserve Network2 (%) 

No Action 40 (10%) 355 (90%) 

Alt. A 21 (5%) 374 (95%) 

Alt. B 25 (6%) 370 (94%) 

Alt. C 41 (10%) 354 (90%) 

Alt. D 29 (7%) 366 (93%) 1 Harvest Land Base under the No Action alternative includes: Adaptive Management Area, Connectivity/Diversity Block, and 

General Forest Management Area. 

2 Reserve Network includes: Adaptive Management Area Reserve, Congressional Reserve, District Defined Reserve, LateSuccessional Reserve, National Monument, no harvest area, predicted marbled murrelet reserve, and Riparian Reserve. 

Under the alternatives, 63 to 87 percent of BLM-administered lands within the North Oregon Coast DPS 

would be included in the reserve network and 13 to 37 percent of BLM-administered lands would be 

included in the Harvest Land Base (Table 3-259). Table 3-259 provides a simplified summary of land 

use allocations within the North Oregon Coast DPS under the alternatives. Alternatives A and C would 

not require pre-disturbance surveys and protection of known sites. However, even in the absence of such 

management direction, red tree vole habitat and sites within the North Oregon Coast DPS that fall within 

the reserve system would receive protection. 

Table 3-259. Land use allocations within the North Oregon Coast DPS (348,186 acres of BLMadministered lands).

Alternative Harvest Land Base1 Reserve Network2

(Acres) (%) (Acres) (%) 

No Action 60,459 17% 287,727 83% 

Alt. A 45,902 13% 302,284 87% 

Alt. B 66,944 19% 281,242 81% 

Alt. C 127,240 37% 220,766 63% 

Alt. D 102,294 29% 245,892 71% 1 Harvest Land Base under the No Action alternative includes: Adaptive Management Area, Connectivity/Diversity Block, and 

General Forest Management Area. 

2 Reserve Network includes: Adaptive Management Area Reserve, Congressional Reserve, District Defined Reserve, LateSuccessional Reserve, National Monument, no harvest area, predicted marbled murrelet reserve, and Riparian Reserve. 

The No Action alternative would include 83 percent of BLM-administered lands (Table 3-259) and 90 

percent of red tree vole observations within the reserve network (Table 3-258). However, there are few 

federally-administered lands in the North DPS (22 percent of the DPS is federally-administered, and 9 

percent of the DPS is BLM-administered land). Even though a high proportion of habitat would be 

protected within the reserve network, land management practices on non-Federal lands reduces the 

potential for connectivity between the blocks of federally-managed habitat (USDA FS and USDI BLM 

2004). 

Alternative C would include less BLM-administered lands in the reserve network then the No Action 

alternative, so there would be insufficient habitat and site protection to maintain stable populations of red 

tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS without pre-disturbance surveys and site protection (Tables 3-

259 and 3-260). However, Alternative A would include more BLM-administered lands in the reserve 

network than under the No Action alternative, and would thereby provide protection for habitat and 

known sites of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS. While the larger reserve network under 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Red Tree Vole

744 | Page

Alternative A would provide more protection for red tree voles, it is unknown if this added protection 

would be sufficient to maintain stable populations without pre-disturbance surveys and known site 

protection. Alternatives B and D and the No Action alternative would include direction to conduct predisturbance surveys and known site management, which would protect red tree voles in the North Oregon 

Coast DPS. However, given the limitations of poor connectivity among Federal habitat and low red tree 

vole density in the North Oregon Coast DPS, it is uncertain if even this level of protection would result in 

stable populations. 

Table 3-260. Red tree vole habitat and forecast of occupied stands within the North Oregon Coast DPS 

within the Harvest Land Base. 

Alternative Habitat in the Harvest Land Base(Acres) Occupied Stand Forecast (Number)

Total Habitat Discovered and Protected Lost

No Action 33,810 211 -

Alt. A 21,715 - 136

Alt. B 37,846 237 -

Alt. C 61,284 - 383

Alt. D 58,847 368 -

The alternatives have differing amounts of red tree vole habitat that would be allocated to the Harvest 

Land Base. Alternative A (21,715 acres) would have the least amount of current habitat in the Harvest 

Land Base (21,715 acres or 12 percent of all habitat) and Alternative C would have the greatest amount of 

current habitat in the Harvest Land Base (61,284 acres or 35 percent of all habitat; Table 3-260).

Under Alternatives B, D, and the No Action alternative, the BLM would survey habitat in the Harvest 

Land Base within range of the North Oregon Coast DPS prior to habitat modification and would protect 

red tree vole sites discovered. Under Alternatives A and C, the BLM would not require surveys prior to 

habitat modification, and therefore, respectively, 136 and 383 stands with forecast red tree vole 

occupancy would be lost (Table 3-260).

The protection of stands occupied by red tree voles within the North Oregon Coast DPS under the No 

Action alternative and Alternatives B and D would contribute to reducing the likelihood or the need for 

further listing under the Endangered Species Act. It is uncertain whether the loss of stands occupied by 

red tree voles within the North Oregon Coast DPS under Alternatives A and C would increase the 

likelihood or need for further listing under the Endangered Species Act because of the uncertainties 

around population numbers, trend, and distribution. Alternative C would result in the loss of almost three 

times as many occupied stands as would be lost under Alternative A. The loss of forecast occupied stands 

under Alternative C would be almost as great as the number of current observations of red tree voles in 

the North Oregon Coast DPS. The loss of occupied stands under Alternatives A and C, particularly north 

of Highway 20, would further reduce the distribution of red tree voles in the North Coast DPS since they 

are sporadically and sparsely distributed in the northern half of the DPS. Loss of sites (or occupied stands) 

would reduce population interaction and connectivity in the North Oregon Coast DPS. Because roughly 

three times more occupied stands would be lost under Alternative C than under Alternative A (Table 3-

260), Alternative C would have a greater negative impact on the red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast 

DPS than Alternative A. In contrast, red tree voles in the southern portion of the DPS (south of Highway 

20) are relatively more abundant, so the loss of occupied stands would not reduce the distribution of the 

species within this portion of its range. Because the population status or population trend of red tree voles 

in the North Oregon Coast DPS is unknown, it is also unknown what impact the loss of occupied stands 

would have on population demographics as a whole. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Red Tree Vole

745 | Page

In summary, all alternatives would lead to an increase in habitat for red tree voles within the North 

Oregon Coast DPS in 50 years and the majority of that habitat would be protected within the reserve 

network. In addition, at least 90 percent of red tree vole observations within the North Oregon Coast DPS 

would be protected in the reserve network under all alternatives. The lack of provisions for predisturbance surveys and known site protection under Alternatives A and C would negatively affect the 

species. The loss of occupied stands under Alternatives A and C, particularly north of Highway 20, would 

further reduce the distribution of red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS. Alternative C would have 

greater negative effect to red tree voles than Alternative A because a greater proportion of habitat would 

be in the Harvest Land Base from which more sites would be lost. Alternatives B and D and the No 

Action alternative would include direction to conduct pre-disturbance surveys and known site 

management, which would protect red tree voles in the North Oregon Coast DPS. 

Appendix R contains additional information and supporting data on the red tree vole North Oregon Coast 

DPS. 

References 

GeoBOB. 2013a. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot – 6 March 2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR. 

GeoBOB. 2013b. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Surveys Version 1 Polygon. Data snapshot – 6 March 2013. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. 

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 2000. Management recommendations for the Oregon red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus): 

Phenacomys longicaudus in the Reocrd of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 2.0. 27 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/mr-rtv-v2-2000-09-att1.pdf. 

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove Survey & Manage Mitigation 

Measure Standards and Guidelines. Regional Ecosystem Office. Portland, OR. 359 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/07-2004_fseis_v1_ch1-4.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2013. Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon: Analysis of the Management Situation. BLM 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-westernoregon.pdf. 

---. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

746 | Page

Northern Spotted Owl 

Key Points y The northern spotted owl population is under severe biological stress in much of western Oregon 

and has an even chance of being extirpated from the Coast Range within 35 years. This 

population risk is predominately due to competitive interactions between northern spotted owls 

and barred owls. 

y In the Coast Range, the BLM has no opportunity, through habitat management, to reduce risks to 

the northern spotted owl during the next 50 years, and there are no substantive differences among 

the alternatives in their potential effects on those risks. 

y However, in the western Cascades and Klamath Basin, the BLM, under all alternatives, would 

contribute to self-sustaining northern spotted owl populations during the next 50 years. 

y The Late-Successional Reserve designs of all alternatives make similar contributions to the 

development and spacing of the large habitat blocks needed for northern spotted owl 

conservation. Once necessary lands are reserved, additional lands provide no appreciable benefit 

to the development or spacing of large habitat blocks. 

y The alternatives differ substantively in their contributions to east-west northern spotted owl 

movement between the Coast Range and western Cascades. 

y BLM-administered lands are indispensable: 

y To northern spotted owl reproduction, movement and survival in the southern half of the Coast 

Range, and in western and central portions of the Klamath Basin; 

y And in supporting north-south species movement through the southern portion of the Coast 

Range, and east-west species movement between the Coast Range and western Cascades. 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 

FWS 2011a, pp. I-6 – I-10; hereafter referred to as the Revised Recovery Plan), and its final rule on 

northern spotted owl critical habitat (77 FR 71818; hereafter referred to as the final rule), described the 

biology and management history, and the threats to the conservation and recovery, of the northern spotted 

owl. 

The BLM evaluated the potential effects of alternatives on the northern spotted owl according to the 

specific criteria developed by the U.S. Fish and Service in its Revised Recovery Plan, and used by the 

Service to evaluate proposed actions in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. Specifically, the BLM designed its northern spotted owl analyses to determine if, under each 

alternative, the BLM would—

x Contribute to a landscape in the planning area that meets the four “habitat-dependent”

conservation needs of the northern spotted owl;96 and 

96 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also identifies two “habitat-independent” conservation needs in its biological 

opinions: a coordinated research and adaptive management effort to better understand and manage competitive 

interactions between spotted and barred owls, and monitoring to better understand the risk of West Nile virus and 

sudden oak death pose to spotted owls and, for West Nile virus, research into methods that may reduce the 

likelihood or severity of outbreaks in spotted owl populations. The BLM analysis did not address these conservation 

needs because they are habitat-independent and would be unaffected by RMP decisions. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

747 | Page

x Manage its administered lands in the planning area in a manner that addresses the resources and 

processes described by Recovery Actions 6, 10, 12 and 32 of the Revised Recovery Plan (USDI 

FWS 2011a). RMP planning decisions could affect the implementation and accomplishment of 

only those four recovery actions. 

Conservation Needs of the Northern Spotted Owl 

In 1990 Thomas et al. (pp. 23-27) determined that northern spotted owl conservation required: 

1. Large blocks of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat that support clusters of reproducing owls, are 

distributed across a variety of ecological conditions, and are spaced to facilitate owl movement 

between the blocks, and; 

2. Habitat conditions within and surrounding large blocks of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat 

that facilitate owl movement between the blocks and ensure the survival of dispersing owls. 

In 2004, Courtney et al. (Chapter 9) concluded that, although subsequent northern spotted owl research 

refined these conservation needs, they remained valid. In 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

reaffirmed these conservation needs in its final rule on northern spotted owl critical habitat (77 FR 

71908). 

After the report by Courtney et al. (2004), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified two additional 

habitat-dependent conservation needs for the northern spotted owl: 

3. A coordinated, adaptive management effort to reduce the loss of habitat due to catastrophic wildfire 

throughout the northern spotted owl’s range, and a monitoring program to clarify whether these risk 

reduction methods are effective and to determine how owls use habitat treated to reduce fuels, and; 

4. In areas of significant population decline, sustain the full range of survival and recovery options for 

this species in light of significant uncertainty. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers all four habitat-dependent conservation needs when it 

evaluates proposed actions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service added Conservation Needs 3 and 4 

because of findings that the range-wide losses of northern spotted owl habitat to wildfire, especially in 

southern Oregon, posed a greater threat to northern spotted owl conservation than previously thought 

(Courtney et al. 2004, Chapter 6) and because of observed declines in the northern spotted owl population 

(Anthony et al. 2006). Conservation Need 4 has become increasingly important with continued 

population declines (Forsman et al. 2011) and recent findings on competitive interactions between 

northern spotted owls and barred owls (e.g., Van Lanen et al. 2011, Dugger et al. 2011, Wiens et al.

2014). 

Recovery Actions 6, 10, 12 and 32 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued its Revised Recovery Plan in 2011. Although recovery plans 

are guidance documents (Stanford Environmental Law Society 2001, p. 76), they describe reasonable 

actions and criteria that the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service recommends for the recovery of listed species. 

Thus, the Revised Recovery Plan provides a useful framework for this analysis. Of the thirty-three 

recovery actions in the Revised Recovery Plan, only four are pertinent to the BLM RMP planning effort 

in that BLM planning decisions could affect the implementation and accomplishment of only those 

actions on BLM-administered lands in the planning area (USDI FWS 2011a): 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

748 | Page

“Recovery Action 6: In moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat, land managers should implement 

silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands to accelerate the 

development of structural complexity and biological diversity that will benefit spotted owl recovery” (p. 

III-19). 

“Recovery Action 10: Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional 

demographic support to the spotted owl population” (p. III-43). 

“Recovery Action 12: In lands where management is focused on development of spotted owl habitat, postfire silvicultural activities should concentrate on conserving and restoring habitat elements that take a 

long time to develop (e.g., large trees, medium and large snags, downed wood)” (p. III-49). 

“Recovery Action 32: Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older and more structurallycomplex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-Federal lands across its range, land managers 

should work with the Service as described below to maintain and restore such habitat while allowing for 

other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. These highquality spotted owl habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter trees, high amounts of 

canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large 

snags, and fallen trees” (p. III-67). 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM framed its evaluations of the four habitat-dependent conservation needs of the northern spotted 

owl and the implementation of Recovery Actions 6, 10, 12 and 32 as analytical questions, stated below. 

To complete its evaluations, the BLM created a series of northern spotted owl relative habitat suitability 

data surfaces (i.e., digitized geospatial datasets used in computer analyses) for all lands in the United 

States-portion of the northern spotted owl’s range.97 These surfaces reflect current habitat conditions and 

forecast habitat conditions at decadal increments for the next 50 years. The forecasts include anticipated 

changes to northern spotted owl habitat from forest ingrowth, forest treatment including restoration and 

timber harvest, and wildfire. The BLM describes the creation and validation of these surfaces in 

Appendix S. As explained in more detail in the sections on vegetation modeling and climate change in 

this chapter, the BLM did not incorporate projections of climate change into the simulation of the growth 

of stands through time because of the uncertainty in climate change predictions and problems in 

downscaling the available climate predictions for use in forest stand growth and harvesting models. 

The BLM chose a 50-year analytical timeframe for its northern spotted owl analysis, mindful that the 

Revised Recovery Plan identifies a 30-year timeframe for the recovery of the northern spotted owl (USDI 

FWS 2011a, p. viii). However, the 30-year timeframe is unchanged from that of an earlier recovery plan 

(USDI FWS 2008) which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued before the most recent meta-analysis 

of northern spotted owl demography (Forsman et al. 2011) and recent findings on competitive 

interactions between northern spotted owls and barred owls (e.g., Van Lanen et al. 2011, Dugger et al.

2011, Wiens et al. 2014). In addition, on April 3, 2013, the assistant directors for Regions 1 and 2 of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which include the RMP planning area, issued agency guidance on 

implementation of the final rule on 2012 northern spotted owl critical habitat, in which they identified a 

conservation timeframe of at least 50 years. 

97 A small population of northern spotted owls exists in British Columbia but it would be unaffected by BLM 

planning decisions and its size and location would prevent it from measurably affecting the results of the BLM 

analyses. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

749 | Page

These analyses differs from the analyses done by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to inform its 

decisions on northern spotted owl recovery and northern spotted owl critical habitat (USDI FWS 2011a, 

Appendix C; USDI FWS 2012). These differences arise from differences in planning needs and 

regulatory requirements, as well as differences in data availability. The Service delineated critical habitat 

units, in part, assuming that existing Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations and management 

standards would continue, including on BLM-administered lands. In contrast, the BLM evaluated 

scenarios in which Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations and management standards would change 

on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The Service and BLM also relied on different relative 

habitat suitability surfaces and different processes to evaluate the effects of habitat change.98 Prior to 

deciding on its analytical methods, the BLM reviewed with the Service and other subject matter experts 

the methods developed by the Service. In response to this review, the BLM incorporated or augmented 

those datasets and methods that met its planning needs (Appendix S). 

Issue 1 

In accordance with Conservation Need 1, would the alternatives contribute to a landscape in the 

planning area that creates large blocks of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat that are capable of 

supporting clusters of reproducing owls, distributed across a variety of ecological conditions and spaced 

to facilitate owl movement between the blocks? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

To meet Conservation Need 1, BLM-administered lands would contribute to “large blocks of habitat,”

each capable of supporting at least 25 northern spotted owl nesting pairs, in the Oregon Western 

Cascades, Oregon Eastern Cascades, Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Klamath physiographic provinces 

during each of the next five decades and, within 30 to 50 years, to a network of large habitat blocks that 

are spaced no more than 12 miles (19.3 km) apart. Where large blocks do not form within 30 to 50 years, 

BLM-administered lands would contribute to a network of “small blocks of habitat,” each capable of 

supporting 1 to 24 northern spotted owl nesting pairs, that are spaced no more than 7 miles (11.3 km) 

from large habitat blocks or from other small habitat blocks. Because this conservation need is not 

specific to BLM-administered lands, the BLM evaluated Conservation Need 1 by forecasting habitat 

development on all lands in the planning area during the next 50 years.

Thomas et al. (1990, p. 164) described northern spotted owl “nesting, roosting and foraging habitat” as 

“multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by large (greater than 30 inches diameter at breast height) 

conifer overstory trees, and an understory of shade-tolerant conifers or hardwoods; a moderate to high (60 

to 80 percent) canopy closure; substantial decadence in the form of large, live conifer trees with 

deformities, such as cavities, broken tops, and dwarf mistletoe infections; numerous large snags; ground 

cover characterized by large accumulations of logs and other woody debris; and a canopy that is open 

enough to allow owls to fly within and beneath it.” Their description, in light of subsequent research, 

remains valid (Courtney et al. 2004, Chapter 5; USDI FWS 2011a, pp. G-2 and G-3).99

 

98 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated northern spotted owl responses to “pessimistic” and “optimistic” 

habitat change scenarios, neither of which was intended to predict future habitat conditions. The BLM instead chose 

to simulate northern spotted owl responses to forecasts of habitat change over time, on all land ownerships, from 

forest ingrowth, treatment and wildfire. 

99 Studies in the California Klamath and Coast Range provinces (e.g., Dugger et al. 2005) found that habitat 

comprised of a mixture of older and younger forests supported northern spotted owl reproduction better than habitat 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

750 | Page

Thomas et al. (1990, p. 24) described a “large block” of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat as being 

capable of supporting 15 to 20 northern spotted owl nesting pairs which they estimated was the minimum 

number for a local, reproductively-stable population. Lamberson et al. (1994), based on modeling, 

estimated that large blocks capable of supporting 20 to 25 owl pairs would have the highest efficiency of 

use by northern spotted owls (i.e., number of northern spotted owl pairs to block size ratio). Although 

“efficiency of use” is not a measure of population stability, the BLM considered their findings relevant to 

its evaluation of block size in light of recent information on competitive interactions between northern 

spotted owls and barred owls. Marcot et al. (2013, p. 196), also based on modeling, determined that 

“Long-term occupancy rates of habitats are significantly higher in scenarios with habitat clusters 

supporting at least 25 NSO [northern spotted owl] pairs.” Marcot et al. did not model clusters of 15 to 20 

northern spotted owl pairs; the next largest cluster size they modeled was 9 pairs. Nonetheless, part of the 

BLM Purpose and Need for the RMP revisions is to contribute to the conservation and recovery of the 

northern spotted owl, which requires more than self-sustaining populations. Therefore, the BLM defined a 

“cluster of reproducing owls” as at least 25 northern spotted owl nesting pairs, and a “large block” as the 

amount and spatial arrangement of nesting-roosting habitat capable of supporting at least 25 pairs. 

Consequently, a “small block” of habitat is capable of supporting 1 to 24 northern spotted owl nesting 

pairs. 

Thomas et al. (1990, p. 318) considered large blocks of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat to be 

“distributed across a variety of ecological conditions” when they occurred in all ecological gradients of 

the northern spotted owl’s range (i.e., in all environmental regions of a landscape). The Northwest Forest 

Plan (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994, p. A-3, with map), based on findings by the Forest Ecosystem 

Management and Assessment Team (FEMAT 1993), defined the ecological gradients within the northern 

spotted owl’s range by the boundaries of physiographic provinces which differentiated “areas of common 

biological and physical processes.” The BLM analysis of Conservation Need 1 used the same 

physiographic provinces in the planning area to express ecological condition, in part, because Thomas et 

al. (1990, p. 194) calculated median home range sizes for the northern spotted owl, described below, for 

those provinces. The physiographic provinces in the planning area are the Oregon Western Cascades, 

Oregon Eastern Cascades,100 Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Klamath provinces. The Willamette Valley 

Physiographic Province also occurs in the BLM planning area but does not support habitat for analytically 

meaningful numbers of northern spotted owls. 

Finally, Thomas et al. (1990, p. 28) defined “spaced to facilitate owl movement between the blocks” as

large blocks separated by no more than 12 miles (19.3 km) and small blocks separated by no more than 7 

miles (11.3 km). Marcot et al. (2012, pp. 196-200), based on modeling, determined that habitat blocks 

with similar spacings had significantly higher northern spotted owl occupancy rates than blocks with 

larger spacings. 

The BLM qualified its criteria for meeting Conservation Need 1, based on previous modeling (USDI 

BLM 2008a[2], pp. 4-646–4-655; No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis), according to the limited 

quantities and distributions of BLM-administered lands in some portions of the planning area—most 

notably in the northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Province—which might preclude the BLM from 

 

comprised almost exclusively of older forests. However, other studies have not supported that conclusion. Given the 

checkerboard land ownership pattern of BLM-administered lands in much of the planning area, the BLM did not 

consider excessive homogeneity of older forests to be a management issue. 

100 Only a portion of the Oregon Eastern Cascades Physiographic Province occurs in the planning area. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

751 | Page

contributing to properly-spaced habitat blocks everywhere in the planning area. The BLM identified such 

areas by completing a No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis which forecasted potential habitat changes 

on (1) BLM-administered lands in the planning area from forest ingrowth and wildfire but in the absence 

of forest treatment (i.e., no forest restoration or timber harvest), and (2) all other lands in the range of the 

northern spotted owl from forest ingrowth, timber harvest and wildfire. 

To address Conservation Need 1, the BLM identified areas in the planning area with the quantity and 

spatial arrangement of habitat sufficient to support at least one northern spotted owl nesting pair. As 

explained below, “spatial arrangement” is a function of the median annual home range of the northern 

spotted owl, which varies by physiographic province, and the minimum amount of habitat that must occur 

within both the median annual home range area and the 500-acre (200-ha) core use area surrounding a 

potential nest site. Table 1 shows these values. The BLM based the size of the median annual home range 

in each physiographic province on Thomas et al. (1990, p. 194). Because Conservation Need 1 addresses 

reproducing northern spotted owls, and foraging habitat commonly does not support nesting (USDI FWS 

2011a, p. G-2), the BLM analyses relied on nesting-roosting habitat. 

Thomas et al. (1990, p. 194) first tabulated median annual home ranges of northern spotted owl pairs in 

different study areas and physiographic provinces. According to Courtney et al. (2004, p. 5-5), although 

the sizes of northern spotted owl home ranges differ by physiographic province and forest type, and 

among individual owl pairs within a study area, research since 1990 has shown that provincial variations 

are similar to those tabulated by Thomas et al. (1990, p. 194). However, neither Thomas et al. (1990) nor 

Courtney et al. (2004, pp. 5-24) estimated the median annual home range size in the Oregon Eastern 

Cascades Physiographic Province. Therefore, the BLM applied the Oregon Western Cascades metrics in 

Table 3-261 (and Table 3-262, below) to the Oregon Eastern Cascades due to their proximity and 

because Davis et al. (2011, pp. 34-35), for their analyses of northern spotted owl habitat, merged the two 

provinces due to their ecological similarities. 

Table 3-261. Metrics to identify blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat. 

Physiographic 

Province 

Median 

Annual 

Home 

Range 

(Acres) 

Radius of a 

Circle Equal in 

Size to the 

Median Annual 

Home Range 

(Miles) 

Calculated Minimum 

Quantity of NestingRoosting Habitat Within 

a Median Annual Home 

Range (Acres) 

Calculated Minimum 

Quantity of NestingRoosting Habitat 

Within a 500-acre 

Core Area (Acres) 

Oregon Western 

Cascades 2,900 1.2 1,450 250 

Oregon Coast Range 4,520 1.5 2,260 250 

Oregon Klamath 3,400 1.3 1,700 250 

The “calculated minimum quantity of nesting-roosting habitat within a median annual home range” for 

each physiographic province, shown in Table 3-261, is based on Courtney et al. (2004, Chapter 5, Table 

5-1), Olson et al. (2004, pp. 1048-1052), and Dugger et al. (2005, pp. 873-875). It is a multiple of the 

median annual home range area and the minimum quantity of nesting-roosting habitat (50 percent) that 

should occur in that area to support owl survival and reproduction. The quantity of nesting-roosting 

habitat is not the best predictor of owl reproduction and survival, and the observed quantities of nestingroosting habitat within occupied owl home ranges vary by region and by study. Nevertheless, based on 

expert advice (Thrailkill 2005; Jim Thrailkill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication to 

Eric Greenquist, 2005; and Robert Anthony and Eric Forsman, both with the Oregon Cooperative 

Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, and Joe Lint, BLM, personal communication to Eric 

Greenquist, 2007; also see USDI BLM 2008a[1], p. 3-288), the BLM considered a northern spotted owl 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

752 | Page

territory to be unstable when less than 40 to 50 percent of the land within the home range supported 

nesting-roosting habitat. 

Bingham and Noon (1997, pp. 133-138) defined the core use area as that portion of a northern spotted owl 

home range that receives disproportionately high use by owls for nesting, roosting and access to prey; 

they suggested that 60 to 70 percent of owl activity during the breeding season occurs in about 20 percent 

of the home range. Even though observed core area sizes vary among northern spotted owls (Courtney et 

al. 2004, p. 5-5), Jim Thrailkill (2005; and personal communication to Eric Greenquist, BLM, 2005) 

determined that Bingham and Noon (1997), Wagner and Anthony (1999), Franklin et al. (2000) and Irwin 

et al. (2004) collectively suggested a core area of 500 acres (200 ha). Meyer et al. (1998, pp. 24-25) and 

Zabel et al. (2003, pp. 1032-1037) found that their best fitting models for predicting owl occupancy also 

were at the 500-acre scale. Based on several studies (e.g., Bart 1995, Franklin et al. 2000, Zabel et al. 

2003, and Dugger et al. 2005) and expert advice (Robert Anthony, Eric Forsman and Joe Lint personal 

communication to Eric Greenquist, 2007; also see USDI BLM 2008a[1], pp. 3-288–3-289), the BLM 

determined that 250 acres (50 percent of a 500-acre core use area) of nesting-roosting habitat within a 

500-acre circle was needed for a functional core use area. 

This issue presents an analysis of the cumulative effects on large blocks of northern spotted owl habitat of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land management on BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

Because Conservation Need 1 is not specific to BLM-administered lands, the BLM analysis mapped 

blocks of nesting-roosting habitat on all land ownerships in the planning area (and 10 km into 

Washington and California). To do this the BLM analysis “moved” a 500-acre (200-ha; core use areasize) circle over the planning area, centering it in turn on each 30 × 30-m pixel, and calculated the acres 

of nesting-roosting habitat on all lands in that circle. For those 500-acre circles that supported at least 250 

acres of nesting-roosting habitat, the BLM analysis calculated the acres of nesting-roosting habitat within 

the associated provincial median annual home range circle.101 Where the amount of nesting-roosting 

habitat within the median annual home range circle also met or exceeded the “calculated minimum 

quantity of nesting-roosting habitat within a median annual home range” shown in Table 3-261, the BLM 

analysis defined all lands in that median annual home range circle as a block of nesting-roosting habitat. 

The BLM considered such a block to have both the quantity and spatial arrangement of nesting-roosting 

habitat capable of supporting a pair of reproducing northern spotted owls, regardless of observed owl 

occupancy. 

In this manner, the BLM analysis evaluated the areas around all 30 × 30-m pixels, on all land ownerships 

in the planning area. Where blocks of nesting-roosting habitat overlapped, the BLM analysis aggregated 

those blocks into a single block of nesting-roosting habitat. The BLM aggregated habitat blocks in this 

manner because, when their potential nest locations are separated by more than the diameter of the 

median annual home range circle, northern spotted owl pairs are less able to support each other 

demographically (i.e., their dispersing young are less likely to encounter each other), which is required for 

an owl cluster. 

As described above, a “large block” is capable of supporting at least 25 pairs of northern spotted owls. 

The BLM determined the minimum size of a large block using a formula adapted from Thomas et al. 

(1990, p. 198, 25 owl pairs × the median annual pair home range size × 0.75). The function 0.75 accounts 

101 Table 3-261 shows the province-specific radii of such circles. For home range circles that fell in more than one 

province, this analysis used the province-specific metrics appropriate for the center pixel.
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

753 | Page

for the estimated 25 percent overlap of northern spotted owl home ranges (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 320). 

This formula generated the minimum area of a large block of nesting-roosting habitat for each province, 

shown in Table 3-262. 

Table 3-262. Metrics to identify and map large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat. 

Physiographic Province Median Annual Home Range 

(Acres) 

Minimum Area of a Large 

Habitat Block (Acres) 

Oregon Western Cascades 2,900 54,375 

Oregon Coast Range 4,520 84,750 

Oregon Klamath 3,400 63,750 

If the area of a habitat block equaled or exceeded the “minimum area of a large habitat block” shown in 

Table 3-262, the BLM analysis defined that block as a large block of nesting-roosting habitat. The BLM 

classified the remaining blocks as small blocks of nesting-roosting habitat. Finally, the BLM analysis 

delineated the area around each block: 6 miles (9.7 km) from the boundaries of large blocks and 3.5 miles 

(5.6 km) from the boundaries of small blocks. 

The products were maps of the planning area showing large and small habitat blocks on all land 

ownerships at decadal increments, each surrounded by delineations to help visually determine if large 

blocks would be within 12 miles (19.3 km) of other large blocks and small blocks would be within 7 

miles (11.3 km) of large or other small blocks. Since the underlying relative habitat suitability surfaces 

varied by alternative and decade over 50 years, the resulting maps and their habitat block configurations 

also varied by alternative and decade. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

Figure 3-186 shows the current locations of large and small habitat blocks in the planning area, and areas 

within 6 miles of large blocks and within 3.5 miles of small blocks. Currently, large habitat blocks, each 

capable of supporting a cluster of reproducing northern spotted owls (i.e., at least 25 owl pairs), are 

distributed across the variety of ecological conditions (i.e., in all physiographic provinces). In addition, 

the large blocks are spaced to facilitate northern spotted owl movement between and through the large 

blocks in and between the Oregon Western Cascades, Oregon Eastern Cascades and Oregon Klamath 

provinces, and between those provinces and the southern half of the Oregon Coast Range Province. 

However, the northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Province currently supports one large habitat 

block, which is not spaced properly with any other large habitat block. In addition, the small habitat 

blocks in this area, when added to the single large habitat block, are insufficient to meet Conservation 

Need 1. 










Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

764 | Page

The remaining differences among the alternatives are negligible in terms of their overall contributions to 

Conservation Need 1. In fact, the different Late-Successional Reserve designs would make surprisingly 

similar contributions to the development of large habitat blocks over time. All alternatives reserve those 

lands necessary to support large habitat blocks and, once those lands are reserved, reserving additional 

lands provides little added support to the development and spacing of large habitat blocks. 

Issue 2 

In accordance with Conservation Need 2, would the alternatives contribute to a landscape in the 

planning area that facilitates northern spotted owl movement between and through large blocks of 

nesting, roosting and foraging habitat and ensures the survival of dispersing owls? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

To meet Conservation Need 2, the BLM would contribute to a western Oregon landscape that, within 30 

to 50 years, supports northern spotted owl movement and survival between the physiographic provinces, 

and between and through the large blocks of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat within each 

physiographic province. Because this conservation need is not specific to BLM-administered lands, the 

BLM forecasted the development of northern spotted owl dispersal habitat, and simulated northern 

spotted owl movement and survival, on all lands in the planning area during the next 50 years. 

This issue presents an analysis of the cumulative effects on northern spotted owl dispersal habitat and 

northern spotted owl movement and survival of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

including both land management on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area. 

Even though Thomas et al. (1990, pp. 27-29, Appendix J) and Courtney et al. (2004, Chapter 5) defined 

the structural characteristics of dispersal habitat, the scientific literature on the northern spotted owl does 

not define the quantity or spatial arrangement of such habitat needed to support spotted owl movement or 

the survival of dispersing owls. Instead, Thomas et al. (1990, pp. 27 and 309-310) stated that, if 50 

percent of the land in a regulated forest supported stands that were older than 40 years (i.e., had an 

average trunk diameter of at least 11 inches [0.3 m] at breast height and a canopy closure of at least 40 

percent), and were managed in association with stands of older forest (e.g., visual and riparian corridors, 

and stands harvested on relatively long rotations), then “We would expect much of that managed landbase 

to be suitable for passage by dispersing northern spotted owls.” Although Forsman et al. (2002) 

subsequently examined northern spotted owl dispersal, the relationship between the degree of forest 

fragmentation, and the movement and survival of dispersing owls, was beyond the scope of their study (p. 

22). 

Davis et al. (2011, pp. 40-43) first modeled the spatial arrangement of habitat needed to support the 

movement of northern spotted owls. Davis et al. based their model on empirical evidence that at least 40 

percent habitat within (i.e., at the scale of) a 15.5-mile (25.0 km) radius circle is sufficient to support 

dispersing northern spotted owls (p. 40). Marcot et al. (2012, p. 202), based on modeling, reported similar 

results, stating “The various combinations of size and spacing of habitat clusters that produced at least 35-

40% of the landscape in habitat seemed adequate to provide for successful NSO [northern spotted owl]

dispersal and recolonization.”

To evaluate northern spotted owl movement, the BLM produced decadal maps of habitat in the planning 

area capable of supporting such movement, relying on the distance and habitat quantity thresholds 

developed by Davis et al. (2011, p. 40). As described in Appendix S, to conform to BLM planning needs 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

765 | Page

to forecast habitat change, the BLM northern spotted owl relative habitat suitability surfaces differed from 

that used by Davis et al. (2011). 

In addition to northern spotted owl movement between habitat blocks, Conservation Need 2 addresses 

habitat conditions outside habitat blocks that support the survival of dispersing northern spotted owls (i.e., 

all life functions until a northern spotted owl can establish a territory). To address northern spotted owl 

survival, the BLM modeled how northern spotted owls would move and survive across the planning area 

under each alternative and over time. Below, under Northern Spotted Owl Issue 4 (Conservation Need 4), 

the BLM describes its use of HexSim (Schumaker 2011), a spatially-explicit, individual-based population 

model. As part of the BLM analyses to address Conservation Need 4, the BLM used HexSim to simulate 

the movement of individual northern spotted owls across a spatial landscape of 214-acre (86.6-ha) 

hexagons, during 50 years, completing 100 replicate, non-stochastic simulations of each alternative (see 

Issue 4). Each of the 100 replicate simulations was unique in terms of the beginning numbers and 

locations of simulated northern spotted owls (Appendix S). Therefore, in addition to addressing 

Conservation Need 2 by mapping dispersal-capable habitat conditions by alternative over time, the BLM 

used HexSim to aggregate, by alternative and by decade, the movement pathways of simulated northern 

spotted owls. The products were decadal maps of simulated dispersal flux—the number of times, during 

100 replicate simulations, a simulated northern spotted owl passed through each 214-acre (86.6-ha) 

hexagon during a decade—on all lands in the planning area. Because the BLM HexSim model simulates 

northern spotted owl survival, including the survival of dispersing young (USDI FWS 2011a, pp. C-70 –

C-71), dispersal flux reflects both northern spotted owl movement and survival. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

Figure 3-190 shows the dispersal-capable landscape of the planning area in 2013 (A), and as the forested 

landscape managed by the BLM is capable of contributing to dispersal capability in 2063 (B) according to 

the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. Because the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis 

simulates only the effects of forest ingrowth and wildfire on BLM-administered lands, the BLM shows 

only these two decadal maps; the intermediate decadal maps show a transition of dispersal-capable lands 

between those in Figure 3-190. 


Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

768 | Page

Figure 3-191. No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis: Simulated northern spotted owl dispersal flux 

during 2013-2023 (A) and 2053-2063 (B), based on 100 replicate, non-stochastic, simulations. 

Circles in A indicate two areas discussed in the text. 

Figure 3-191 A indicates, under current habitat conditions, northern spotted owl movement and survival 

between and through habitat blocks in the Oregon Western Cascades, Oregon Eastern Cascades and 

Oregon Klamath physiographic provinces, and between the Oregon Coast Range Province and the 

Western Cascades and Klamath provinces. However, due to limited habitat, northern spotted owls 

currently do not move through much of the northern half of the Coast Range Province, an area with 

limited BLM-administered land (see Figure 3-192 below).

A visual comparison of the current dispersal-capable landscape (Figure 3-190 A) and dispersal flux under 

current habitat conditions (Figure 3-191 A) reveals an informative incongruity. Figure 3-191 shows 

simulated northern spotted owls moving though areas that Figure 3-190 suggests are not dispersalcapable, such as the east-west corridor between the Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Western Cascades 

provinces, south of the Willamette Valley, and the north-south corridor through the southern portion of 

the Oregon Coast Range Province (both areas highlighted by green circles in Figure 3-191 A). These 

discrepancies appear to be artifacts of scale: Figure 3-190 is based on mean habitat availability within a 

15.5-mile radius circle (~ 196,000 ha) whereas Figure 3-191 is based on mean habitat conditions within a 

500-acre (~ 200-ha) circle (see Appendix S for an explanation). Thus, the delineation of dispersal 

capability in Figure 3-190 is more heavily influenced by edge effects of large areas that do not support 

northern spotted owl habitat, such as the Willamette Valley or the Pacific Ocean, than is dispersal flux 

shown in Figure 3-191. Figure 3-190 B shows that, within 50 years, BLM-administered lands are 

capable of contributing to a dispersal-capable, east-west “bridge” between the Oregon Coast Range and 

Oregon Western Cascades provinces. However, Figure 3-191 A suggests that this area currently supports 

(albeit marginal) northern spotted owl movement, but that functionality (shown in Figure 3-190 A) is 

obscured by limited habitat conditions in the Willamette Valley, to the north, and the Umpqua Basin, to 

the south. This influence also appears as limited north-south dispersal function through the southern 

Oregon Coast Range Province, which is across a mostly-forested landscape bordered on the east and west 

by areas with limited habitat. 

Interestingly, a comparison of Figure 3-191 A and B indicates that northern spotted owl dispersal flux 

would decline in much of the planning area each decade through 2053–2063 (this last decade is shown as 

Figure 3-191 B), most notably in the Oregon Coast Range Province and the northern portion of the 

Oregon Western Cascades Province. As shown in Figure 3-190 B, this decline is independent of the 

ability of BLM-administered lands to contribute to dispersal habitat conditions by that decade. Instead, as 

the BLM describes below in Issue 4, this decline is a function of forecasted declines in northern spotted 

owl populations in some provinces. Fewer northern spotted owls on the landscape progressively reduce 

the number of individuals dispersing across the landscape between 2013 and 2063, as seen by comparing 

Figure 3-191 A and B. 

The analysis of dispersal flux also indicates the association, in the southern portion of the Oregon Coast 

Range Province and the central Oregon Klamath Province, between current northern spotted owl 

movement and survival and BLM-administered lands, which can be seen by comparing Figures 3-184 A

and 3-192. (Figure 3-192 is identical to Figure 3-191 A except that Figure 3-192 also delineates BLMadministered lands.) This indicates that BLM-administered lands make important contributions to 

northern spotted owl movement and survival in these areas. 





Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

774 | Page

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service addresses catastrophic wildfire as a separate Conservation Need. 

However, wildfire is relevant to northern spotted owl conservation only because it modifies northern 

spotted owl habitat and, consequently, demography, which the BLM addressed by evaluating 

Conservations Needs 1, 2 and 4. As explained in Appendix S, the relative habitat suitability surfaces the 

BLM developed to address Conservation Needs 1, 2 and 4 include forecasts of habitat change from 

wildfire. Thus, the evaluations of Conservation Needs 1, 2 and 4 also address Conservation Need 3. The 

BLM needed no additional analysis. 

Issue 4 

In accordance with Conservation Need 4, would the alternatives, in areas of significant population 

decline, sustain the full range of survival and recovery options for the northern spotted owl in light of 

significant uncertainty? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

To meet Conservation Need 4, the BLM would contribute to a landscape that supports, in light of current 

uncertainties, reproductively viable northern spotted owl populations in each western Oregon modeling 

region during the next 50 years or, if the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis indicates that supporting 

populations for 50 years is not possible, during the next 30 years. Because this conservation need is not 

specific to BLM-administered lands, the BLM simulated on all land ownerships the northern spotted owl 

population responses to habitat changes and competitive interactions with barred owls. The BLM 

evaluated those population responses in terms of population size, population extirpation risk, and 

population source location. 

This issue presents an analysis of the cumulative effects on northern spotted owl population response of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including both land management on BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

In 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service convened seven experts to identify threats to the northern 

spotted owl (USDI FWS 2011b). The experts identified past habitat loss, current habitat loss and 

competition from barred owls as the most pressing threats, even though implementation of the Northwest 

Forest Plan had reduced the rate of timber harvest on Federal lands. They noted evidence of these threats 

in the scientific literature. The range of threat scores by the individual experts was narrowest for barred 

owl competition, indicating more agreement about the threat from barred owls. 

Northern spotted owl populations are declining across their range at an annual rate of 2.9 percent 

(Forsman et al. 2011, p. 44). Therefore, “areas of significant population decline” include the entire 

planning area. A principal cause of the decline is competition from barred owls, which have colonized 

portions of Washington, Oregon and California during the past forty years. Barred owls now occupy the 

entire range of the northern spotted owl, utilize all northern spotted owl habitats and prey species, 

displace northern spotted owls from their breeding territories, inhibit northern spotted owls from 

establishing new territories and outbreed northern spotted owls (Forsman et al. 2011, Van Lanen et. al.

2011, Dugger et al. 2011, Wiens et al. 2014). Although BLM-administered lands play a key role in 

northern spotted owl conservation in some portions of the planning area (see USDI BLM 2008a[2], pp. 4-

644–4-683), current research provides no evidence that the BLM can manage individual forest stands to 

provide northern spotted owls with a competitive advantage over barred owls (Dugger et al. 2011 and 

Wiens et al. 2014). Instead, research reaffirms the importance of older forest conditions and managing for 

large blocks of unfragmented older forest (Dugger et al. 2011, p. 2463; Wiens et al. 2014, pp. 36-38). 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

775 | Page

To address Conservation Needs 1 and 2, the BLM examined potential BLM contributions to northern 

spotted owl habitat in the planning area: to the formation of blocks of nesting-roosting habitat, to spacing 

between the blocks, and to habitat conditions that support northern spotted owl movement and survival 

between and through the blocks. The BLM northern spotted owl relative habitat suitability surfaces 

include forecasts, on all land ownerships, of forest ingrowth, forest treatment, and wildfire. Therefore, to 

address Conservation Need 4, the BLM simulated how northern spotted owl populations would respond 

to changing habitat conditions on a landscape occupied by barred owls. Even though the BLM analyses 

focused on the planning area, the BLM modeled northern spotted owl population responses throughout 

the United States-portion of their range, because the movement of northern spotted owls across the 

planning area boundaries would affect owl populations in the planning area. 

Population Modeling 

To address Conservation Need 4, the BLM used a spatially-explicit, individual-based HexSim model 

(Schumaker 2011) to simulate northern spotted owl demographic responses over time.102 Although 

computer modeling commonly involves an inherent tension between improved realism and errors 

associated with increased complexity, HexSim was designed to quantify wildlife population responses to 

multiple, interacting environmental stressors, as deemed appropriate, without unnecessarily simplifying 

landscapes, species’ life histories, or disturbances. HexSim also can—

x Incorporate environmental stochasticity (i.e., species traits, such as individual fecundity and 

survival, as probabilities based on observed rates instead of as less-realistic fixed parameters) 

x Operate at relatively fine spatial scales, in this case at a scale of 214-acre (86.6-ha) hexagons; 

x Generate a full set of demographic response data, including simulated numbers and locations of 

individual northern spotted owls, at any year, which is important for BLM evaluations of northern 

spotted owl responses to alternatives; and 

x Generate both rate-based and count-based matrices for each modeling region during each decade. 

o Count-based matrices record the numbers of individuals moving between locations, 

important for evaluating northern spotted owl movement and survival. 

o Rate-based matrices are important for evaluating how habitat change affects the northern 

spotted owl population in an ecologically meaningful way,103 and the locations and 

magnitudes of population sources and sinks.104

The BLM determined that the HexSim model developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to inform 

its decisions on northern spotted owl recovery and critical habitat (USDI FWS 2011a, Appendix C, USDI 

FWS 2012), with specific changes, would meet, and could be adapted to, BLM planning needs with cost 

and technical efficiency (i.e., this model incorporated appropriate information on northern spotted owl 

demography and ecology, including barred owl competition, without introducing unnecessary analytical 

 

102 Due to the number of biological and physical variables that affect northern spotted owl demography, some of 

which are not fully understand, no model can accurately forecast a northern spotted owl demographic response over 

50 years. However, the BLM determined that an individual-based HexSim model represented the best analytical tool 

to simulate northern spotted owl responses to alternative BLM land use scenarios, and thus to help inform BLM 

decision-making (see Appendix S). 103 The BLM arrayed parameters driving population change analytically instead of inferring such parameters from 

habitat patterns, as was done in previous land use planning efforts at this scale (i.e., the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan 

and the 2008 BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions). 

104 “Sources” are areas that add members to a population. “Sinks” are areas that consume members of a population. 

Whether an area is a source or sink depends on its balance of birth : death or emigration : immigration rates. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

776 | Page

assumptions or complexity). The BLM described its changes to the Service’s HexSim model in Appendix 

S. 

Analytical Scales 

The BLM evaluated its contributions to conservation needs 1 and 2 using the physiographic provinces 

(USDA USFS and USDI BLM 1994, p. A-3), because Thomas et al. (1990, p. 320) defined northern 

spotted owl median home range sizes—which they used to define large habitat blocks—for each 

physiographic province. More recently, Davis et al. (2011, pp. 34-36) modeled northern spotted owl 

relative habitat suitability values according to six modeling regions that were similar to the physiographic 

provinces but based exclusively on ecological divisions (i.e., unlike the physiographic provinces, two 

modeling regions crossed state boundaries). And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, during its process to 

delineate northern spotted owl critical habitat, divided the northern spotted owl range into eleven 

modeling regions (USDI FWS 2011a, pp. C-7–C-13) on all land ownerships that reflected “regional 

differences in forest environments and factors such as important prey species” (USDI FWS 2011a, p. C7). Again, the Service modeling regions (Figure 3-194) were similar to the physiographic provinces but 

four of the regions crossed state boundaries. 

























Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

802 | Page

Figure 3-200. A comparison of the acres of BLM-administered land in western Oregon, during each 

decade, in each of six resource bins. 

The bins are defined by the mean number of northern spotted owl births per decade during 100 replicate simulations. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.0-2.7 2.7-6.6 6.6-14.4 14.4-30.2 30.2-62.4 62.4-130.0

Proportion of BLM-administered Land

in Western Oregon

Mean Number of NSO Births/Decade/100 Replicate Simulations

2013-2023 2023-2033 2033-2043 2043-2053 2053-2063

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

804 | Page

Table 3-267 and Figure 3-200 show that, during each decade, about 90 percent of northern spotted owl 

births on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, 30.2 to 130 births per decade, would occur on 

about 10 percent of those lands. During any decade, over 50 percent of the BLM landscape is capable of 

supporting no more than three births per decade. In addition, the acres of BLM-administered lands with 

the highest mean source values would decline each decade, except those with the highest productivity, 

those lands supporting 62.4 to 130 births per decade. Highest productivity lands are capable of increasing 

by 39 percent, from 31,400 acres to 43,500 acres, during the next 50 years. These results are heavily 

influenced by simulated declines in northern spotted owl populations in the planning area; fewer owls on 

the landscape progressively suppress mean source values. But these results also illustrate the potential 

value of the source analysis in informing the delineation of reserve land use allocations on BLMadministered lands. 

As shown by comparing Figures 3-199 A and 3-201, BLM-administered lands currently contribute 

substantively to northern spotted owl productivity in the Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Klamath 

provinces, but make only modest contributions in the Oregon Western Cascades Province. As simulated 

northern spotted owl populations decline over time in the planning area, their relative productivities also 

decline, as can be seen by comparing Figures 3-199. But a comparison of Figure 3-199 A with the 

locations of BLM-administered lands, shown in Figure 3-201, indicates that the forested landscape 

managed by the BLM is capable of making substantive contributions to northern spotted owl productivity 

in the Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Klamath provinces during the next 50 years. 

Appendix S-D shows simulated sources of northern spotted owl production during 2053 – 2063, based on 

100 replicate, non-stochastic simulations, under each alternative and according to No Timber Harvest 

Reference Analysis with modified barred owl encounter rates. The result for each alternative is similar to 

that for the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis (Figure 3-199 B), reflecting a general decrease in 

production between 2013 and 2063 due to the decline in the northern spotted owl population. In addition, 

all alternatives yield results that are similar to those for the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, 

indicating that none of the alternatives appreciably would alter mean source values across the landscape 

or limit northern spotted owl production in any part of the planning area. 

Issue 5 

In accordance with Recovery Action 6, would the alternatives delineate at least one reserved land use 

allocation in the moist forest and, within that allocation, implement silvicultural techniques in 

plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands that would benefit the northern spotted owl? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

To evaluate Recovery Action 6, the BLM quantified the progression of non-habitat, a surrogate for 

“plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands,” to northern spotted owl habitat on BLMadministered lands in the moist forest of the planning area, in both reserved land use allocations and 

critical habitat units. In this context, “non-habitat” is statistically shown to be avoided by northern spotted 

owls (i.e., “strongly-selected-against” habitat, as defined in Appendix S).

Recovery Action 6 states, “In moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat, land managers should 

implement silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands to 

accelerate the development of structural complexity and biological diversity that will benefit spotted owl 

recovery” (USDI FWS 2011a, p. III-19). The Recovery Action 6 narrative states that such activities 

“should be carried out in all Federal land classifications consistent with the NWFP [Northwest Forest 

Plan] Standards and Guidelines.” The BLM initially interpreted “moist forests managed for spotted owl 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

805 | Page

habitat” to refer only to reserve land use allocations in the alternatives. However, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service stated that Recovery Action 6 also addresses management within northern spotted owl 

critical habitat in the moist forests, even where critical habitat overlays the Harvest Land Base (Brendan 

White, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, verbal personal communication to Eric Greenquist, 09/24/2013). 

Based on this input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM refined this issue to evaluate 

whether the BLM, under each alternative, would designate a reserve land use allocation in the moist forest 

for northern spotted owl recovery, and, within that reserve allocation and within designated critical habitat 

in the moist forest, implement appropriate silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and 

modified younger stands. However, neither Recovery Action 6 nor the associated narrative recommends 

an analytical threshold, such as the quantity of forest treated, for the BLM to evaluate the consistency of 

the alternatives with Recovery Action 6. Lacking such a threshold, evaluating how the BLM would 

manage “plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands” in reserves and critical habitat 

under each alternative would reveal nothing more, with respect to BLM contributions to overall northern 

spotted owl recovery, than the analyses to address Conservation Needs 1 – 4, especially since the 

treatment of such stands under each alternative is incorporated into the northern spotted owl relative 

habitat suitability surfaces that the BLM uses to evaluate Conservation Needs 1 – 4. 

In summary, each alternative includes reserve land use allocations in the moist forest that would be 

managed for structural complexity and biological diversity beneficial to the northern spotted owl (albeit, 

in different amounts and spatial arrangements). Each alternative includes all or a portion of designated 

critical habitat in the moist forest within the reserve land use allocations. Each alternative includes 

direction to implement silviculture techniques in plantations, overstocked stands, and modified younger 

stands to benefit northern spotted owl recovery. Since Recovery Action 6 recommends no threshold for 

the BLM to evaluate the alternatives, the BLM needs no additional analysis to determine that each of the 

alternatives would be consistent with Recovery Action 6. However, the alternatives differ in the amount 

of habitat change within reserve land use allocations and critical habitat in the moist forest. Therefore, the 

BLM tabulates in this analysis the changes in the acres of non-habitat for each alternative for reserve land 

use allocations and critical habitat in the moist forest. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

Table 3-268 shows the current acres of non-habitat (i.e., habitat strongly avoided by northern spotted 

owls) and the potential change in those acres according to the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. 

Since the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis does not rely on land use allocations, the acres are 

confined to moist forest BLM-administered lands of the planning area in: 1) Northwest Forest Plan 

reserve land use allocations110 ; and 2) northern spotted owl critical habitat. 

 

 

110 Since Recovery Action 6 refers to “moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat,” the analyses include Riparian 

Reserves interspersed with Late-Successional Reserves, but exclude Riparian Reserves interspersed with other land 

use allocations. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

806 | Page

Table 3-268. No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis: Acres of habitat strongly avoided by the northern 

spotted owl in moist forest land use allocations reserved under the Northwest Forest Plan, and in moist 

forest critical habitat units, on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

Moist Forest BLM-administered 

Habitat Strongly Avoided

Year (Acres)

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Reserved Lands 27,900 26,700 23,900 20,500 20,400 21,500

Critical Habitat Units 48,400 43,200 35,300 30,400 29,400 30,200

According to the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, the acres of non-habitat in the moist forest 

portion of both Northwest Forest Plan reserve land use allocations and northern spotted owl critical 

habitat units would be capable of decreasing each decade through 2053 as a result of forest growth, but 

then would increase slightly by 2063. This late increase is due to the simulated effects of wildfire, which 

are incorporated into the modeling of the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. 

Figure 3-202 shows how the acres of non-habitat in moist forest reserve land use allocations would 

change over time (i.e., would transition to northern spotted owl habitat) under each alternative. Because 

the alternatives reserve different lands, the acres of non-habitat are not directly comparable among 

alternatives. 

Figure 3-202. Forecasted change, by alternative, in the acres of the forested landscape that would be 

strongly avoided by northern spotted owls (i.e., non-habitat) of reserved land use allocations. 

The No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis is included for comparison. 

Under Alternative B and Sub-alternative B, the net acres of moist forest reserve non-habitat would 

decrease, respectively, by 46 and 47 percent during 50 years, resulting in net increases of, respectively, 

33,300 and 45,600 acres of northern spotted owl habitat. These are followed by the No Action alternative 

and Alternative A which, respectively, would cause 36 and 34 percent decreases, corresponding to net 

increases of, respectively, 10,000 and 26,700 acres of habitat. Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would 

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

NSO Non-habitat (Acres)

Year

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

807 | Page

show 31 and 21 percent decreases, respectively, corresponding to net increases of, respectively, 14,600 

and 13,500 acres of habitat. And Alternative D would show a 21 percent decrease, which corresponds to a 

net increase of 5,700 acres of habitat. 

Figure 3-203 shows how the acres of the moist forest non-habitat in critical habitat units on BLMadministered land would change over time under each alternative. Because the critical habitat units are 

identical under all alternatives, changes in the acres of non-habitat are directly comparable among 

alternatives. 

Figure 3-203. Forecasted change, by alternative, in the acres of the forested landscape that would be 

strongly avoided by northern spotted owls (i.e., non-habitat) in critical habitat units on BLM-administered 

land. 

The No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis is included for comparison. 

Under both Sub-alternative B and Alternative D, the net acres of moist forest non-habitat in critical 

habitat would decrease by 42 percent during the next 50 years, which corresponds to a net increase of 

20,300 acres of northern spotted owl habitat under each alternative. These are followed by alternatives A 

and B, and the No Action alternative, which, respectively, would cause 39, 37, and 29 percent decreases, 

corresponding to net increases of 19,000, 17,900 and 13,800 acres of habitat, respectively. Alternative C 

and Sub-alternative C would cause 54 and 12 percent increases in the acres of non-habitat, respectively, 

which correspond to net losses of 26,200 and 6,000 acres of habitat, respectively. 

Therefore, under all alternatives, the BLM would delineate at least one reserve land use allocation in the 

moist forest and, within that allocation, implement silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked 

stands and modified younger stands that would benefit (i.e., result in net increases in the amount of 

habitat for) the northern spotted owl. As a result, all alternatives would result in a decrease in the acres of 

non-habitat in the reserve land use allocation in the moist forest over time from current amounts. 

However, in designated critical habitat in the moist forest, Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would 

25,000

35,000

45,000

55,000

65,000

75,000

85,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

NSO Non-habitat in Critical Habitat (Acres) 

Year 

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

808 | Page

result in increases in the acres of non-habitat over time from current amounts, and all other alternatives 

would result in decreases in the acres of non-habitat. 

Issue 6 

In accordance with Recovery Action 10, would the alternatives conserve northern spotted owl sites and 

high value northern spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the northern 

spotted owl population? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The intent of Recovery Action 10 “is to protect, enhance and develop habitat in the quantity and 

distribution necessary to provide for the long-term recovery of spotted owls” (USDI FWS 2011a, p. III44). Conservation needs 1 and 2 also address this intent. However, Recovery Action 10 also focuses on 

the management of individual northern spotted owl nest sites and “high value” northern spotted owl 

habitat, which the Revised Recovery Plan defines as “older, multi-layered structurally-complex forests”

and “areas with current and historic use by spotted owls” (USDI FWS 2011a, p. G-2). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not recommend, through Recovery Action 10, that land 

managers protect all northern spotted owl known and historic sites. Instead, the Service recommends 

habitat enhancement to promote long term northern spotted owl conservation even when such 

enhancement would have short-term negative effects to individual northern spotted owl pairs or resident

singles (USDI FWS 2011a, p. III-44). The Service also recommends interim guidance on how land 

managers should rank northern spotted owl sites according to their priority for protection, and standards 

for the protection of northern spotted owl habitat within the 500-acre (200-ha) core use area and the 

median provincial home range area that surround each site (USDI FWS 2011a, p. III-44 – III-45). The 

Service recommends that northern spotted owl sites be managed so that at least 50 percent of the 500-acre 

core use area, and at least 40 percent of the median provincial home range area, support nesting-roosting 

habitat (USDI FWS 2011a). However, the Service does not estimate, or provide criteria to estimate, 

which or how many northern spotted owl sites the BLM should maintain to be consistent with Recovery 

Action 10. Therefore, the evaluation of the consistency of each alternative with Recovery Action 10 is 

complicated by the primary focus of Recovery Action 10 on individual known and historic northern 

spotted owl sites, the flexibility Recovery Action 10 provides for the management of individual sites, and 

the lack of recommended criteria to evaluate consistency with Recovery Action 10. 

Confining the analysis to the planning area, the BLM determined the locations of northern spotted owl 

known and historic sites on or near BLM-administered lands from demography studies on those lands 

(Forsman et al. 2011, pp. 5-8), survey data the BLM and its cooperators collected as part of Northwest 

Forest Plan effectiveness monitoring, and additional survey data since the 1970s. The BLM and its 

cooperators have surveyed about 80 percent of BLM-administered lands in the planning area for northern 

spotted owls; all survey results are maintained in the BLM corporate database. The BLM then tabulated if 

habitat conditions within the 500-acre core use area and the median provincial home range circles 

surrounding each site would meet the thresholds of Recovery Action 10 (i.e., at least 50 percent nestingroosting habitat within the 500-acre core use area and at least 40 percent nesting-roosting habitat within 

the median provincial home range area). 

In addition to managing habitat within the 500-acre core use area and the median provincial home range 

area around each northern spotted owl site, Swindle et. al (1999, p. 1216) determined that, in the central 

Cascades of Oregon, northern spotted owl nest site selection was most influenced by the amount of older 

forest habitat within 660 feet (200 m) of each site. Since the intent of Recovery Action 10 is to conserve 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

809 | Page

extant northern spotted owl sites, the BLM added the standard of maintaining all forest habitat within 660 

feet of those sites, even though Recovery Action 10 does not specifically recommend such protection. 

Northern spotted owls on BLM-administered lands are known to nest, and produce young, in habitat 

conditions that are well below Recovery Action 10 thresholds. This analysis does not account for 

additional protections that the site-specific implementation of Recovery Action 10 might provide for such 

pairs. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There currently are 2,465 known (including historic) northern spotted owl sites associated with BLMadministered lands in the planning area (i.e., their provincial home ranges include BLM-administered 

lands). Of these known sites, 1,453 sites (59 percent) meet Recovery Action 10 thresholds. In 30 years, 

according to the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, 1,718 known sites (70 percent) would be 

capable of meeting Recovery Action 10 thresholds; in 50 years the number increases to 1,799 known sites 

(73 percent). According to the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, the remaining 27 percent of 

known sites are not capable of meeting Recovery Action 10 thresholds in 50 years due to the limited 

BLM-administered lands, slow habitat development of some BLM-administered lands because of poor 

site conditions, and competing land uses on other land ownerships. 

Figure 3-204 shows the number of northern spotted owl known sites that would be at or above Recovery 

Action 10 habitat thresholds, during each decade, under each alternative. In 50 years, Sub-alternative B 

and Alternative D would support the greatest numbers of northern spotted owl known sites at or above 

Recovery Action 10 thresholds (including the protection of habitat within 660 feet of the site), because 

both alternatives require the restoration and protection of nesting-roosting habitat around all known sites 

in accordance with those thresholds. During this period, Sub-alternative B would support a 24 percent 

increase in the number of known sites at or above thresholds compared to a 23 percent increase under 

Alternative D. Interestingly, at 50 years, Sub-alternative B would support very slightly more known sites 

at or above thresholds than under the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, 1,803 and 1,799, 

respectively, suggesting the benefit of restoration thinning under Sub-alternative B.111

 

111 Alternative B and Sub-alternative B include protection of 69,700 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Since northern spotted owl habitat restoration would not be consistent with management for wilderness 

characteristics, and BLM modeling did not account for this restriction, the level of change might not be as great as 

shown (see the Lands with Wilderness Characteristics section in this chapter). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

810 | Page

Figure 3-204. Number of northern spotted owl sites that would be at or above Recovery Action 10 habitat 

thresholds under each alternative during each decade. 

The No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis is included for comparison. 

Alternative B would result in nearly as many known sites at or above thresholds as Sub-alternative B and 

Alternative D. Alternative B also includes restoration thinning, but would protect northern spotted owl 

known sites only to the extent provided by the underlying land use allocation. Other than this difference, 

Alternative B is identical in design to Sub-alternative B. After 50 years, Alternative B would support a 

22-percent increase in the number of northern spotted owl known sites at or above Recovery Action 10 

thresholds. Thus, the network of reserve land use allocations under Alternative B would provide almost 

the same level of protection to northern spotted known sites as would the protection of all known sites. 

Alternative A and the No Action alternative both would result in 19-percent increases in the number of 

northern spotted owl known sites at or above Recovery Action 10 thresholds after 50 years. However, the 

No Action alternative would result in lower numbers of known sites at or above Recovery Action 10 

thresholds during intervening decades (Figure 3-204). The No Action alternative requires protection of 

100 acres of northern spotted owl habitat around “known owl activity centers” (USDA FS and USDI 

BLM 1994, p. C-45). However, this protection only applies to the 630 sites known on January 1, 1994 

(i.e., 26 percent of the currently known sites) and does not include sites identified after that date. 

Alternative A would protect northern spotted owl known sites only to the extent provided by the 

underlying land use allocation. 

Of all alternatives, Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would result in the least number of northern 

spotted owl known sites at or above Recovery Action 10 thresholds after 50 years. Like Alternatives A 

and B, Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would protect northern spotted owl known sites only to the 

extent provided by the underlying land use allocation. These two alternatives are identical in design, 

except that Alternative C requires the protection of all forest stands 160 years and older and Subalternative C requires the protection of all forest stands 80-years-old and older. Nonetheless, in 50 years, 

1,400

1,450

1,500

1,550

1,600

1,650

1,700

1,750

1,800

1,850

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

NSO Sites

Year

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

811 | Page

Alternative C would support a 10-percent increase in the number of northern spotted owl known sites at 

or above Recovery Action 10 thresholds, whereas Sub-alternative C would support a 16-percent increase. 

Issue 7 

In accordance with Recovery Action 12, would the BLM implement post-fire silvicultural activities on 

lands managed for the development of spotted owl habitat, and that are modified by wildfire, that 

conserve and restore habitat elements that take a long time to develop, such as large trees, medium and 

large snags, and downed wood? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

For this analysis, the BLM initially interpreted “lands managed for the development of spotted owl 

habitat” to refer to reserve land use allocations (see the narrative for Issue 5). However, as discussed 

under Issue 5, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the Revised Recovery Plan (and hence this 

recovery action) also pertains to 2012 northern spotted owl critical habitat. Therefore, based on this input 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM interprets “lands managed for the development of 

spotted owl habitat” for this analysis as reserve land use allocations and designated critical habitat. 

As described in Appendix S-A, the BLM forecasted wildfire locations, footprints and intensities (i.e., how 

fire would modify northern spotted owl relative habitat suitability values within its fire footprint) on all 

land ownerships within the northern spotted owl’s range, including on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area, at decadal increments during the next 50 years. The Revised Recovery Plan summarizes the 

effects of post-fire logging on northern spotted owl habitat (USDI FWS 2011a, pp. III-47 – III-49). 

The alternatives vary in the management direction for post-fire silvicultural activities in reserve land use 

allocations and critical habitat. The BLM tabulated the acres of BLM-administered lands in reserve land 

use allocations and in each critical habitat subunit modified by wildfire during each decade, and described 

qualitatively the management standards for those lands under each alternative. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

Since the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis does not include silvicultural prescriptions, the BLM 

cannot describe the capability of BLM-administered lands to contribute to Recovery Action 12. 

Table 3-269 shows the acres of reserve land use allocations (Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian 

Reserve that is interspersed within Late-Successional Reserve) that would be affected by high- and 

moderate-intensity wildfire during each decade. Because simulated wildfires are identical under each 

alternative, acre differences are a function of the size and location of the reserve land use allocations of 

each alternative. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

812 | Page

Table 3-269. Acres of reserve land use allocations that would be affected by high- and moderate-intensity 

wildfire during each decade. 

Alternative Decade (Acres)

2013-2023 2023-2033 2033-2043 2043-2053 2053-2063

No Action 3,500 3,700 3,900 600 2,300

Alt. A 10,000 7,000 12,800 5,900 12,200

Alt. B 7,200 4,900 9,000 1,800 6,700

Sub. B 8,600 6,600 11,600 3,500 10,900

Alt. C 7,300 4,700 9,900 1,500 6,900

Sub. C 9,000 6,000 13,600 6,600 9,400

Alt. D 4,000 2,900 7,400 1,400 5,700

Table 3-270 shows the acres of northern spotted owl critical habitat that would be affected by high- and 

moderate-intensity wildfire during each decade. Because the simulated fires are identical under all 

alternatives, the acres of affected critical habitat are identical under each alternative. 

Table 3-270. Acres of northern spotted owl critical habitat that would be affected by high- and moderateintensity wildfire during each decade. 

Habitat Decade (Acres)

2013-2023 2023-2033 2033-2043 2043-2053 2053-2063

Critical Habitat 9,000 6,500 8,900 3,700 10,200

With respect to the treatment of areas affected by wildfire: 

Under the No Action alternative: 

x Salvage operations are permitted in Late-Successional Reserves and northern spotted owl 

Reserves Pair Areas only to facilitate forest restoration following stand-replacement events 

(USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994, pp. C-13 and D-17). 

x Within Managed Late-Successional Areas, salvage “always should be guided by the objective of 

maintaining adequate amounts of suitable habitat” (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994, p. C-26). 

x Salvage following catastrophic events is permitted in Riparian Reserves “if required to attain 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives” (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994, p. C-32). 

x Salvage is permitted in other land use allocations to the extent it complies with snag and coarse 

woody debris requirements. 

Under all action alternatives, the BLM would: 

x Implement wildfire rehabilitation and restoration efforts in all land use allocations to protect and 

sustain ecosystems, ecosystem services, public health and safety, and infrastructure adversely 

affected by suppression actions (fire operations) or direct fire effects. 

x Regenerate large scale disturbances within the dry forest Late-Successional Reserves within five 

years using a mixture of plant species appropriate to the site. The BLM would leave at least ten 

percent of the disturbance area unstocked with trees, in gaps at least one-quarter-acre in size for at 

least two decades, to accelerate the development of heterogeneous fuel conditions. 

x Implement timber salvage operations in the Harvest Land Base (including in northern spotted owl 

critical habitat in the Harvest Land Base) to recover economic value and minimize commercial 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

813 | Page

loss or the deterioration of damaged trees. Salvage operations would comply with alternativespecific stand-level snag and coarse woody debris retention standards. 

x Prohibit timber salvage in Riparian Reserves. 

In Late-Successional Reserves and Critical Habitat within Late-Successional Reserves: 

x Under Alternative A, Alternative B, Sub-alternative B and Alternative D, the BLM would 

prohibit timber salvage in Late-Successional Reserves except when necessary to protect public 

health and safety, or to keep roads and other infrastructure clear of debris. Under Alternative A, 

Late-Successional Reserves would completely encompass northern spotted owl critical habitat 

and, thus, would prohibit timber salvage in all critical habitat. 

x Under Alternative C and Sub-alternative C, the BLM would implement timber salvage operations 

in Late-Successional Reserves to recover economic value and minimize commercial loss or the 

deterioration of damaged trees. For disturbances that kill at least 60 percent of overstory trees on 

contiguous areas of at least 10 acres, timber salvage would remove all dead wood volume in 

excess of down wood and snag requirements. For other disturbances, timber salvage would occur 

only as needed to reduce hazards to public health and safety. 

In Critical Habitat within the Harvest Land Base: 

x Under Alternative A, no critical habitat occurs in the Harvest Land Base. 

x Under Alternatives B and Sub-alternative B, for disturbances in Low Intensity Timber Areas 

(moist forest) that kill at least 60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous areas of at least10 

acres, timber salvage would follow the management direction for regeneration harvest. For all 

other disturbances (in the moist and dry forest), timber salvage would remove all dead wood 

volume in excess of down wood and snag requirements. 

x Under Alternative C and Sub-alternative C, the BLM would implement timber salvage operations 

in Late-Successional Reserves to recover economic value and minimize commercial loss or the 

deterioration of damaged trees. In High Intensity Timber Areas timber salvage would remove all 

merchantable dead and down timber from disturbed areas (although areas probably would be 

clear cut to also remove live trees). In other portions of the Harvest Land Base, timber salvage 

would remove all merchantable dead wood volume in excess of down wood and snag 

requirements. 

x Under Alternative D, for disturbances that kill at least 60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous 

areas of at least 10 acres, timber salvage would remove all dead wood volume in excess of down 

wood and snag requirements. For other disturbances, timber salvage would occur only as needed 

to reduce hazards to public health and safety 

Therefore, in Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve, the No Action alternative and each of the 

action alternatives would manage areas modified by wildfire to “conserve and restore habitat elements 

that take a long time to develop, such as large trees, medium and large snags, and downed wood.”

However, when wildfire kills at least 60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous areas of at least 10 acres 

in Late-Successional Reserves, Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would allow the removal of all dead 

wood volume in excess of down wood and snag retention standards, which would be the minimum level 

needed “to conserve and restore habitat elements.”

In northern spotted owl critical habitat in the Harvest Land Base, the No Action alternative and 

Alternative B, Sub-alternative B, and Alternative D would allow salvage operations that meet down wood 

and snag retention standards, the minimum level needed “to conserve and restore habitat elements.”

Alternative A has no critical habitat in the Harvest Land Base. Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

814 | Page

allow the removal of all dead wood from burned areas in High Intensity Timber Areas, which would be 

inconsistent with the standard “to conserve and restore habitat elements.” 

Issue 8 

In accordance with Recovery Action 32, would the alternatives maintain and restore well-distributed, 

older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer forests on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area while allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration 

management actions? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The Revised Recovery Plan does not define “older and more structurally-complex multi-layered conifer 

forest” in terms of stand age, tree diameter, percent canopy cover or other forest stand structural variables 

that the BLM has for its administered lands. Therefore, the BLM quantified changes in the acres of 

habitat using two surrogate classifications: 

x Forest stands classified in the BLM structural stage classification as mature multiple canopy 

and structurally-complex 

x Habitat that northern spotted owls select most strongly for nesting, i.e., “strongly-selected-for”

habitat as defined in Appendix S-A

The definitions of the mature multiple canopy and structurally-complex forest in this analysis generally 

encompass the characteristics described in the Revised Recovery Plan for “older and more structurallycomplex multi-layered conifer forest” (see the Vegetation Modeling and Forest Management sections). 

However, the Revised Recovery Plan includes maintaining and restoring “older and more structurallycomplex multi-layered conifer forest” because of its value as northern spotted owl habitat. Therefore, the 

“strongly-selected-for” habitat presents another valid surrogate for “older and more structurally-complex 

multi-layered conifer forest.” In addition, structural stages and “strongly-selected-for” habitat are defined 

at different scales, and analysis at multiple scales provides a more robust analysis. 

The BLM defined structural stage at the stand scale in this analysis. As explained in Appendix S-A, the 

BLM defined the association between northern spotted owls and their habitat at a 500-acre (~ 200-ha) 

scale, the size of a core use area. As such, the strongly-selected-for classification reflects habitat value at 

that scale instead of at the scale of the individual forest stand. Stated another way, the strong association 

of northern spotted owls to certain forest stands, as reflected in the strongly-selected-for classification, is 

affected by habitat conditions within the stand and the surrounding 500 acres. Thus, the structural 

complexity of an individual forest stand could increase over time while, at the same time, the value of that 

stand for northern spotted owl occupancy could decline due to changes to nearby stands (e.g., from 

treatment or wildfire). In such a situation, evaluating stand structure would show a positive change 

whereas evaluating the value of the stand for northern spotted owl occupancy would show a negative 

change. Thus, the BLM used both classifications. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area currently support 406,400 acres of strongly-selected-for 

habitat and 862,400 acres of mature multiple canopy and structurally-complex forest. The No Timber 

Harvest Reference Analysis indicates that the forested landscape managed by the BLM is capable of 

supporting 630,600 acres of strongly-selected-for habitat (a 55-percent increase), and 1,136,700 acres of 

mature multiple canopy and structurally-complex (a 32-percent increase) in 50 years. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

815 | Page

Figure 3-205 shows the acres of strongly-selected-for habitat that would occur on BLM-administered 

lands during the next 50 years under each alternative. As described above, this analysis reflects habitat 

conditions at a 500-acre scale. This explains why, Sub-alternative C, which would reserve all forest stands 

80-years-old and older, would result in 592,100 acres of strongly-selected-for habitat in 50 years (a 46 

percent increase), which is less than the 630,600 acres calculated by the No Timber Harvest Reference 

Analysis. Even though Sub-alternative C would reserve all forest stands 80-years-old and older and 

thereby reserve nearly all structurally-complex stands, it also would prohibit restoration thinning in those 

stands that currently are 80 years and older that are not yet structurally-complex. In addition, the harvest 

of less than 80-year-old forest stands under Sub-alternative C not only would delay the development of 

structural complexity in those stands, but, more importantly, diminish the value of nearby, structurallycomplex stands for owl occupancy. 

Figure 3-205. Change, by alternative, in the acres of “strongly-selected-for” habitat on BLMadministered lands in western Oregon. 

The No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis is included for comparison. 

The value of restoration thinning is seen in the results for Sub-alternative B, and to a lesser extent 

Alternative B, which show the development of more strongly-selected-for habitat in 50 years than would 

occur according to the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. Both alternatives promote restoration 

thinning, which, in turn, promotes development of structural complexity and the value of adjacent stands 

for northern spotted owl occupancy. In 50 years, Sub-alternative B would generate 653,500 acres of 

strongly-selected-for habitat, a 61 percent increase, and Alternative B would generate 638,000 acres, a 57 

percent increase. Alternative D would result in 625,800 acres of strongly-selected-for habitat in 50 years, 

a 54 percent increase. Alternative C would result in the lowest increase in strongly-selected-for habitat 

over 50 years: 542,800 acres or a 34 percent increase. 

Figure 3-206 shows the acres of mature multiple canopy and structurally-complex forest that would occur 

on BLM-administered lands during the next 50 years under each alternative. The progressions are similar 

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

700,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

NSO "Strongly-selected" Habitat (Acres) 

Year 

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

816 | Page

to those shown in Figure 3-205 (i.e., more acres would develop under Sub-alternative B and alternatives 

B and D than under the other alternatives). Alternative D would result in a 32 percent increase in 

structurally-complex forest, exceeding that of the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis. Sub-alternative 

B would result in a 29 percent increase, followed by Alternative B (26 percent), and Alternative A and 

Sub-alternative C (23 percent each), Alternative C (12 percent) and the No Action alternative (11 

percent). 

Figure 3-206. Change, by alternative, in the acres of mature multiple-canopy and structurally-complex 

forest on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon. 

The No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis is included for comparison. 

Thus, under all alternatives, the BLM would maintain well-distributed, older and more structurallycomplex multi-layered conifer forests, but the alternatives differ substantively in the amounts and how the 

BLM would address restoration management actions. 

References 

Akcakaya, H. R. 2000. Population viability analyses with demographically and spatially structured models. Ecol. Bulletins 48:

23-38. http://www.ramas.com/PVA2.pdf. 

Anthony, R. G., E. D. Forsman, A. B. Franklin, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, C. J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J. E. 

Hines, G. S. Olson, S. H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B. L. Biswell, P. C. Carlson, L. V. Diller, K. M. Dugger, K. E. Fehring, T. L. 

Fleming, R. P. Gerhardt, S. A. Gremel, R. J. Gutiérrez, P. J. Happe, D. R. Herter, J. M. Higley, R. B. Horn, L. L. Irwin, P. J.

Loschl, J. A. Reid and S. G. Sovern. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Wildlife 

Monographs 163(1): 1-48.

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Cons. Biol. 9(4): 943-946. 

Bingham, B. B, and B. R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat “take”: Application to habitat conservation planning. Cons. Biol. 

11(1): 127-139. 

Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A. B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. 

Gutiérrez, J. M. Marzluff and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl.

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. September 2004. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/NSO%20SEI%20Scientific%20Status%20Review%202004.pdf. 

800,000

850,000

900,000

950,000

1,000,000

1,050,000

1,100,000

1,150,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Mature and Structurally-complex

BLM Forest (Acres)

Year

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

817 | Page

Davis, R. J., K. M. Dugger, S. Mohoric, L. Evers, and W. C. Aney. 2011. Status and trends of northern spotted owl populations 

and habitats. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-850. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 147 

pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr850.pdf.

Dugger, K. M., F. Wagner, R. G. Anthony and G. S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and 

demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. Condor 107(4): 863–878. 

Dugger, K. M., R. G. Anthony, and L. S. Andrews. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive competition: barred owls, spotted owls, 

habitats, and the demons of competition present. Ecol. Applications 21(7):2459-2468. 

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/10-2142.1. 

Dunk, J. R., D. W. LaPlante, K. A. Whittaker, J. B. Buchanan, L. Burnes, K. Halupka, A. Hayes, G. King, T. Melchiors, and E. 

Rybak. 2014. Draft final report: Identifying and evaluating opportunities for conservation of northern spotted owls on nonǦ

federal lands in Washington, U.S.A, dated May 30, 2014. A report presented to the Northern Spotted Owl Implementation 

Team by the Northern Spotted Owl Technical Team; unpublished. 57 pp. 

FEMAT. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem 

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993-793-071. Washington, DC: GPO. 

Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, J. A. Reid, P. J. Loschl, S. G. Sovern, M. Taylor, B. L. Biswell, A. Ellingson, E. C. Meslow, G.

S. Miller, K. A. Swindle, J. A. Thrailkill, F. F. Wagner, and D. E. Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern 

spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs 149: 1-35. 

Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, K. M. Dugger, E. M. Glenn, A. B. Franklin, G. C. White, C. J. Schwarz, K. P. Burnham, D. R. 

Anderson, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, J. B. Lint, R. J. Davis, S. H. Ackers, L. S. Andrews, B. L. Biswell, P. C. Carlson, L. V.

Diller, S. A. Gremel, D. R. Herter, J. M. Higley, R. B. Horn, J. A. Reid, J. Rockweit, J. Schaberl, T. J. Snetsinger, and S. G.

Sovern. 2011. Population demography of northern spotted owls: 1985–2008. Studies in Avian Biology, Cooper 

Ornithological Society. 106 pp. 

Franklin, A. B., D. R. Anderson, R. J. Guiérrez, and K. P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern 

spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecol. Mono. 70(4): 539-590. 

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~alanf/reprints/abf_ea00ecolmon.pdf. 

Heinrichs, J. A., D. J. Bender, D. L. Gummer, and N. H. Schumaker. 2010. Assessing critical habitat: Evaluating the relative 

contribution of habitats to population persistence. Biol. Cons. 143: 2229-2237. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320710002752. 

Irwin, L. L., D. Rock, and S. Rock. 2004. Adaptive management monitoring of spotted owls, 2004 annual progress report. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Vancouver, WA. 47 pp. 

Lamberson, R. H., B. R. Noon, C. Voss, and K. S. McKelvey. 1994. Reserve design for territorial species: the effects of patch 

size and spacing on the viability of the northern spotted owl. Conserv. Biol. 8(1): 185-195. 

Marcot, B. G., S. Morey, and P. R. Phifer. 2006. Summary of results: threats workshop, June 1-2, 2006. Unpublished report to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 18 pp. 

Marcot, B. G., M. G. Raphael, N. H. Schumaker, and B. Galleher. 2013. How big and how close? Habitat patch size and spacing 

to conserve a threatened species. Nat. Res. Modeling 22(2): 194-214. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-

7445.2012.00134.x/abstract. 

Meyer, J. S., L. L. Irwin, and M. S. Boyce. 1998. Influence of habitat abundance and fragmentation on northern spotted owls in 

western Oregon. Wildl. Mono. 139: 3-51. 

Olsen, G. S., E. Glenn, R. G. Anthony, E. D. Forsman, J. A. Reid, P. J. Loschl and W. J. Ripple. 2004. Modeling demographic 

performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 68(4): 1039-1053. 

Schumaker, N. H. 2011. HexSim (version 2.3). EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 

http://www.epa.gov/hexsim. 

Schumaker, N. H., A. Brookes, J. R. Dunk, B. Woodbridge, J. A. Heinrichs, J. Lawler, C. Carroll, and D. LaPlante. 2014. 

Mapping sources, sinks and connectivity using a simulation model of northern spotted owls. Landscape Ecology 29: 579-

592. 

Singleton, P. H. 2013. Barred owls and northern spotted owls in the Eastern Cascade Range, Washington. Unpublished 

dissertation. Univ. Washington. 198 pp. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/22911. 

Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The Endangered Species Act. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA. 296 pp. 

Swindle, K. A., W. J. Ripple, E. C. Meslow, and D. Schafer. 1999. Old-forest distribution around spotted owl nests in the central 

Cascade Mountains, Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 63(4): 1212-1220. 

http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub3116.pdf. 

Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the 

northern spotted owl. Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. U.S. 

Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. National Park Service, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Thrailkill, J. 2005. The USFWS 40% rule based on the current science on the northern spotted owl: An update. Unpublished 

manuscript. US FWS, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 9pp. 

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, and Standards and Guidelines for Management of 

Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

818 | Page

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. Forest Service, Region 6 and U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Portland, OR. 

USDI BLM. 2008a. Final environmental impact statement for the revision of the resource management plans of the western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management, vols. 1 and 2. BLM, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/. 

---. 2008b. BLM National Environmental Policy Act handbook H-1790-1. BLM Off. Assist. Dir., Renewable Resources and 

Planning (WO-200), Washington, DC 20240. 174 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.24487.Fil

e.dat/h1790-1-2008-1.pdf.

USDI FWS. 1992. Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 2 vols. 

---. 1994. Final biological opinion for the preferred alternative of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on 

Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

---. 2008. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. May 2008. 

---. 2011a. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, OR. 258 pp. http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf. 

---. 2011b. 5-year review, short form summary; northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Unpublished. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 5 pp. with 2 signature pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/documents/NSO5-YrReview-R8SignedCopy10-26-2011.pdf. 

---. 2012. Modeling and analysis procedures used to identify and evaluate potential critical habitat networks for the northern 

spotted owl, submitted to the Federal Register November 21, 2012. Unpublished manuscript 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/data/northernspottedowl/Documents/MODEL_SUPP_Dunk2012AppC.pdf. U.S 

Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 48 pp. 

---. 2013. Experimental removal of barred owls to benefit threatened northern spotted owls; final 

environmental impact statement. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 467 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/BarredOwl/Documents/Final_EIS.pdf. 

Van Lanen, N. J., A. B. Franklin, K. P. Huyvaert, R. F. Reiser II, and P. C. Carlson. 2011. Who hits and hoots at whom? Potential 

for interference competition between barred and northern spotted owls. Bio. Cons. 144(2011): 2194-2201. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320711002096. 

Wagner, F. F., and R. G. Anthony. 1999. Reanalysis of northern spotted owl habitat use on the Miller Mountain Study Area; 

Final Report for Step 1: Identification and evaluation of northern spotted owl habitat in managed forests. Oregon Coop. Fish 

and Wildlife Unit, Oregon St. University, Corvallis, OR. 

Wiens, J. D., R. G. Anthony and E. D. Forsman. 2014. Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern 

spotted owls and barred owls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 185: 1-50.

Zabel, C. J., J. R. Dunk, H. B. Stauffer, L. M. Roberts, B. S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern spotted owl habitat models

for research and management application in California. Ecol. Applic. 13(4): 1027-1040. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4134740.
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

819 | Page

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat 

Key Points 

x Under all alternatives, the BLM would manage northern spotted owl critical habitat in accordance 

with the “special management considerations or protections” mandated by the final rule on 

critical habitat. 

x BLM-administered lands in western Oregon currently support 1,561 known (including historic) 

northern spotted owl sites in critical habitat units, of which 75 percent meet Recovery Action 10 

habitat thresholds. Under the alternatives, the number of northern spotted owl sites in critical 

habitat meeting Recovery Action 10 thresholds would increase by 1 to 11 percent in 30 years, and 

3 to 14 percent in 50 years. 

x BLM-administered lands in western Oregon currently support 302,800 acres of structurallycomplex forest in critical habitat units. Under the alternatives, structurally-complex forest would 

increase in critical habitat by 21 to 37 percent in 30 years, and 29 to 50 percent in 50 years. 

Background 

Sec. 3(5)(A)(i) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), defines critical habitat as 

having “those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which 

may require special management considerations or protection.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its 

final rule on northern spotted owl critical habitat (77 FR 71908); hereafter referred to as the final rule), 

stated four “special management considerations or protections” (hereafter referred to as “considerations”) 

for critical habitat in the western Cascades and Coast Range of Oregon, and eight for the eastern Cascades 

of Oregon (77 FR 71908). These same considerations apply to the Klamath Basin of southwestern Oregon 

depending on site-specific moist and dry forest conditions (77 FR 71910). 

Oregon Western Cascades and Coast Range: 

“(1) Conserve older stands that contain the conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy or highvalue northern spotted owl habitat as described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32 (USDI FWS 2011, pp. III–

43, III–67). On Federal lands, this recommendation applies to all land-use allocations (see also Thomas et 

al. 2006, pp. 284-285). 

 (2) Management emphasis needs to be placed on meeting northern spotted owl recovery goals and longterm ecosystem restoration and conservation. When there is a conflict between these goals, actions that 

would disturb or remove the essential physical or biological features of northern spotted owl critical 

habitat need to be minimized and reconciled with long-term ecosystem restoration goals. 

 (3) Continue to manage for large, continuous [sic] blocks of late-successional forest. 

 (4) In areas that are not currently late seral forest or high-value habitat and where more traditional forest 

management might be conducted (e.g. matrix), these activities should consider applying ecological 

forestry prescriptions. Some examples that could be utilized include Franklin et al. (2002, pp. 417-421; 

2007, entire), Kerr (2012), Drever et al. (2006, entire), Johnson and Franklin (2009, pp. 39-41), Swanson 

et al. (2010, entire), and others cited in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 

FWS 2011, pp. III–14, III–17 to III–19).”

Oregon Eastern Cascades: 

“(1) Conserve older stands that contain the conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy or highvalue northern spotted owl habitat as described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32 (USDI FWS 2011, pp. III–
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

820 | Page

43, III–67). On Federal lands this recommendation applies to all land-use allocations (see also Thomas et 

al. 2006, pp. 284-285). 

(2) Emphasize vegetation management treatments outside of northern spotted owl territories or highly 

suitable habitat; 

(3) Design and implement restoration treatments at the landscape level; 

(4) Retain and restore key structural components, including large and old trees, large snags, and downed 

logs; 

(5) Retain and restore heterogeneity within stands; 

(6) Retain and restore heterogeneity among stands; 

(7) Manage roads to address fire risk; and 

(8) Consider vegetation management objectives when managing wildfires, where appropriate.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delineated the northern spotted owl range into sixty-one critical 

habitat subunits within eleven critical habitat units (77 FR 71918). Of these, thirty critical habitat 

subunits—within all or parts of seven critical habitat units—occur in the planning area. To evaluate the 

potential effects of a proposed project on northern spotted owl critical habitat, the Service evaluates the 

potential effects of the project on each of the pertinent considerations at three scales: the critical habitat 

subunit, the critical habitat unit, and all critical habitat (77 FR 71941). 

To evaluate the potential effects of each alternative on northern spotted owl critical habitat, the BLM 

developed spatial and tabular data, at these three scales, on how critical habitat would change over time 

under each alternative. In addition, as described below, the BLM evaluated the consistency of the 

alternatives with each of the considerations to the extent it could develop relevant data. 

Issue 1 

In accordance with Consideration (1) for the Oregon Western Cascades and Coast Range, and Oregon 

Eastern Cascades, would the alternatives conserve older stands of northern spotted owl critical habitat 

that contain the conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy or high-value northern spotted owl 

habitat as described in recovery actions 10 and 32? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM evaluated its potential contributions to “conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy 

as described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32” on all lands in the planning area in its evaluations of 

northern spotted owl Issues 1 through 4, 6, and 8. Although the evaluations of northern spotted owl issues 

1through 4 are not specific to northern spotted owl critical habitat, they are sufficient to address this 

consideration, because the Conservation Needs addressed by northern spotted owl Issues 1 through 4, 

themselves, are not specific to critical habitat. With respect to northern spotted owl Issues 6 and 8, which 

specifically address Recovery Actions 10 and 32, the BLM tabulated subsets, specific to critical habitat, 

of the data it developed for northern spotted owl Issues 6 and 8. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

Northern spotted owl Issue 6 contains background information on the evaluation of Recovery Action 10 

consistency in critical habitat. Currently, 1,561 known (including historic) northern spotted owl sites are 

associated with critical habitat on BLM-administered lands in the planning area (i.e., critical habitat 

occurs within the median provincial home range around these sites). Of these, 1,169 (75 percent) 

currently meet Recovery Action 10 habitat thresholds (i.e., have at least 50 percent nesting-roosting 

habitat within the 500-acre core use area and have at least 40 percent nesting-roosting habitat within the 

mean provincial home range area). According to the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis, the forested 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

821 | Page

landscape managed by the BLM is capable of supporting 1,298 (83 percent) of these sites at Recovery 

Action 10 thresholds in 30 years, and 1,327 (85 percent) in 50 years. The BLM is not able to support all 

known sites at or above thresholds because of site-potential conditions on some BLM-administered lands 

and land uses on adjacent ownerships that fall within core use areas or median provincial home ranges. 

Figure 3-207 shows changes, by alternative, in the number of northern spotted owl known sites in critical 

habitat that would be at or above Recovery Action 10 habitat thresholds. In 50 years, Sub-alternative B 

and Alternative D would support the greatest numbers of northern spotted owl known sites at or above 

thresholds, because both alternatives require the restoration and protection of nesting-roosting habitat 

around known sites in accordance with those thresholds. During this period, Sub-alternative B and 

Alternative D each would support 14 percent increases in the number of known sites at or above 

thresholds. Interestingly, at 50 years, both alternatives would support slightly more known sites at or 

above thresholds than estimated by the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis—1,331 for Subalternative B and 1,328 for Alternative D versus 1,327 according to the No Timber Harvest Analysis—

suggesting the benefit of restoration thinning under the action alternatives. Almost as beneficial would be 

Alternative B, which would manage northern spotted owl known sites in accordance with the underlying 

land use allocation, and does not require the restoration and protection of nesting-roosting habitat around 

those sites. Other than this, Alternative B is identical to Sub-alternative B. In 50 years, Alternative B 

would support 1,322 northern spotted owl known sites at or above Recovery Action 10 thresholds, a 13 

percent increase. Thus, the network of reserved lands under Alternative B would provide almost the same 

level of support to northern spotted known sites, in terms of Recovery Action 10 thresholds, as would the 

protection of all known sites. Alternative A, in which all critical habitat is included in Late-Successional 

Reserves, would be as beneficial as Alternative B, also supporting a 13 percent increase in the number of 

northern spotted owls at or above Recovery Action 10 thresholds in 50 years. The No Action alternative, 

Alternative C and Sub-alternative C would provide substantially less protection to northern spotted owl 

known sites in critical habitat. Alternative C and Sub-alternative C are identical except that Subalternative C requires the protection of all forest stands at least 80-years-old. After 50 years, the No 

Action alternative would support 1,288 northern spotted owl known sites at or above Recovery Action 10 

thresholds, a 10 percent increase, whereas Alternative C would support 1,208 sites at or above thresholds, 

a 3 percent increase, and Sub-alternative C would support 1,270 known sites at or above thresholds, a 9 

percent increase. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

822 | Page

Figure 3-207. Number of northern spotted owl known sites in critical habitat on BLM-administered lands 

that would be at or above Recovery Action 10 habitat thresholds under each alternative during each 

decade. 

Potential change according to the No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis is included for comparison. 

Please see Northern Spotted Owl Issue 8 for background information on the evaluation of Recovery 

Action 32 consistency in critical habitat. Currently, BLM-administered lands in the planning area in 

critical habitat, support 302,800 acres of strongly-selected-for habitat. According to the No Timber 

Harvest Reference Analysis, these lands are capable of supporting 397,500 acres of strongly-selected-for 

habitat in 30 years and 429,400 acres in 50 years, which correspond to increases of 31 and 42 percent, 

respectively. 

Figure 3-208 shows changes in the acres of strongly-selected-for habitat, in critical habitat, on BLMadministered lands in western Oregon under each alternative. The results are similar to those for all BLMadministered lands, as discussed under Northern Spotted Owl Issue 8, and for the same reasons. Subalternative B and Alternative B would show the greatest increases in strongly-selected-for habitat, to 

454,500 acres and 448,400 acres, corresponding to increases of 50 percent and 48 percent, respectively. 

These are followed by Alternatives D and A, which would show increases to 437,200 acres and 430,000 

acres, which correspond to increases of 44 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Each of these alternatives 

would show a greater increase in strongly-selected-for habitat than estimated by the No Timber Harvest 

Reference Analysis, which illustrates the value of restoration thinning. Under Sub-alternative C, the 

development of strongly-selected-for habitat would lag behind that estimated by the No Timber Harvest 

Reference Analysis, even though Sub-alternative C requires the protection of all forest stands 80-yearsold and older, which includes all strongly-selected-for habitat. The reason for this is described under 

Northern Spotted Owl Issue 8. Finally, Alternative C and the No Action alternative would support the 

1,150

1,200

1,250

1,300

1,350

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Known NSO Sites in Critical Habitat

Year

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

823 | Page

least amounts of strongly-selected-for habitat in critical habitat in 50 years, just over 392,000 acres each, 

or less than 30 percent increases. 

Figure 3-208. Change, by alternative, in the acres of “strongly-selected-for” habitat in critical habitat on 

BLM-administered lands in western Oregon. 

The No Timber Harvest Reference Analysis is shown for comparison. 

As verified by these analyses and those that address northern spotted owl Issues 1through 4, under all 

alternatives, the BLM would conserve older stands of northern spotted owl critical habitat that contain the 

conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy or high-value northern spotted owl habitat as 

described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32. However, the level of conservation would vary substantially by 

alternative. 

Issue 2 

In accordance with Consideration (2) for the western Cascades, Coast Range and moist-forest portions of 

the Klamath Basin, would the alternatives manage northern spotted owl critical habitat to meet northern 

spotted owl recovery goals and long-term ecosystem restoration and conservation? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM evaluated its potential contributions to “northern spotted owl recovery goals and long-term 

ecosystem restoration and conservation” on all lands in western Oregon during its evaluations of northern 

spotted owl Issues 1 through 4. Although those evaluations are not specific to northern spotted owl 

critical habitat, the evaluations of BLM contributions to a landscape in the planning area that meets the 

conservation needs of the northern spotted owl also evaluate if the BLM would manage critical habitat 

within that landscape to emphasize “northern spotted owl recovery goals and long-term ecosystem 

restoration and conservation.” Therefore, the BLM needs no additional analysis to address this issue. 

300,000

320,000

340,000

360,000

380,000

400,000

420,000

440,000

460,000

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

"Strongly-selected-for" NSO Habitat 

in Critical Habitat (Acres) 

Year 

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

824 | Page

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

As evidenced by the evaluations of northern spotted owl Issues 1, 2, and 4, under all alternatives, the 

BLM would manage its lands, including those in critical habitat, in a manner that contributes to a 

landscape in the planning area that meets northern spotted owl recovery goals and long-term ecosystem 

restoration and conservation. That said, current habitat conditions in the northern half of the Oregon Coast 

Range Physiographic Province, along with limited BLM-administered land in that area, preclude the 

BLM from contributing to a landscape in that area that meets the conservation needs of the northern 

spotted owl. In addition, as describe under northern spotted owl Issue 4, during the next 50 years, the 

BLM, through the management of its lands in planning area, is incapable of moderating risks to northern 

spotted owl populations in portions of the planning area. 

Issue 3 

In accordance with Consideration (3) for the western Cascades, Coast Range and moist-forest portions of 

the Klamath Basin, would the alternatives manage northern spotted owl critical habitat for large, 

contiguous blocks of late-successional forest? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM evaluated its potential contributions to “large, contiguous blocks of late-successional forest” on

all lands in the planning area during its evaluation of northern spotted owl Issue 1. Although this 

evaluation is not specific to northern spotted owl critical habitat, due to land ownership patterns, large 

blocks do not form or function on BLM-administered lands in the planning area in isolation from lands 

outside of northern spotted owl critical habitat, making the Issue 1 analysis relevant to this consideration. 

Therefore, the BLM needs no additional analysis to address this issue. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

As described under northern spotted owl Issue 1, BLM-administered lands in the planning area, including 

those in critical habitat units, currently contribute to a western Oregon landscape that supports large 

blocks of contiguous late-successional forest (i.e., nesting–roosting habitat) in all areas except the 

northern half of the Oregon Coast Range Physiographic Province. In addition, under all alternatives, 

during the next 50 years, the BLM would continue to contribute to the support and expansion of these 

large habitat blocks. That said, current habitat conditions in the northern half of the Oregon Coast Range 

Physiographic Province, along with limited BLM-administered land in that area, preclude the BLM from 

contributing to a landscape that supports large blocks of late-successional forest in that area at any time 

during the next 50 years. 

Issue Considered, but not Analyzed in Detail 

In accordance with Consideration (4) for the western Cascades, Coast Range and moist-forest portions of 

the Klamath Basin, and in areas that are not currently late seral forest or high-value habitat, and where 

more traditional forest management might be conducted, would the alternatives apply ecological forestry 

prescriptions to northern spotted owl critical habitat? 

The term, “ecological forestry” is interpreted broadly, as verified by the scientific publications cited by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its final rule, 

acknowledged the site-specific nature of applying ecological forestry: “Specifically prescribing such 

management is beyond the scope or purpose of this document, and should instead be developed by the 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

825 | Page

appropriate land management agency at the appropriate land management scale (e.g., National Forest or 

Bureau of Land Management District)... through the land managing agencies’ planning processes and 

with technical assistance from the Service, as appropriate” (77 FR 71881). 

The BLM concurs that some applications of ecological forestry depend on site-specific conditions and 

treatment design; i.e., they are too site-specific or fine-scale for collective evaluation during development 

of a RMP. In addition, the BLM cannot meaningfully evaluate some components of ecological forestry—

such as increasing the amount of forest edge and creating stands that mimic early-seral forest—because 

there are no scientifically-credible or consensus thresholds against which it could evaluate the 

alternatives. Finally, the final rule provides no descriptive or quantitative link between “ecological 

forestry” practices and “those physical and biological features” that are both essential to northern spotted 

owl conservation and can be evaluated across the planning area. 

The BLM interprets “should consider applying” to mean that this consideration is advisory as opposed to 

one that might cause the BLM to reject an alternative due to an ESA Sec. 9 prohibition. 

The BLM determined that its evaluations of northern spotted owl Issues 1 through 4 are more relevant to 

the question of northern spotted owl conservation, than a separate analysis of the means it would use 

(specific ecological forestry prescriptions) to foster conservation. Nor would a separate analysis generate 

results that would help the BLM evaluate its planning alternatives. Therefore, the BLM determined that 

this issue requires no additional analysis. 

Issue Considered, but not Analyzed in Detail 

In accordance with Consideration (2) for the Eastern Cascades and dry-forest portion of the Klamath 

Basin, would the alternatives emphasize vegetation management treatments in northern spotted owl 

critical habitat that is outside of northern spotted owl territories and highly suitable habitat? 

Although this consideration is confined to critical habitat in a portion of the planning area, it advocates 

locating timber harvest units so as to avoid the northern spotted owl habitat addressed by Recovery 

Actions 10 and 32 of the Revised Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 2011). As such, the BLM evaluated this 

consideration under Issue 1, above. Therefore, the BLM determined that this issue requires no additional 

analysis. 

Issue Considered, but not Analyzed in Detail 

In accordance with Considerations (3) – ( 8) for the Eastern Cascades and dry-forest portion of the 

Klamath Basin, would the BLM, in critical habitat, design and implement restoration treatments at the 

landscape level, retain and restore key structural components, including large and old trees, large snags, 

and downed logs, retain and restore heterogeneity within stands, retain and restore heterogeneity among 

stands, manage roads to address fire risk, and consider vegetation management objectives when managing 

wildfires, where appropriate? 

Resource management plans provide management direction to achieve long-term goals over relatively 

broad areas but typically defer site-specific (e.g., forest stand management) and landscape-level (e.g., 

HUC 10 watershed-scale activity plan) decision-making to subsequent implementation actions. For this 

reason, the alternatives either do not address these considerations or address them indirectly. That said, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its narrative on the considerations in its final rule, stated: “Land 

managers should change from the practice of implementing many small, uncoordinated and independent 

fuel-reduction and restoration treatments. Instead, coordinated and strategic efforts that link individual 

projects to the larger objectives of restoring landscapes while conserving and recovering northern spotted 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

826 | Page

owl habitat are needed” (77 FR 71910). As such, the BLM determined that its evaluations of northern 

spotted owl Issues 1 through 4, 6, and 8, are directly pertinent to demonstrating, and sufficient to 

demonstrate, the emphasis of each alternative on conserving and recovering the northern spotted owl. 

Therefore, the BLM determined that this issue requires no additional analysis. 

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. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Oregon Silverspot Butterfly

827 | Page

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly 

Key Points 

x All action alternatives would increase the potential for habitat loss for Oregon silverspot 

butterflies compared to the No Action alternative due to increased access for off-highway 

vehicles. 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and designated critical habitat on July 2, 1980 (45 

FR 44935). Habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly includes three types of grasslands: salt-spray 

meadows on coastal headlands, stabilized dunes, and coastal mountain meadows. Early blue violets or 

other species of Viola are an obligate food source. Violet abundance sufficient to support populations of 

Oregon silverspot butterfly occurs only in open grassland conditions; groups of violets in small forest 

clearings are inadequate to support the butterflies (USFWS 2001, 2014) The Oregon silverspot butterfly is 

known or suspected to occur in five counties in Oregon including Clatsop, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, and 

Yamhill (USFWS 2014). There no observations of this species on BLM-administered lands (GeoBOB 

2013). 

Threats to the Oregon silverspot butterfly include habitat loss due to commercial or residential 

development, off-highway vehicle use, excessive livestock grazing, fire suppression, and ecological 

succession (USFWS 2013, 2001). In the absence of disturbance, open coastal grasslands favorable for 

abundant violets will develop into shrub land or forest lands through ecological succession and become 

unsuitable for Oregon silverspot butterflies. Historically, wind erosion, wildfires, fires set by native 

Americans, and grazing by wildlife maintained habitat for the silverspot butterflies. 

Critical habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly is located on 438 acres administered by the Siuslaw 

National Forest (USFWS 2001). There is no designated critical habitat for this species on BLMadministered lands. Therefore, the BLM will not analyze effects to critical habitat for this species further. 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis , the BLM considered habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly to be coastal 

grasslands/dunes identified in the 2012 GNN as either “California northern coastal grassland,”

“Mediterranean California northern coastal dune,” or “north Pacific maritime coastal sand dune and 

strand” ecological systems within Clatsop, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, and Yamhill counties. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There are 19,302 acres of potential coastal grassland/dunes habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly in 

the planning area, of which, 167 acres occur on BLM-administered lands. The BLM does not have sitespecific data on habitat conditions of those 167 acres, nor does the BLM know if they are actually 

providing habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Oregon Silverspot Butterfly

828 | Page

Under the No Action alternative, all 167 acres of potential habitat would be designated as closed to 

OHVs. Under the action alternatives, 55 percent of potential Oregon silverspot butterfly habitat would be 

closed to OHVs, and 45 percent would be designated as limited to designated roads and trails with 

possible timing or vehicle restrictions. Alternatives C and D would have 75 acres of habitat designated as

limited and Alternatives A and B would have 76 acres limited. Therefore, the action alternatives would 

increase the potential for habitat loss due to OHVs, since the designation on 55 percent of habitat would 

change from closed to limited. 

References 

GeoBOB. 2013. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot – 6 March 2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR. 

USDI FWS. 2001. Revised Recovery Plan for the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta). Portland, OR. 121 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/silverspot/default.htm. 

---. 2013. Species Fact Sheet: Oregon silverspot butterfly. Last updated: 2 December 2013. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/OregonSilverspotButterfly/. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Oregon Spotted Frog

829 | Page

Oregon Spotted Frog 

Key Points 

x There would be little discernable difference among the alternatives with regards to impacts from 

livestock grazing (less than 1 percent of habitat under Alternatives A, B, C, and No Action) on 

Oregon spotted frog habitat. 

x All alternatives would control invasive species infestations (reed canary grass) and avoid 

development in wetlands that would lead to Oregon spotted frog habitat loss. 

Background 

The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) has been lost from 48 of the 61 localities in which it historically 

occurred, and the species may no longer occur in 76 to 90 percent of its historical range (78 FR 53588). It 

is currently found in five sub-basins within the planning area: McKenzie River, Middle Fork Willamette, 

Upper Klamath, Upper Klamath Lake, and Williamson River sub-basins. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service proposed to list the Oregon spotted frog as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act 

on August 29, 2013. 

Oregon spotted frog habitat includes perennial bodies of warm water such as ponds, reservoirs, wetlands, 

and irrigation canals. They inhabit wetland sites from 2.5 acres in size up to 4,915 acres, although sites 

greater than 9 acres in size may be necessary to support stable, local. Spotted frogs lay their eggs in 

wetland areas with low amounts of herbaceous cover, but rarely at bare or rocky sites (USDI FWS 2011). 

Threats to Oregon spotted frogs include loss of wetland habitat due to human development or conversion 

to agriculture, livestock grazing, and introduction of nonnative plant and animal species. Heavy livestock 

grazing can consume and trample riparian vegetation, compact soil in riparian and upland areas, and 

introduce urine and feces to water sources. The resulting increases in temperature, sediment production, 

and changes in water quality can negatively affect Oregon spotted frog habitat. Infestations of invasive 

reed canary grass create dense areas of vegetation that would be unsuitable for spotted frog egg-laying 

and reduce the biological and structural diversity. Removal or reduction of reed canary grass can improve 

the quality of the breeding habitat for spotted frogs. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also proposed to designate critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog 

on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53538). 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the Oregon spotted frog would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for the Oregon spotted frog to be wetlands at least 2.5 acres 

in size within the five sub-basins in which the species currently occurs. The BLM considered wetlands at 

least 9 acres in size to be large enough to provide habitat for stable, persistent populations of Oregon 

spotted frog. Therefore, the BLM characterized wetlands at least 2.5 acres but less than 9 acres in size as 

small habitat patches, and wetlands at least 9 acres in size as large habitat patches. 

Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified livestock grazing as a threat, the BLM tabulated how 

much spotted frog habitat in the decision area was coincident with BLM-administered grazing allotments. 

BLM consulted the riparian portions of the rangeland health assessments (L. Crumley, BLM, personal 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Oregon Spotted Frog

830 | Page

communication, 2014) to determine if grazing management in those particular allotments would be 

contributing adverse effects to spotted frog habitat. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

The BLM has documented Oregon spotted frogs in the Klamath Falls Field Office (GeoBOB 2013). 

There are 155,332 acres of Oregon spotted frog habitat within the planning area, and 96 percent of that 

habitat occurs in large habitat patches (Table 3-271). There are 508 acres of habitat on BLMadministered lands, and 67 percent of that habitat occurs in large habitat patches. The remaining 154,824 

acres of habitat in the planning area occurs on lands managed by the private landowners (52 percent), 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (36 percent), Forest Service (10 percent), the Bureau of Reclamation (1 

percent), and other landowners (1 percent). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expects that habitat losses 

are expected to continue on private lands but at much lower rates than in the past because of Federal and 

State regulations that pertain to wetlands (USDI FWS 2011). 

Table 3-271. Oregon spotted frog habitat in the decision and planning areas.

Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat Decision Area (Acres) Planning Area (Acres)

Small Habitat Patches 168 5,516

Large Habitat Patches 340 149,816

Totals 508 155,332

The BLM would not alter wetland habitat for the Oregon spotted frog through development or conversion 

to agriculture under any alternative. Similarly among all alternatives, the BLM would strive to prevent the 

introduction and spread of invasive species on BLM-administered lands. Similarly under all alternatives, 

the BLM would control invasive species infestations which would benefit spotted frogs and their habitat, 

through the removal of reed canary grass. 

There are 407 acres of spotted frog habitat (69 percent in large habitat patches) within nine grazing 

allotments in the decision area. Of these nine grazing allotments, the BLM identified only one allotment 

(Dixie; #00107) as not meeting the rangeland health standards where livestock grazing is a contributing 

factor (Appendix K). Under all alternatives, including the No Action alternative, the BLM must 

implement management to ensure that progress is being made toward attainment of the standards as soon 

as is practical but no later than the start of the next grazing season (43 CFR 4180). There are three acres 

of spotted frog habitat within the Dixie grazing allotment. Under Alternative D, the BLM would eliminate 

livestock grazing. Under Alternatives A, B, and C, the BLM would reduce the acreage available for 

grazing by 27 percent (from 495,190 acres to 359,049 acres), but the acreage in allotments that is actively 

grazed would not change substantially. In 2013, there were 354,633 acres of allotments actively grazed, 

and the BLM expects this approximate level of grazing would continue under Alternatives A, B, and C 

and is roughly the same level of active grazing currently under the No Action alternative (L. Crumley, 

BLM, personal communication, 2014). Therefore, the impacts from livestock grazing on spotted frog 

habitat in the decision area are limited to three acres of habitat (less than one percent of habitat in the 

decision area) under all alternatives. There would be no discernable difference in impacts from grazing on 

the three acres of habitat under all alternatives, and these impacts would not persist beyond the next 

grazing season. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog on 16,715 

acres in the planning area, eight acres of which occurs in the decision area on BLM-administered lands in 

the Klamath Falls Field Office. The three acres of habitat impacted by grazing in the Dixie allotment are 

not within proposed critical habitat. Therefore, there are no discernable differences among the alternatives 

in the effects on proposed spotted frog critical habitat. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Oregon Spotted Frog

831 | Page

Overall, there would be little discernable difference among the alternatives concerning impacts from 

livestock grazing (less than one percent of habitat under Alternatives A, B, C, and the No Action) on 

Oregon spotted frog habitat. All alternatives would control invasive species infestations (reed canary 

grass) and avoid development in wetlands that would lead to spotted frog habitat loss. 

References 

Crumley, L. 2014 (pers. com.). December 14, 2014 e-mail re: acres of vacant allotments. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, Lakeview, OR. 

GeoBOB. 2013. BLM OR RWO GeoBOB Publication Fauna Observations Version 3 Point. Data snapshot – 6 March 2013. 

USDI BLM, Portland, OR. 

USDI FWS. 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Oregon spotted frog 

(Rana pretiosa). 5 May 2011. USFWS, Region 1 (Pacific Region). Portland, OR. 60 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/cp-fws-candidate-ha-rana-pretiosa-2011-05.pdf. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp

832 | Page

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp 

Key Points 

x Under all action alternatives, the increase in recreation would have negative effects on vernal 

pool fairy shrimp habitat through trampling or additional trail development and maintenance. 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 48136). At time of 

its listing, the species was known to occur only in California (USDI FWS 2014). In 1998, additional 

populations were discovered in vernal pools in Jackson County, Oregon, in the Table Rocks area north of 

Medford. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 5,153 acres of critical habitat for the vernal pool 

fairy shrimp in 2003 (68 FR 46684); 422 acres is on BLM-administered lands. The BLM manages vernal 

pool fairy shrimp populations in the Table Rocks area of the Medford District. 

Historically, there were 32,000 acres of vernal pool habitat in southern Oregon (USDI FWS 2005), but 

over 40 percent has been degraded. Threats to vernal pool habitat in Oregon include commercial and 

industrial development, agricultural conversion, and utility construction/expansion. Specific threats to the 

vernal pool habitat on BLM-administered lands in the Table Rocks area include trampling in the wet areas 

near pools from recreation and potential change in subsurface or surface flow runoff patterns due to trail 

construction or trail improvement. 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp to be vernal pools as 

identified in the 2012 GNN as “northern California claypan vernal pool” ecological systems. Given that 

trampling due to recreation is a threat to habitat on BLM-administered lands, the BLM assumed that 

changes in OHV use and recreational designations that would increase recreational activities in habitat 

would have negative effects on that habitat. 

The BLM assumed that vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat in areas designated as open or limited for OHV

use, would result in adverse effects to that habitat, and that habitat in areas designated as closed to OHV

use would be maintained. 

Under the action alternatives, the BLM assumed that habitat within designated SRMAs would adversely 

affect vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat, because recreation would predominate over other resource 

concerns. The adverse effects to habitat in SRMAs would result from trampling or additional trail 

development and maintenance that would be allowed in the SRMA. The BLM assumed that designation 

of habitat within ERMAs would not affect habitat adversely, because recreation management would be 

done in the context of other resource concerns. 

Under the No Action alternative, SRMAs were established where BLM-administered lands were 

experiencing heavy recreation use or where BLM planned on making large investments in staff, funding, 

facilities, or time. All remaining BLM-administered lands were an ERMA under the No Action 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp

833 | Page

alternative. Management direction does not differ between SRMAs and ERMAs under the No Action 

alternative. For this analysis, the BLM assumed that SRMAs under the No Action alternative were 

existing recreation sites or facilities. The BLM assumed that inclusion of habitat within either SRMAs or 

ERMAs would not affect habitat under the No Action alternative, because recreation management would 

be done in the context of other resource concerns. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are 7,668 acres of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat within the planning area, of which 307 acres 

occur on BLM-administered lands. Under the No Action alternative, 95 percent of the habitat and all 

critical habitat would be closed to OHVs. Alternatives A and B would increase recreation within vernal 

pool fairy shrimp habitat by changing the designation for OHV use to limited on 93 to 100 percent of 

habitat and critical habitat (Table 3-272). Under Alternatives C and D, OHV designations within habitat 

and critical habitat would not change, and therefore effects from OHVs on vernal pool fairy shrimp 

habitat would be similar to the No Action alternative. 

Table 3-272. Vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat within OHV designations and Recreation Management 

Areas.

Alternative Habitat 

(Acres) 

Habitat (Acres) 

Critical 

Habitat 

(Acres) 

Critical Habitat (Acres) 

OHV Designation 

Recreation 

Management 

Area 

OHV Designation Recreation 

Management Area 

Closed Limited SRMA ERMA Closed Limited SRMA ERMA 

No Action 

307 

293 14 - 307 

422 

422 - - 422 

Alt. A - 307 - - - 422 - - 

Alt. B 24 283 - 24 28 394 - 28 

Alt. C 293 14 293 - 422 - 422 - 

Alt. D 293 14 293 14 422 - 422 - 

Under Alternatives C and D, 95 percent of the habitat and all critical habitat would be included in a 

SRMA where recreation management would predominate. Under Alternative B, 8 percent of the habitat 

and 7 percent of the critical habitat would be included in an ERMA where recreation management would 

be done in the context of other resource concerns. Therefore, the BLM concludes that habitat within an 

ERMA is unlikely to impacted by the RMA designation, since habitat concerns would be considered 

during recreation management. 

Overall, the action alternatives would increase recreational opportunities in vernal pool fairy shrimp 

habitat through either changes in OHV designations or Recreational Management Area designations. The 

increase in recreation would have additional negative effects on habitat through trampling or additional 

trail development and maintenance. Alternatives C and D would have the greatest impact on habitat since 

recreation would be the predominant use and conservation of vernal pool fairy shrimp would be 

secondary concerns. Under the No Action alternative, current impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat 

(trampling near pools from recreation) would continue. 

References 

USDI FWS. 2005. Recovery plan for vernal pool ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. USFWS, Region 1. Portland, 

OR. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/060614.pdf. 

---. 2014. Species fact sheet: vernal pool fairy shrimp. Last updated: 28 April 2014. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/VernalPoolFairyShrimp/. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Western Snowy Plover

834 | Page

Western Snowy Plover 

Key Points 

x The action alternatives would increase recreational opportunities in snowy plover habitat through 

changes in OHV designations, which would have negative effects on plover habitat through 

additional trail development. 

Background 

Historically, western snowy plovers (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) nested in at least 29 locations on the 

Oregon coast (USFWS 2013). Currently, only nine locations in Oregon support nesting western snowy 

plovers (Lauten et al. 2013) and two of those areas are on BLM-administered lands (i.e., Coos Bay North 

Spit and New River). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Pacific Coast distinct population 

segment of the western snowy plover as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on March 

5, 1993 (58 FR 12864). 

Nesting habitat for the Pacific Coast distinct population segment of the western snowy plover includes 

coastal beaches comprised of unconsolidated sand with sparse vegetation, from southern Washington to 

southern Baja California. Threats to snowy plovers include recreational activities (including pedestrians 

and unleashed pets) near nesting habitat, habitat loss from the encroachment of European beach grass, and 

predation, particularly from avian predators. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated revised critical habitat for the Pacific Coast distinct 

population segment of the western snowy plover on June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36728). The primary 

constituent elements of designated critical habitat for the snowy plover include sandy beaches, dune 

systems immediately inland of an active beach face, salt flats, mud flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, 

artificial salt ponds and adjoining levees, and dredge spoil sites, with—

x Areas that are below heavily vegetated areas or developed areas and above the daily high tides; 

x Shoreline habitat areas for feeding, with no or very sparse vegetation, that are between the annual 

low tide or low-water flow and annual high tide or high-water flow, subject to inundation but not 

constantly under water, that support small invertebrates, such as crabs, worms, flies, beetles, 

spiders, sand hoppers, clams, and ostracods, that are essential food sources; 

x Surf- or water-deposited organic debris, such as seaweed (including kelp and eelgrass) or 

driftwood located on open substrates that supports and attracts small invertebrates above for food, 

and provides cover or shelter from predators and weather, and assists in avoidance of detection 

(crypsis) for nests, chicks, and incubating adults; and 

x Minimal disturbance from the presence of humans, pets, vehicles, or human-attracted predators, 

which provide relatively undisturbed areas for individual and population growth and for normal 

behavior. 

In the Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service establishes recovery goals to maintain 250 breeding adults along the Oregon and 

Washington coast for a 10-year period and a ratio of at least 1.0 fledgling per male for the 5-year period 

prior to delisting (USDI FWS 2007). 

Overall, the population of snowy plovers has been increasing since their time of listing in 1993 (Table 3-

273). Following the 2103 nesting season, the 10-year average for the number of breeding adults is 211 to 

216 adults. The number of breeding adults along the Oregon coast has increased between 1993 (55 to 61 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wildlife – Western Snowy Plover

835 | Page

adults) and 2013 (190 to 191 adults) (Lauten et al. 2013) but is currently below the recovery goal of 250 

breeding adults. Lauten et al. (2013) suggest that the number of resident plovers is a better index of plover 

breeding than the number of breeding adults, given the difficulties in positively identifying breeding 

adults. Based on the number of resident plovers, the population in 2013 has met the recovery goal of 250 

breeding adults, if this population can be sustained for nine more years. 

Table 3-273. Designated critical habitat for the Pacific Coast distinct population segment of the western 

snowy plover. 

Unit 

Number Unit Name 

Planning Area 

Critical Habitat 

(Acres) 

Decision Area 

Critical Habitat 

(Acres) 

OR 2 Necanicum River Spit 11 - 

OR 4 Bayocean Spit 201 - 

OR 6 Sand Lake South 5 - 

OR 7 Sutton/Baker Beaches 276 - 

OR 8a Siltcoos Breach 15 - 

OR 8b Siltcoos River Spit 116 - 

OR 8c Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit 383 - 

OR 8d North Umpqua River Spit 59 - 

OR 9 Tenmile Creek Spit 223 - 

OR 10 Coos Bay North Spit 273 101 

OR 11 Bandon to New River 541 282 

OR 12 Elk River Spit 167 - 

OR 13 Euchre Creek 9 - 

Totals 2,279 383 

The 5-year average for the number of fledglings per male is 1.153 following the 2013 nesting season, 

which meets the recovery goal of 1.0 fledglings per male (USDI FWS 2007), if it can be sustained while 

the other goals are attained. 

The main cause of nest failure for snowy plovers along the Oregon coast in 2013 was predation by avian 

predators, particularly corvids (Lauten et al. 2013, p. 9). Resprouting and growth of European beachgrass 

continues to degrade nesting habitat. 

Issue 1 

What levels of habitat for the Pacific Coast distinct population segment of the Western snowy plover 

would be available under each alternative? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

In this analysis, the BLM considered the Habitat Restoration Areas, as mapped by the Coos Bay District, 

to represent current habitat for the snowy plover. BLM maintains breeding and wintering habitat in the 

Habitat Restoration Areas by periodically plowing encroaching beach grass (80 acres in 2012) or 

augmenting nesting habitat by scattering oyster shells to attract plover nesting (USDI BLM 2012 Coos 

Bay District APS, p. 14). In this analysis, the BLM assumed that these Habitat Restoration Areas are 

representative of current plover habitat, based on discussion with Coos Bay District staff (K. Palermo, 

BLM, personal communication 2014, and S. Fowler, BLM, personal communication, July 2014). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wildlife – Western Snowy Plover

836 | Page

Given that disturbance due to recreational activities is a threat to nesting plovers, the BLM assumed that 

changes in OHV use and RMA designations that would increase activities in snowy plover habitat, would 

affect plover habitat. 

The BLM assumed that habitat in areas designated as open or limited for OHV use would result in 

adverse effects to snowy plover habitat, and that habitat in areas designated as closed to OHV use would 

avoid adverse effects to habitat. 

Under the action alternatives, the BLM assumed that designation of habitat within SRMAs would 

adversely affect snowy plover habitat, because recreation management would predominate over other 

resource concerns (the Recreation section contains more information). The adverse effects to habitat in 

SRMAs would result from trampling or additional trail development and maintenance that would be 

allowed in the SRMA. The BLM assumed that habitat within designated ERMAs would not adversely 

affect habitat, because recreation management would be done within the context of other resource 

concerns. 

Under the No Action alternative, SRMAs were established where BLM-administered lands were 

experiencing heavy recreation use or where the BLM planned on making large investments in staff, 

funding, facilities, or time. All remaining BLM-administered lands were an ERMA under the No Action 

alternative. Management direction does not differ between SRMAs and ERMAs under the No Action 

alternative. For this analysis, the BLM assumed that SRMAs under the No Action alternative were 

existing recreation sites or facilities. The BLM assumed that inclusion of habitat within either SRMAs or 

ERMAs would not affect habitat under the No Action alternative, because recreation management would 

be done in the context of other resource concerns. 

The BLM did not quantify changes in plover population numbers, because other factors beyond BLM’s

control influence the population, such as predation by avian predators. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

There are currently 334 acres of snowy plover habitat in the planning area; 230 acres are in the decision 

area on the Coos Bay District. The remaining 104 acres of plover habitat are located on lands managed by 

the Army Corps of Engineers on the Coos Bay North Spit adjacent to BLM-administered habitat. The 

BLM assumed in this analysis that habitat conditions and trends on the Coos Bay North Spit are 

comparable between lands administered by the BLM and Army Corps of Engineers. 

There are 2,279 acres of designated critical habitat for the snowy plover in the planning area (Table 3-

274). There are 383 acres of critical habitat in the decision area, all in the Coos Bay District. 





Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild Horses

842 | Page

Wild Horses 

Key Points 

x The Pokegama herd is currently within the appropriate management level of 30 to 50 horses. 

x The Pokegama herd relies primarily on private land within the Herd Management Area. 

x Alternative D, which would eliminate livestock grazing, would reduce competition for forage and 

provide the potential for increased growth of the Pokegama herd. Otherwise, the alternatives 

would not differ in their effects on the Pokegama herd. 

Background 

The Pokegama Herd Management Area (HMA) is the only HMA within the planning area. It 

encompasses a total of 85,022 acres in Oregon and California and includes private, state, and Federal 

lands. About 83 percent of the HMA (70,550 acres) is within the planning area, and about 23 percent of 

the HMA is on BLM-administered lands managed by the Klamath Falls Field Office. The remainder of 

the HMA within the planning area is on private land. Most of the California portion of the HMA (95 

percent, or 13,016 acres) is located on private and state land; only 5 percent is located on BLMadministered lands (outside of the planning area). 

The Pokegama herd primarily occupies the private land within the HMA. Private landowners allow wild 

horses on their lands, if the herd size is maintained within the established appropriate management level, 

and that the horses do not range outside the HMA. 

The Pokegama herd spends 94 percent of its time in meadows, open areas, and in tree cover on the edge 

of meadows (Gottlieb 1993). During the spring and summer, the horses are generally in the northern and 

central portions of the HMA. Due to the typically high winter snow accumulations in the northern and 

central portions of the HMA, the horses concentrate in the southern portion (California) from December 

through March, although they can be found there at any time of the year. 

The diet of the Pokegama herd is predominantly grasses and grass-like species. Their primary water 

sources include creeks, springs, and reservoirs. Most developed water sources for the Pokegama herd (70-

80 percent) are on private land. The BLM and private landowners have constructed several exclosures to 

protect riparian areas from wild horses. 

The Pokegama Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan (USDI BLM 2002) identifies specific 

management objectives and actions for the management of the Pokegama HMA. 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect BLM’s ability to maintain the Appropriate Management Level of 30 to 

50 wild horses within the Pokegama Herd Management Area? 

Summary of Analytical Methodology 

The BLM qualitatively analyzed effects to wild horses within the Pokegama HMA, based on other 

resource management programs. Wild horses in the Pokegama Herd would be managed the same under 

all alternatives. The management plan for the HMA is currently being revised and guides BLM 

management activities in the HMA. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild Horses

843 | Page

This analytical approach is a change from the Planning Criteria, which described analyzing changes in 

forage availability based on changes in forest structural stages (USDI BLM 2014, pp. 170-171). The 

alternatives would result in negligible differences in the acreage of non-forest, early-successional, and 

stand establishment forest within the HMA. In addition, a 2014 wildfire in the HMA has had a much 

greater influence on forest structure within the HMA than any potential changes under each of the 

alternatives. 

Affected Environment 

The Pokegama herd is currently within the appropriate management level of 30 to 50 horses, based on the 

HMA management plan. Since designation of the HMA in 1971, census counts of the Pokegama wild 

horse population have ranged from 25 in 1972 to 55 in 2000 (Figure 3-209). The 2012 census counted 24 

horses, although the BLM estimates the current herd size is 30 to 40 horses.112 The BLM completed 

captures in 1996 and 2000, removing 20 and 18 horses, respectively. 

Figure 3-209. Pokegama herd census, 1972-2012. 

The average growth rate for the Pokegama herd is 4-5 percent per year, which is below the average rate of 

20 percent for other wild horse herds. The lower growth rate for the Pokegama herd may be related to a 

higher ratio of male to female horses than is normally found in wild horse herds (Gottlieb 1993). The 

lower growth rate may also be related to young horses being killed by mountain lions during the winter or 

being illegally removed (USDI BLM 2002). The overall condition of the herd is excellent (USDI BLM 

1996 and 2002). 

The portion of the HMA within the planning area lies within the boundaries of two grazing allotments: 

the Dixie and Edge Creek allotments. There is abundant forage and available water within the two 

allotments in the HMA. Forage is allocated for livestock, wild horses, deer, and elk (USDI BLM 1994). 

 

112 The BLM estimates that actual horse numbers are 25 to 50 percent higher than census counts, due to difficulty of 

counting animals on forested landscapes. 

25 25 

30 

35 

41 

55 

50 50 

55 55 

40 

50 

55 55 

35 

30 

12 

24 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of Horses 

Year 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild Horses

844 | Page

The BLM allocates 150 animal unit months of forage on BLM-administered lands to the Pokegama herd, 

based on the proportion of BLM-administered lands in the HMA. The Pokegama herd requires 

approximately 600 animal unit months of forage a year. 

Environmental Effects 

Vegetation management actions under the alternatives would have very little if any effect on wild horses 

in the HMA. All alternatives would manage all or most of the forested areas in the HMA with unevenaged management. Unlike all other alternatives, Alternative C includes two small areas of HITA within 

the HMA, in which timber management actions would include clearcuts. This increased intensity of 

timber management under Alternative C could result in some increase in forage over time. However, the 

small acreage would render this overall effect negligible in the context of the entire HMA. 

Vegetation management actions, road maintenance and construction, recreation areas, and travel 

management designations for OHV use could affect wild horse movements, the habitat they occupy, and 

associated available forage. These activities would have only temporary and localized effects on horse 

distribution and movement with the HMA, which cannot be quantified at this scale of analysis with the 

data available. 

There is a proposed ACEC within the HMA, which is currently fenced. The designation of this area as an 

ACEC would not affect the wild horse herd, because the horses have no access. 

Alternative D would eliminate livestock grazing and would reduce competition for forage within the 

HMA. Alternative D would increase the animal unit months of forage available to horses by 627. This 

increase in forage would provide sufficient forage to support a horse population at the high end of the 

appropriate management level on BLM-administered lands alone. This elimination of direct competition 

to horses within the HMA would provide the potential for increased growth of the Pokegama herd. 

References 

Gottlieb, S. 1993. Habitat utilization and population characteristics of the Pokegama Wild Horse Herd. B.S. Thesis. State 

University of New York, Purchase, NY. 

USDI BLM. 1994. Klamath Falls Resource Area Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

---. 1996. Topsy/Pokegama Landscape Analysis. Lakeview District, Klamath Falls Resource Area. Klamath Falls, OR. 

---. 2002. Pokegama Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan. Lakeview District, Klamath Falls, OR. 

---. 2014. Resource management plans for western Oregon planning criteria. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/plandocs.php. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

845 | Page

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Key Points 

x Under the Common to All Alternatives, the 12 river segments found suitable for inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System through the previous western Oregon RMPs (1995) are 

carried forward as suitable in this plan. 

x Under the No Action Alternative, all 51 eligible Wild and Scenic River segments would continue 

to be managed as eligible, protecting the rivers and their associated values, until suitability 

determinations are made. 

x Under Alternative A, the BLM would not designate as suitable any of the 51 eligible Wild and 

Scenic River segments, resulting in effects to all eligible river segments and their associated 

values. 

x Under Alternatives B and C, the BLM would designate as suitable six eligible Wild and Scenic 

River segments, resulting in protection for those six segments, non-suitable determinations for the 

remaining 45 rivers would result in effects to those segments and their associated river values. 

x Under Alternative D, the BLM would designate as suitable all 51 eligible Wild and Scenic River 

segments, resulting in the greatest protection for all segments and their associated river values. 

Issue 1 

How would the proposed management actions in each alternative affect identified Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values, water quality, tentative classification, and free-flowing condition on eligible Wild 

and Scenic River segments in western Oregon? 

Summary of Analytical Methods 

The BLM established impact indicators based on key resources to measure the effects that the 

management actions associated with each alternative would have on the Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values (ORVs), water quality, free-flowing characteristics and tentative classification of eligible 

segments. 

The Planning Criteria provides additional information on analytical assumptions, methods and techniques, 

and geographic and temporal scales, which the BLM incorporates here by reference (BLM 2014, pp. 120-

122). 

Descriptions of Indicators Used for Analysis 

The effect of the alternatives on eligible river segments is assessed by considering the extent to which 

each alternative protects four factors: the ORVs, water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and tentative 

classification. These factors are protected for a given eligible segment when that segment is 

administratively designated as suitable in an alternative; these factors are left unprotected when a 

particular segment is not administratively designated as suitable and when the eligible status is dropped 

(in all action alternatives, segments not administratively designated as suitable are also no longer 

protected as being eligible). Where an alternative does not protect a particular segment, the analysis 

considers the potential effect of other management on the four factors. 

Several key resources will be used to determine effects to ORVs. Impact indicators include: 1) Recreation 

Management Areas, ACECs, riparian, forest management and Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

designations; and (2) establishing limitations for lands and minerals resources (e.g., timing limitations, 

establishing no surface occupancy stipulations, establishing right-of-way exclusion areas). 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

846 | Page

Effects Analysis Assumptions 

x A no surface occupancy stipulation generally provides protection by prohibiting surface 

occupancy and surface-disturbing activities that might degrade or continue degradation of the 

ORVs, and by preventing projects that might affect the tentative classification (i.e., wild, scenic, 

or recreational) or free-flowing nature of the segment. 

x A controlled surface use stipulation would provide a slightly lesser degree of protection to the 

Wild and Scenic River characteristics, as surface-disturbing activities are allowed, but must be 

modified or moved so as not to affect the resource. 

x Timing limitation stipulations provide a similar level of protection as no surface occupancy, but 

only during certain times of the year. These are especially important in protecting aquatic and 

terrestrial wildlife species and their habitat during critical times. The acres affected by each type 

of stipulation are detailed under each alternative as follows. 

x Non-native invasive weed treatments in the short term may affect ORVs or tentative classification 

as evidence of human activity may be seen. In the long-term, weed treatment and eradication 

would benefit ORVs as riparian health improves. 

x Wild and Scenic River segments with scenic ORVs, VRM Class I and II management would 

provide the most protection to the scenic ORV. VRM Class I and II management may also 

provide indirect protection for other ORVs or tentative classification by preventing certain types 

of development that would affect the ORVs or tentative classification. 

x For Wild And Scenic River segments with scenic ORVs, VRM Class III and IV management 

would most likely lead to effects on scenic ORVs by allowing development that would directly 

impair scenic quality. VRM Class III and IV management may also indirectly affect other ORVs 

or tentative classification by allowing certain types of development. 

x Increased recreation has the potential to affect ORVs associated with each segment. Building 

infrastructure to keep people away from sensitive resources could mitigate impacts. Closing areas 

to motorized travel would protect areas from impacts associated with such use. Designating 

routes for motorized uses would help protect ORVs to a lesser degree. 

x Where Wild and Scenic River segments overlap ACECs, ACEC management would complement 

Wild and Scenic River objectives. 

x Where the BLM would designate a segment as suitable under a particular alternative, the BLM 

would actively protect these characteristics; this analysis assumed that this protection would 

result in the continued maintenance of the ORVs, water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and 

tentative classification for at least the life of the plan. 

x The corridor width for suitable or eligible rivers cannot exceed an average of 320 acres per mile, 

which if applied uniformly along the entire river segment, is one- quarter mile on each side of the 

rivers from the high water mark. For analysis purposes, the affected river corridors are 0.25 mile 

from the high water mark on both sides of the river. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

847 | Page

Background 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) are rivers or river sections designated by Congress under the authority of 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (WSR Act) (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). Congress designates rivers 

under this act for the purposes of preserving the river or river section in its free-flowing condition, 

preserving water quality, and protecting its ORVs. River segment ORVs may include scenic, recreational, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. 

Congress classifies all designated Wild and Scenic River segments as wild, scenic, or recreational. These 

classifications are also applicable to suitable and eligible river segments, which are described below. 

Definitions of these classifications are the following: 

x Wild river segments. Wild river segments are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible, 

except by trail. Their watersheds or shorelines are essentially primitive and their waters 

unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

x Scenic river segments. Scenic river segments are free of impoundments. Their shorelines or 

watersheds are largely primitive and undeveloped, but their shorelines are accessible in places by 

roads. Limited timber harvesting may take place. 

x Recreational river segments. Recreational river segments are readily accessible by road or 

railroad. They may have some development along their shorelines and may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past. Limited timber harvesting may take place. 

Section 5(d)(1) of the WSR Act directs Federal agencies to consider potential WSRs in their land use 

planning process. To fulfill this requirement, the BLM inventories and evaluates rivers when the BLM 

develops or revises resource management plans. In order to fulfill the WSR Act Section 5(d)(1) 

obligations, the BLM is considering potential WSR segments within the planning area as part of this 

planning process. 

In order to be eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System, a river segment must 

be free-flowing and contain at least one river-related value considered to be outstandingly remarkable 

(BLM Manual 6400 – Wild and Scenic Rivers, USDI BLM 2012). An eligible river’s ORVs should be 

located in the river itself or on its immediate shore lands. Whether management decisions or actions that 

would affect individual resources or resource uses affect an eligible river depends on the segments 

qualifying ORVs and tentative classification. Eligible segments are preliminarily classified as wild, 

scenic, or recreational based primarily on level of development (shoreline and in stream) accessibility and 

water quality. 

Each eligible river segment is further evaluated to determine whether it is suitable for inclusion into the 

National System. The suitability analysis provides the basis for determining which rivers to recommend 

to Congress as potential additions to the National System. A suitable river is an eligible river segment 

found through administrative study to meet criteria for designation as a component of the National 

System, as specific in Section 4(a) of the WSR Act. The following questions are addressed when 

evaluating suitability: 

x Should the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values be 

protected, or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant doing otherwise? 

x Will the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values be 

protected through designation? 

x Is designation the best method for protecting the river corridor? 

x Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any non-Federal entities that may be 

partially responsible for implementing protective management? 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

848 | Page

The BLM must provide permanent protection of designated wild and scenic rivers. Interim protection is 

required for eligible and suitable river segments, until either—

x The BLM determines, through a suitability study, that an eligible river segment is unsuitable for 

inclusion as a Wild and Scenic river; or 

x Congress adds or precludes the addition of a suitable river segment to the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. 

The BLM’s protective management of eligible and suitable river segments includes managing the 

segments for the protection of their ORVs, water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and tentative 

classification. The BLM is also obligated to protect the water quality necessary to support the ORVs. 

For permit applications under BLM authority, the BLM does not permit projects that would adversely 

affect the ORVs, water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and tentative classification of eligible and 

suitable segments. Other Federal agencies considering permit applications (not under BLM authority) that 

could affect the resources associated with the six suitable river segments are required to seek formal 

comments from the BLM. 

River Designations that will not be Affected by this Planning 

Effort 

Previous planning efforts (1995 Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon) analyzed river 

segments as potential Wild and Scenic Rivers. This analysis found river segments to be eligible, 

ineligible, or not suitable for inclusion into the National System. A revalidation effort found these 

determinations unchanged. 

Of the 78 designated, suitable, and eligible Wild and Scenic River segments: 

x 9 are designated 

x 12 are suitable for recommendation to Congress 

x 51 are eligible and currently being studied for suitability and will be affected by this planning 

effort (described further below under Affected Environment) 

Designated Rivers in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

The BLM administers nine designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the planning area (Table 3-275). 

These rivers are designated by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior for the preservation of the ORVs, 

water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and tentative classification. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

849 | Page

Table 3-275. Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the planning area. 

Designated River Name District/Field Office Classification River Miles 

Clackamas Salem Recreational 0.5 

Elkhorn Creek Salem Wild/Scenic 3.0 

North Umpqua Roseburg Recreational 8.4 

Quartzville Creek Salem Recreational 9.7 

Rogue Medford Wild/Recreational 47.0 

Salmon Salem Scenic/Recreational 8.0 

Sandy Salem Scenic/Recreational 12.5 

South Fork Clackamas Salem Wild 0.6 

Upper Klamath Klamath Falls Scenic 11.0 

Totals 100.7 

Current Suitable Wild and Scenic River Segments 

Under the 1995 RMPs, the BLM found 13 river segments suitable (Table 3-276). The BLM currently 

manages these segments under interim protection until Congress designates the river segment or releases 

it for other uses. During this current planning process, the BLM revalidated the finding of suitability for 

these 13 river segments. These segments are incorporated by reference and they are not affected by any of 

the action alternatives. 

Table 3-276. Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers within the planning area. 

River Segment Name District Wild and Scenic River 

Classification River Miles 

Big Windy Creek Segment A Medford Rec/Scenic 1.6 

Big Windy Creek Segment B Medford Rec/Scenic 5.7 

Dulog Creek Segment A Medford Rec/Scenic 0.5 

Dulog Creek Segment B Medford Rec/Scenic 0.9 

East Fork Big Windy Creek Segment A Medford Rec/Scenic 0.2 

East Fork Big Windy Creek Segment B Medford Rec/Scenic 3.6 

Howard Creek Segment A Medford Rec/Scenic 0.7 

Howard Creek Segment B Medford Rec/Scenic 6.8 

McKenzie River Segment B Eugene Fish/Scenic 36.7 

Molalla River Segment B Salem Geo/Rec/Scenic 13.5 

Nestucca River Segment A Salem Fish/Rec/Scenic/Wild 13.1 

Siuslaw River Segment B Eugene Fish/Wild 46.3 

Siuslaw River Segment C Eugene Rec/Wild 11.7 

Totals 141.3 

Affected Environment 

Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segments and Associated 

Values 

Under the 1995 RMPs, the BLM found 51 river segments eligible. These segments are currently managed 

under interim protection until the BLM makes land use plan decisions regarding their suitability. As part 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

850 | Page

of the current planning effort, the BLM studied these 51 eligible segments for suitability. While suitability 

determinations can only be made through a land use plan, the BLM identified six segments that the BLM 

believes meet the suitability criteria for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. The 

Draft Suitability Report and subsequent determinations are located in 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/recreation.php and are incorporated here by reference. 

Table 3-277 identifies these six segments, their ORVs, segment length, and the acreage under BLM 

administration. Table 3-278lists the river segments identified as suitable. 

Table 3-277. Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers within the planning area. 

Study River Name Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values Miles BLM-administered Lands (Acres)

Alsea River Fish, Recreation 16.5 404

Antelope Creek Fish 21 718

Applegate River Fish 48 839

Big Butte Creek Fish 12 706

Cheney Creek Fish 7 710

Clackamas River Recreation, Fish 15.4 30

Cow Creek Fish 61 3339

Drift Creek Fish 30.1 150

Elk Valley Creek Fish 6 464

Fall Creek - Eugene Recreation 2 87

Fall Creek - Salem Fish 11.7 670

Kilches River Fish, Recreation 15.7 66

Lake Creek Fish, Recreation 19.4 483

Left Fork Foots Creek Fish 4 131

Little Applegate River Fish 23 1367

Little Luckiamute River Ecology 27.1 40

Little North Santiam River Fish, Recreation, Scenery 17.2 1,205

Lobster Creek Fish 16.6 352

Luckiamute River Cultural, Ecology 61.2 623

McKenzie River Fish, Recreation, Scenery 48.7 1,203

Middle Santiam River Cultural, Ecology 7.9 193

Nehalem River Recreation, Fish 123.6 40

Nelson Creek Fish 9.7 833

Nestucca River Segment B Recreation, Wildlife 8 212

North Fork Clackamas River Fish 14.4 389

North Fork Gate Creek Fish 1.7 199

North Fork Siletz River Fish, Recreation, Scenery 66.2 54

North Fork Trask River Fish, Recreation 19.5 444

North Santiam River Fish, Recreation, Scenery 46 375

Quines Creek Fish 7 816

Riffle Creek Fish 6 762

Rogue River Fish, Recreation 63 708

Sams Creek Fish 8 497
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

851 | Page

Study River Name Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values Miles BLM-administered Lands (Acres) 

Sandy River Recreation, Fish Cultural, Scenery 26.3 1519 

Siletz River Fish, Recreation, Scenery 66.2 54 

Sixes River Fish, Historic 28.9 281 

South Fork Coos River Fish, Recreation 31.6 551 

South Fork Coquille Fish, Prehistoric 35.2 152 

South Fork Gate Creek Fish 2.1 108 

South Fork Little Butte Creek Fish 24.5 452 

South Fork Trask River Fish 9.3 69 

South Umpqua Cultural, Fish, Historic, Wildlife 75.2 602 

South Yamhill River Cultural, Ecology 62.5 0 

Table Rock Fork – Molalla 

River Cultural 13.4 1,480 

Trask River Fish, Recreation, Wildlife 19.5 444 

Tualatin River Cultural 80.4 326 

Umpqua River Fish, Geologic, Historic, 

Prehistoric, Recreation, Scenery 109.5 2,403 

West Fork Illinois River Scenery 17 1154 

Willamette River Cultural, Ecology, Fish, 

Recreation, Wildlife 161.3 83 

Wilson River Fish, Recreation, Wildlife 30.8 108 

Yaquina River Fish 54.38 269 

Totals 1,692.7 29,378 

Table 3-278. Eligible rivers that the BLM identified as meeting suitability criteria. 

River Segment Name District Wild and Scenic River Classification River Miles 

Little North Santiam River Salem Recreational 17 

North Fork Siletz Salem Scenic 11 

Rogue River Medford Recreation 63 

Sandy River Salem Recreation 26 

Table Rock Fork Molalla Salem Recreation 13 

West Fork Illinois Medford Scenic 17 

Totals 147 

Environmental Effects 

This section analyzes the environmental impacts to WSRs within the decision area that could result from 

the implementation of the management actions proposed under the four alternatives in relation to other 

resources and resource uses. This analysis is two-part; 1) effects resulting from WSR determinations 

under each alternative; and 2) effects to segments not managed as suitable under the alternatives from 

management of other resources. Because of WSR determinations, those study rivers that were determined 

non-suitable, by alternative, are analyzed to determine the effects to the identified ORVs, water quality, 

free-flowing characteristics, and tentative classification on non-suitable study rivers. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

852 | Page

Effects on Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers 

All designated WSR segments have their own comprehensive river management plans providing 

management meeting the intent of the WSR Act. This planning effort has no bearing on these segments 

other than these plans being incorporated by reference. 

River Segments for which the BLM has Previously Made 

Suitability Decisions 

The BLM will continue to manage these segments to protect their components until Congress either 

designates them or releases them for other purposes. This planning effort has no bearing on these 

segments other than decisions from the 1995 RMPs being incorporated by reference. 

River Segments Currently Identified as Eligible 

The analysis of management and subsequent effects for WSRs is limited to river segments currently 

identified as eligible. This analysis focused on the effects of the alternatives on the 51 river segments 

within the planning area that are currently designated as eligible and for which the BLM is considering a 

range of suitability determinations. While the BLM has identified six of these segments as meeting the 

suitability requirements (Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/recreation.php ), in conformance with direction and 

related agency guidance in the WSR Act, this Draft RMP/EIS analyzes a full range of alternatives for the 

designation of suitable segments. 

As described in the analytical methodology section, the BLM considered the effect of each alternative’s

suitability designations and the potential effects from the management of other resources on each 

segment’s ORVs, water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and tentative classification. 

Where the BLM would not designate a particular segment as suitable under a given alternative that 

segment would no longer have administrative protections. In this analysis, the BLM will refer to such 

segments as “not suitable.” The BLM would manage such segments under prescriptions for other resource 

programs. Management for other programs could be either detrimental or indirectly protective of each 

segment’s ORVs, water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and tentative classification. 

The BLM assumed that management for the following resources would have negligible effects on not 

suitable segments under all of the alternatives: air and atmospheric values (air quality), vegetation (forest 

and woodlands, riparian; rangelands), fish and wildlife, Special Status Species (plants), cultural resources, 

paleontology resources, lands with wilderness characteristics outside existing Wilderness Study Areas, 

energy and minerals (coal), ACECs, transportation system management, and public health and safety. 

Effects to Currently Eligible Rivers Resulting from WSR 

Determinations (Suitable and Eligible Determinations) 

As described in more detail below, the No Action alternative and Alternative D would provide the most 

protection for the 51 current eligible river segments and their associated characteristics. While the No 

Action alternative would not meet the BLM’s policy requirement to consider the suitability of eligible 

segments, it would continue protective management of all segments and their values, as would Alternative 

D’s determination that all 51 segments are suitable. Alternative A would provide no protective 

management for eligible rivers. Alternatives B and C would provide protective management for six rivers. 

Table 3-279 compares the miles and acres of eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that would be protected 

across all action alternatives. Table 3-280 compares the acres of eligible rivers that would receive 

protective management based on their finding of suitability. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

853 | Page

Table 3-279. Wild and Scenic River protection totals across range of alternatives. 

Alternative Eligible Rivers Determined 

Suitable (Number of Segments) 

Protected River Miles 

(Total Miles) 

Protected River Acres 

(Total Acres) 

No Action - - - 

Alt. A - - - 

Alt. B 6 147 6,120 

Alt. C 6 147 6,120 

Alt. D 51 1,692.7 29,164 

Table 3-280. Suitable river segments receiving protection from minerals and right-of-way management 

under applicable action alternatives. 

Alternative 

Suitable 

River 

Segments 

(Number) 

Stipulation 

(Acres) Right-of-way (Acres) Recommended 

for 

Withdrawal 

From 

Locatable 

Mineral Entry 

(Acres)

Closed to 

Salable 

Mineral 

Development 

Total 

BLM 

Acres 

No Surface 

Occupancy, 

Controlled 

Surface Use, 

Timing 

Limitation 

Exclusion Avoidance 

Alt. B 6 7,143 806 6,337 7,143 7,143 7,143 

Alt. C 6 7,143 806 6,337 7,143 7,143 7,143 

Alt. D 51 29,378 806 28,573 29,378 29,378 29,378 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the BLM would continue to manage the 51 segments identified as 

eligible during the 1995 RMP process to protect their ORVs, water quality, free-flowing characteristics, 

and tentative classification as wild, scenic, or recreational until suitability is determined on the 1693 river 

miles and 29,378 acres within the study river corridors. Under this protective management, the BLM 

would not approve any action that would adversely affect the 51 segments’ ORVs, water quality, and 

free-flowing characteristics, and the BLM assumes that these characteristics would persist for at least the 

life of the plan. 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would determine that all 51 eligible river segments in the planning area 

are not suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The BLM would no 

longer manage these 1,693 river miles and 29,378 acres of land to protect their ORVs, water quality, freeflowing characteristics, and tentative classification.. The BLM assumed that removing protective 

management would result in long-term adverse impacts to the ORVs, water quality, free-flowing 

characteristics, and tentative classification identified during the eligibility assessments. The BLM 

describes the effects of management for other resources on these non-suitable segments below. 

Alternatives B and C

Under Alternatives B and C, the BLM would determine that six segments (Table 3-279) are suitable for 

inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The BLM would continue to manage these 

six segments, totaling 7,143 acres and 149 river miles, to ensure the continued protection of their ORVs, 

water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and tentative classification until Congress makes a 

determination whether to designate the segment(s) as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

854 | Page

This protective management would include requiring mineral leasing stipulations to protect WSR 

characteristics, recommending to withdraw suitable segment corridors from locatable mineral entry, 

closing suitable segment corridors to salable mineral development, managing suitable river segments as 

VRM II, and managing as ROW avoidance areas. Table 3-280 shows the suitable river segments 

receiving protection from minerals and rights-of-way management. 

Compared with Alternative A, Alternatives B and C provide more protection to WSR characteristics 

based on the establishment of minerals and rights-of-way restrictions. Compared with Alternative D, 

Alternatives B and C provide less protection to river values from the establishment of minerals and rightsof-way restrictions. 

Under these alternatives, the BLM would determine that 45 segments are not suitable. The BLM assumes 

that removing protective management would result in long-term adverse effects to the ORVs, freeflowing characteristics, and tentative classification identified during the eligibility assessments. 

Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the BLM would determine that all 51 eligible segments are suitable for inclusion 

into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The BLM would continue managing the segments to 

protect the ORVs, water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and tentative classification. Implementation 

of Alternative D would result in effects similar to or the same as those described under the No Action 

alternative as the BLM would not approve any action that would adversely affect the 51 segments’ ORVs, 

water quality, free-flowing characteristics, and tentative classification, and the BLM assumes that these 

characteristics would persist for at least the life of the plan. This protective management would include 

requiring mineral leasing stipulations to protect WSR characteristics, recommending to withdraw suitable 

segment corridors from locatable mineral entry, closing suitable segment corridors to salable mineral 

development, managing suitable river segments as VRM II, and managing the corridors as ROW 

avoidance areas. 

Table 3-280 shows the Suitable River segments receiving protection from minerals and rights-of-way 

management restrictions. Compared with Alternatives A, B and C, Alternative D provides the greatest 

level of protection to river values based on the establishment of minerals and rights-of-way restrictions. 

Effects to Non-Suitable Segments from Management for Other 

Resources 

While the BLM would not continue to provide protective management for segments it determines are 

non-suitable in any given alternative, these non-suitable segments might receive indirect protection for 

their WSR characteristics (i.e., ORVs, free-flowing nature, water quality, and tentative classification) 

from management intended to protect other resources. Where protection is not indirect, the BLM assumes 

that the WSR characteristics associated with the non-suitable segments will degrade over time. 

The No Action alternative and Alternative D are not included in this section of the analysis. By 

continuing existing management, under the No Action alternative, study river corridors would continue to 

receive protective management under existing eligible determinations. In Alternative D, all study river 

corridors would be designated suitable; therefore, adequate protections to maintain or enhance relevant 

and important values within these study river segments are already in place through their designation as 

suitable. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

855 | Page

Effects from Minerals and Lands and Realty Management 

Development of leasable and locatable minerals has the potential to affect some ORVs and the tentative 

classification of non-suitable segments. Similarly, granting of rights-of-way along non-suitable segments 

could have adverse effects through sedimentation and damage to riparian vegetation, which could result 

in degradation of water quality. Mineral or right-of-way development along the non-suitable segments 

could result in a substantially higher level of surface disturbance and visual effects than would be allowed 

under eligible status. 

The lands and realty management action to retain major river corridors and perennial streams would keep 

all non-suitable segments in BLM ownership; however, retention would not guarantee protection of the 

free-flowing nature, ORVs, or the tentative classification. Table 3-281 shows the incidental protection of 

non-suitable river segments from minerals and rights-of-way restrictions. 

Table 3-281. Non-suitable river segments receiving incidental protection from minerals and rights-of-way 

management. 

Alternative 

NonSuitable 

River 

Segments 

(Number) 

Stipulation Right-of-way 

Recommended 

for Withdrawal 

from Locatable 

Mineral Entry 

(Acres)

Closed to 

Salable 

Mineral 

Development 

(Acres) 

No Surface 

Occupancy, 

Controlled 

Surface Use, 

Timing 

Limitation 

(Acres) 

Exclusion 

(Acres) 

Avoidance 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 51 1,744 1,156 3,226 1,782 2,170 

Alt. B 45 747 - 915 516 804 

Alt. C 45 1,128 - 2,610 691 892 

Where alternatives require leasable mineral stipulations for the protection of other resources along nonsuitable river segments these stipulations would provide some level of protection for certain WSR 

characteristics. Six percent of non-suitable river segments in Alternative A receive incidental protection 

from mineral stipulations, compared to three percent in Alternative B and five percent in Alternative C. 

Non-suitable segments may also receive incidental protection from being within ROW avoidance or 

exclusion areas designated for the protection of other resources. ROW exclusion would provide the most 

protection to ORVs and tentative classification by prohibiting all new ROWs in the area. Four percent of 

non-suitable river segments in Alternative A receive incidental protection from ROW exclusion and 

eleven percent from ROW avoidance. Four percent of non-suitable segments in Alternative B receive 

incidental protection from ROW avoidance compared to eleven percent in Alternative C. None of the 

23,044 acres of non-suitable river corridors in Alternatives B and C receive incidental protection from 

ROW exclusion. 

Effects from Visual Resource Management 

Variations in Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes relative to the location of non-suitable rivers 

would allow for impacts to the scenic quality and potential loss of a qualifying ORV. Rivers with a scenic 

ORV would be impacted if visual resources were altered. Visual resources are protected from alteration 

through VRM Class designations I or II and would maintain the regionally unique scenic quality. VRM 

Class III and IV would allow decreases to the scenic quality. Table 3-282 identifies the non-suitable 

study segments with scenery as a qualifying ORV by alternative. 

 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

856 | Page

Table 3-282. Study rivers with scenery as a qualifying outstandingly remarkable value. 

Study Rivers with Outstandingly 

Remarkable Scenic Value Miles Corridor Acres

VRM Class I or II

No Action

(%)

Alt. A

(%)

Alt. B

(%)

Alt. C

(%)

Clackamas River 14.5 4,528 1% - - -

McKenzie River 48.7 15,342 - - - -

Nestucca River 21.1 5,921 - - - -

North Fork Trask River 11.9 3,288 - - - -

North Santiam River 45.9 14,441 2% - - -

Siletz River 66.2 20,040 - - - -

Umpqua River 109.5 34,840 1% - - -

Totals 317.8 98,400 4% - - -

The No Action alternative does not identify a VRM Class specifically for eligible rivers with a scenic 

ORV; however, 4 percent of study river corridors are currently being managed as VRM Class I or II, 

which helps to retain the existing visual character. Alterations to the visual landscape that impact the

scenic ORV are currently allowed on 96 percent of study rivers. None of the action alternatives would 

provide protection to the scenic ORVs on any of the seven rivers found non-suitable through VRM Class 

I or II designations. None of the action alternatives would impact the visual quality of these study rivers 

since 96 percent of these study river corridors are currently being managed as VRM Class III or IV. 

Effects from ACEC Management 

Management of relevant and important values within ACECs would generally be complementary to 

management for study river values. Where ACEC and non-suitable study river boundaries occur 

simultaneously, ORVs and classification would be less likely to change than when the segment is 

managed only as a WSR. 

The relevant and important values for an ACEC are often identical to ORVs identified for an eligible or 

suitable river that occurs in the same area. In such cases, overlapping ACEC management for that relevant 

and important value would also directly maintain or enhance that ORV. Management for overlapping 

ACECs may also indirectly maintain or enhance a study river’s ORVs, even if the ORV is not also a 

relevant and important value. Table 3-283 displays acres of non-suitable study rivers with overlapping 

ACEC designations. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

857 | Page

Table 3-283. Non-suitable study river corridors with overlapping Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

designations (acres). 

Study Rivers with ACEC Overlap Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Big Butte Creek (including South Fork) 33 33 33 

Cow Creek 138 138 138 

Fall Creek – Salem 11 11 11 

Lake Creek 54 54 54 

Little Applegate River 10 10 10 

McKenzie River 869 869 869 

Middle Santiam River 172 172 172 

Nestucca River 1,203 1,203 1,203 

North Fork Siletz River 353 - - 

North Santiam River - - - 

Riffle Creek 9 9 9 

Rogue River 47 - - 

Sandy River 1,516 - - 

Umpqua River 20 20 20 

West Fork Illinois River 897 - - 

Willamette River - - - 

Total Non-Suitable Acres that Overlap with ACECs 5,332 2,519 2,519 

No Action Alternative 

By continuing existing management, under the No Action alternative, study river corridors would 

continue to receive protective management under existing eligible determinations, therefore 

complementary ACEC designations are not relevant under the No Action alternative because adequate 

protection maintain or enhance relevant and important values within these study river segments are 

already in place.

Alternative A 

In Alternative A, 14 non-suitable study rivers would have complimentary overlap with ACEC 

management. The majority of this overlap is a relatively low percentage of each study river’s corridor. 

The highest percentage of overlap occurs on the West Fork Illinois segment (80 percent overlap), Sandy 

River segment (98 percent overlap) and McKenzie River (95 percent). Management of public lands to 

maintain or enhance relevant and important values within these ACECs would effectively maintain or 

enhance study river ORVS and tentative classification on these three segments under Alternative A. 

Alternative B and C 

In both alternatives B and C, nine non-suitable study rivers would have complimentary overlap with 

ACEC management. When compared with Alternative A, the overlap is relatively low. The highest 

percent of overlap occurs on the McKenzie River. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

858 | Page

Alternative D 

In Alternative D, all study river corridors would receive suitable designations; therefore complementary 

ACEC designations are not relevant under Alternative D.

Effects from Recreation and Visitor Services Management 

Management of recreation outcomes and setting characteristics within Recreation Management Areas 

(RMAs) would generally be complementary to management for study river values where Recreation was 

identified as an ORV. In such cases, overlapping recreation management for recreation values would also 

directly maintain or enhance that ORV regardless of whether or not an eligible river segment was found 

suitable or not. Table 3-284 identifies the WSR segments with recreation as a qualifying ORV and the 

acres that overlap with RMAs by alternative for all non-suitable river segments. 

Table 3-284. Non-suitable study river corridors with recreation ORVs with overlapping Recreation 

Management Area designations (acres). 

Non-Suitable WSR Segments

with Recreation ORVs Overlapping RMAs Alt. A (Acres) Alt. B (Acres) Alt. C (Acres)

Totals 519 585 2,882

No Action Alternative 

The previous definition for Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas made under the No 

Action alternative is not comparable to the current RMA definitions. Because of this, the BLM cannot 

measure the effect from overlapping study river corridor segments with RMA designations under the No 

Action alternative. 

Alternative A 

In Alternative A, the fewest acres with recreation ORVs associated with non-suitable river corridors 

would be incidentally protected by RMAs when compared to the other alternatives. 

Alternative B 

In Alternative B, a slightly higher acreage with recreation ORVs associated with non-suitable river 

corridors would be incidentally protected through complimentary RMA designation. Alternative B, 

provides a greater level of protection for recreation ORVs associated with non-suitable rivers when 

compared to Alternative A and less protection for recreation ORVs when compared to Alternative D. 

Alternative C 

In Alternative C, a substantially higher acreage with recreation ORVs associated with non-suitable river 

corridors would be protected through complimentary RMA designation when compared to Alternatives A 

and B. Alternative C provides a greatest level of protection for recreation ORVs associated with nonsuitable rivers when compared to Alternatives A and B. 

Alternative D 

In Alternative D, all eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers would be found suitable for inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. All eligible rivers with recreation ORVs would receive adequate 

protections through suitable determinations regardless of where study rivers with recreation ORVs 

overlap with RMA designations. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

859 | Page

Effects from Riparian Management 

Fish have been identified an ORV on 79 percent of BLM-administered acres within the eligible river 

corridors. Fish have been identified as the sole ORV on 47 percent of BLM-administered lands within the 

eligible river corridors. 

Under all alternatives, there will be no impact to fish-related ORVs for any of the 51 currently eligible 

segments, regardless of whether they are determined to be suitable in any particular alternative. As stated 

in the fisheries and hydrology sections of the EIS (the Fisheries and Hydrology sections contain more 

information) the riparian management strategies would all have similar consequences in that they would 

be protective of stream shade and will not increase stream temperatures for any of the alternatives. Absent 

any affect to stream temperature, there will be no affect to fish ORVs resulting from any of the 

alternatives. 

Effects from Forest Management 

For those rivers found non-suitable, ORVs would be negatively impacted where non-suitable river 

corridors overlap with the Harvest Land Base. Forest management would impact the river corridors and 

associated ORVs of scenery, wildlife, botany, ecology, and recreation. Table 3-285 displays acres of nonsuitable study river corridors that overlap with the timber Harvest Land Base. 

Table 3-285. Non-suitable river corridors with overlapping timber Harvest Land Base. 

Alternative Number of Non-Suitable 

River Segments 

Harvest Land Base 

(Acres) 

Total BLM-Administered 

Acres in River Corridor 

Alt. A 51 2,469 29,378 

Alt. B 45 3,882 22,236 

Alt. C 45 5,442 22,236 

No Action Alternative 

In the No Action alternative, all 51 eligible rivers would continue to receive interim protection through 

their current eligible designations. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would have 8 percent of non-suitable river corridors within the Harvest Land Base. 

Alternative A has a fewest acres of non-suitable river corridor within the Harvest Land Base when 

compared to Alternatives B and C. When compared to the other action alternatives, the effects from forest 

management activities on non-suitable corridors will be the least under Alternative A. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B has 17 percent of non-suitable river corridors within the Harvest Land Base. Alternative B 

has a larger number of acres of non-suitable river corridor within the Harvest Land Base when compared 

to Alternative A and fewer acres than Alternative C. 
Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

860 | Page

Alternative C 

Alternative C has 24 percent of non-suitable river corridors within the Harvest Land Base. Alternative C 

has the largest number of non-suitable river acres within the Harvest Land Base when compared to all 

Alternatives. 

Alternative D 

In Alternative D, forest management activities would not affect the river values and associated ORVs of 

scenery, wildlife, botany, ecology, and recreation because all eligible rivers would be found suitable for 

inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River system, receiving long-term river protection. 

Effects from Comprehensive Trail and Transportation 

Management 

OHV use could affect ORVs and classifications of non-suitable river segments. Eligible Wild and Scenic 

River segments are better protected from sedimentation and erosion by shifting from an open to a limited 

to existing or limited area designation. Closing areas to OHV travel, or restricting OHV use to existing or 

designated routes, would reduce effects in the corridors of the study segments. Damage to vegetation and 

sedimentation would be reduced or eliminated, which would protect water quality that supports ORVs, 

specifically history, ecology, scenic, wildlife, and botany. Table 3-286 displays non-suitable river 

corridor acres that overlap with the Harvest Land Base for each alternative. 

Table 3-286. OHV area designations for eligible river corridors. 

OHV Area Designations 

Within Segments

No Action 

(Acres)

Alt. A

(Acres)

Alt. B

(Acres)

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres)

Closed 790 327 1,760 3,243 3,470

Limited to Designated 20,763 110 218 1,501 537

Limited to Existing - 28,942 27,401 24,635 25,371

Open 6,066 - - - -

Totals 27,619 29,379 29,379 29,379 29,379

No Action Alternative 

In the No Action alternative, 6,066 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use. When compared to 

the action alternatives, the No Action alternative has the greatest number of acres open to cross-country 

OHV use. Cross-country OHV use affects ORVs and classifications of study river segments. The rugged 

terrain and topography that characterizes some of the study rivers has presented a barrier to OHV 

intrusions in the past and would likely continue to do so in the future, although increased recreation 

demand and evolving motorized and mechanized equipment technology could allow vehicles to enter and 

affect areas OHVs have not been able to access in the past. 

Alternative A 

In Alternative A, the majority of acres within non-suitable river corridors are designated as limited to 

existing. Under Alternative A there are no acres designated as open to OHV use. 

By shifting to limited to existing and limited to designated routes from an open designation, the nonsuitable river corridors would be better protected from sedimentation and erosion in Alternative A when 

compared to the No Action alternative, and less protective when compared to Alternatives B and C. 
Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Wild and Scenic Rivers

861 | Page

Alternative B 

In Alternative B, effects are similar to those in Alternative A when comparing the number of acres 

designated as limited to existing OHV use. Under Alternative B, approximately 6 percent of the nonsuitable river corridors would be designated closed to OHV use. Alternative B has a higher percentage of 

closed area designations when compared to Alternative A and a smaller percentage of closed area 

designations compared to Alternatives C and D. 

Alternative C 

In Alternative C, effects are similar to those described in Alternative A and B when comparing the 

number of acres and corresponding percentage of the study river corridors designated as limited to 

existing OHV use. Under Alternative C approximately 11 percent of the study river corridors are closed 

to OHV use. Alternative C has a higher percentage of study river corridors closed to OHV use when 

compared to the No Action alternative and Alternatives A and B. Alternative C has a smaller percentage 

of study river corridors closed to OHV use when compared to Alternative D. 

Alternative D 

In Alternative D, effects are similar to those described in Alternative A, B, and C when comparing the 

number of acres and corresponding percentage of the study river corridors designated as limited to 

existing OHV use. Under Alternative D, approximately 12 percent of the study river corridors are closed 

to OHV use. Alternative D has the highest percentage of study river corridors closed to OHV use when 

compared to all alternatives. 

References 

USDI BLM. 2014. BLM Manual 6400 – Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for 

Identification, Evaluation, Planning, and Management. Washington D.C. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par

.76771.File.dat/6400.pdf 
862 | Page
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

863 | Page

Chapter 4 – Consultation and 

Coordination 

Introduction 

This chapter describes the public involvement and collaboration that occurred during the preparation of 

this Draft RMP/EIS. That collaboration includes government-to-government relationships with Tribes, 

formal cooperators in the planning process, and consultation with Federal and State agencies. This chapter 

also includes a list of staff involved in the RMPs for Western Oregon. 

Public Involvement 

Formal scoping for the RMPs started with printing of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on 

March 9, 2012 (77 FR 14414). The BLM initially requested that the public submit comments in response 

to the Notice of Intent by July 5, 2012. The BLM continued to accept any public comments for an 

additional 90 days. By October 5, 2012, the BLM had received 584 comment letters. During the scoping 

period, the BLM held public meetings in Medford, Grants Pass, Klamath Falls, Salem, Springfield, Coos 

Bay, Roseburg, and Portland.113 At each of these meetings, the BLM provided a brief overview of the 

planning process and a list of questions to prompt feedback, and then opened the meeting for discussion. 

The BLM prepared a scoping report, which contains a summary of this scoping process. The scoping 

report and other scoping documents are available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/scoping.php. 

During the winter of 2013, the BLM initiated a multi-phase outreach strategy to engage the public 

specifically on recreation management issues. The BLM sought to gain a better understanding of the 

social values associated with recreational users across western Oregon. This strategy included an 

interactive website and four regional workshops in Medford, Roseburg, Springfield, and Portland. The 

regional workshops included the participation of the National Park Service-Rivers, Trails and 

Conservation Assistance program, the Association of O&C Counties, the Outdoor Alliance, Travel 

Oregon, the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Mazamas. The BLM designed this 

recreation outreach to answer planning questions, collect quantitative and qualitative data specific to 

recreation management area delineation, and to understand better the role, value, and importance that 

recreation plays within each planning region. Outreach also yielded data related to public demand for 

specific types of recreation activities, experiences, beneficial outcomes, and the desired character of 

BLM-administered recreation settings. Appendix N - Recreation key findings report contains a summary 

of the results of this outreach effort.

 

113 The BLM has listed the cities in this chapter in order by meeting date. 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

864 | Page

In June of 2013, the BLM released the Purpose and Need Statement for the RMPs for Western Oregon. 

While this is not a typical step in the planning process, the BLM shared the Purpose and Need Statement 

earlier than usual in order to augment dialogue on the direction of the planning process. The Purpose and 

Need Statement is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/purpose.pdf.

In August of 2013, the BLM released the Analysis of the Management Situation for the RMPs for 

Western Oregon (USDI BLM 2013). The BLM managers use the Analysis of the Management Situation 

as a snapshot to understand the status of the BLM resources and management opportunities in western 

Oregon, and the BLM shared this document for informational purposes. The Analysis of the Management 

Situation is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/ams-rmps-western-oregon.pdf.

During December of 2013, the BLM conducted four community listening sessions on elements of the 

RMP. The BLM held public meetings in Corvallis, Medford, Coos Bay, and Roseburg. The community 

listening sessions included BLM updates on the planning process and attendees had a chance to share 

their input with the BLM and each other through small group discussions. A report (USDI BLM 2014a) 

on the community listening sessions is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/comm-listen-report.pdf.

On February 24, 2014, the BLM released the Planning Criteria (USDI BLM 2014b), which provided an 

in-depth look at guidance, policy, analytical methodology, and preliminary alternatives. The comment 

period for the Planning Criteria continued until March 31, 2014. The BLM received approximately 3,000 

letters during this comment period. During March 2014, the BLM conducted seven public meetings about 

the Planning Criteria and the preliminary alternatives. The BLM held public meetings in Portland, 

Springfield, Salem, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and Klamath Falls. The BLM also held an additional 

public meeting in Roseburg with invited elected officials. The Planning Criteria is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/rmp-criteria.pdf.

Additionally, the BLM has provided information to the public through various digital media outlets, 

including the BLM’s public website, Twitter, and Facebook. The public can send inquiries to the agency 

at any time through a publicly available email address, BLM_OR_RMPs_WesternOregon@blm.gov. 

The BLM is planning a series of public meetings after the release of the Draft RMP/EIS. The purpose of 

these meetings is to help members of the public understand the content of the Draft RMP/EIS and provide 

meaningful and constructive comments. There will likely be six “open-house” public meetings (one 

meeting per District) where people can engage with BLM employees on all resources addressed in the 

Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM will likely also be organizing issue-specific meetings on topics such as socioeconomics, forestry, aquatics, and wildlife. Information on meeting locations and dates and more 

information about agency outreach is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/public.php.

List of Recipients of the Draft RMP/EIS 

The BLM will distribute the Draft RMP/EIS to a mailing list of those agencies, organizations, Tribes, and 

individuals that have requested copies. This mailing list, which includes approximately 1,700 hard copy 

mailings and 1,800 electronic copy mailings, is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM, 2014).
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

865 | Page

Government-to-Government Relationships 

Federally recognized tribes have a unique relationship with the Federal Government in that they are 

sovereign nations and retain inherent powers of self-government. They interact with the United States on 

a government-to-government level. 

When preparing RMPs, the BLM consults with Tribes to provide Tribes with an opportunity to identify 

any issues or concerns that Tribes may have with the management of lands and resources in the decision 

area; to identify places of religious or cultural significance (and if any issues exist with access to places 

needed for the practice of traditional religions); and whether there are other Indian individual or 

traditional cultural leaders who the BLM should also contact. 

There are nine federally recognized Tribes located within, or that have interests within, the planning area: 

x The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde: www.grandronde.org 

x The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians: www.ctsi.nsn.us 

x The Coquille Indian Tribe: www.coquilletribe.org 

x The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians: www.ctclusi.org 

x The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs: www.warmsprings.com 

x The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians: www.cowcreek.com 

x The Klamath Tribes: www.klamathtribes.org 

x The Quartz Valley Indian Reservation: www.qvir.com 

x The Karuk Tribe: www.karuk.us 

The BLM invited all of the above Federally-recognized Tribes to be formal cooperators in the RMP 

revisions because of their special expertise, as described below. The Confederated Tribes of Grand 

Ronde, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the 

Klamath Tribes are formal cooperators in the RMP revisions, in addition to their government-togovernment status. 

In 2013, the BLM offered all Tribes within the planning area an opportunity to schedule individual Tribal 

listening sessions. The BLM met with five tribes on different dates spanning from May 14, 2013, to 

December 13, 2013. 

In addition to their government-to-government relationship and their role as a formal cooperator, the 

Coquille Indian Tribe has a representative on the Westside Steering Committee, as noted below. The 

BLM has also agreed to meet regularly with the Coquille Indian Tribe to facilitate open and recurring 

communication. The Coquille Indian Tribe is directly engaged in the planning process, because the 

management of the Coquille Forest is subject by law (25 U.S.C. 715c(d)) to the standards and guidelines 

of forest plans for adjacent or nearby Federal forest lands. Title V of the Oregon Resource Conservation 

Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208) included the creation of the Coquille Forest to be held in trust for the 

benefit of the Coquille Indian Tribe. The Act states that the Coquille Forest shall be managed “under 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

866 | Page

applicable State and Federal forestry and environmental protection laws, and subject to critical habitat 

designations under the Endangered Species Act, and subject to the standards and guidelines of Federal 

forest plans on adjacent or nearby Federal lands, now and in the future.” This Act also requires the 

Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to take the Coquille Forest lands into trust 

for the benefit of the Coquille Indian Tribe. For the purposes of interpreting Title V of this Act, the 

management direction that will be described within the eventual RMP is synonymous with the “standards 

and guidelines” referenced in this Act.

Formal Cooperators

The FLPMA and NEPA provide direction regarding the coordination and cooperation of Federal agencies 

with other agencies and local and state governments and tribes. The FLPMA specifically emphasizes the 

need to ensure coordination and consistency of the BLM’s proposed actions with the plans and policies of 

other relevant jurisdictions. The Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA 

specifically requires cooperative relationships between lead and cooperating agencies. 

Cooperating agency status provides a formal framework for governmental units (including local, State, 

Federal, and tribal) to engage in active collaboration with a lead Federal agency to implement 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. For these RMP revisions, the BLM has worked 

with cooperators from many agencies. With all formal cooperators, the BLM has signed a memorandum 

of understanding, identifying the roles and responsibilities of the BLM and the cooperating agency in the 

planning process. Table 4-1 contains a list of the formal cooperators for these RMP revisions. 

Table 4-1. Formal cooperators. 

Government Type Cooperator 

County Governments114

Benton County 

Clackamas County 

Columbia County 

Coos County 

Curry County 

Douglas County 

Klamath County 

Lane County 

Lincoln County 

Linn County 

Marion County 

Multnomah County 

Polk County 

Tillamook County 

Washington County 

 

114 With the exception of Benton County, all of the listed counties have authorized the Association of O&C Counties 

to act as the counties’ agent and representative in their role as cooperating agencies in this planning process. 

Occasionally, some counties represented by the Association of O&C Counties have had a county commissioner 

participate in the activities of the planning process. When that has happened, the county commissioner, rather than 

the Association of O&C Counties, has represented the county. 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

867 | Page

Government Type Cooperator 

Yamhill County 

State Government State of Oregon115

Federal Government 

Environmental Protection Agency 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

Tribes

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw Indians 

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 

Coquille Indian Tribe 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians 

Klamath Tribes 

Working through a robust engagement process with neutral facilitation, the cooperators have provided 

expertise on much of the subject matter the BLM is addressing in the Draft RMP/EIS, as well as advice 

based on experience with similar planning efforts. The cooperators have provided feedback on public 

outreach sessions, data sources and analytical methods, and components of the draft alternatives. They 

have provided oral and written feedback and ideas throughout the process of developing the Draft 

RMP/EIS. DS Consulting, working through Oregon Consensus, has facilitated all meetings of the full 

Cooperating Agency Advisory Group and the five individual working groups. 

The full Cooperating Agency Advisory Group first met in the summer of 2012, when the facilitators led 

them through an orientation to the cooperating agency task and assisted the group in defining its desired 

outcomes. In the fall and winter of 2012, the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group met five times to 

provide and review RMP scoping comments and to discuss the RMP process. They also met three times 

to provide comments and review documents developed by the BLM for the planning effort, including the 

purpose and need for action and the planning criteria, in addition to providing written comments on the 

BLM’s methodology for analyzing the effects of the alternatives. The Cooperating Agency Advisory 

Group met once to provide feedback on the public meetings held in 2013 and 2014. The BLM conducted 

a rehearsal of the public meetings with the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group, which provided 

feedback on the content and format, leading the BLM to make improvements to the outreach sessions. 

The Cooperating Agency Advisory Group also met five times to discuss the results of the analysis and to 

provide feedback to the BLM on the identification of a preferred alternative. 

In addition to meeting as a full group periodically throughout the development of the Draft RMP/EIS, the 

Cooperating Agency Advisory Group also created five working groups in the winter of 2013 in order to 

facilitate a more detailed level of engagement with the BLM. These groups focused, respectively, on the 

following topics: aquatics, outreach, terrestrial, socio-economics, and tribal issues. 

The Aquatics Working Group met six times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM 

updated the group on the status of alternative development. The working group provided comments on the 

 

115 Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Forestry are the 

Oregon State agencies actively engaged in the planning process. 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

868 | Page

development of the riparian management strategies and the methodology for analyzing impacts of the 

alternatives on aquatic habitat and water quality. 

The Outreach Working Group met six times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. The group 

discussed outreach planning and goals and provided input on the outreach timeline. During the winter of 

2013, they met to revisit ideas for outreach during the planning criteria comment period. 

The Terrestrial Working Group met five times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM 

updated this group on the development of the terrestrial components of the RMP (e.g., alternative 

approaches for the large block reserve design). The group reviewed and provided input on the 

methodology for analyzing the impacts of the alternatives on terrestrial resources and met to discuss and 

provide feedback on components of the draft alternatives related to timber harvest, northern spotted owl 

conservation, marbled murrelet conservation, and fire and fuels management. 

The Socio-Economic Working Group met eight times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

This group reviewed and refined the methodology for analyzing the socio-economic analysis of the 

alternatives, including working with BLM and its contractors on the development of a method to analyze 

impacts to community capacity and resiliency. Members of this group assisted the BLM in obtaining 

county economic data and identifying city officials for information-collection interviews. 

The Tribal Working Group met six times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS. This group 

provided input on the process by which the BLM conducted tribal listening sessions and consultation. 

They also provided input on aspects of the draft alternatives and analytical methodology that address 

resources of concern to the tribes represented in the group. Members of the group also reviewed and 

provided content for appendices to the Tribal Interests section of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Additionally, the Coquille Indian Tribe, in their capacity as a cooperating agency, suggested to the BLM a 

riparian strategy. The BLM worked with the Coquille Indian Tribe to develop this suggestion in detail and 

include it among the alternatives in the Draft RMP/EIS, in addition to the riparian strategies developed by 

the Riparian Technical Team described below. 

The BLM district managers and planning personnel have met with individual county commissioners on 

an ongoing basis to provide updates on progress and key milestones. As noted above, several county 

governments are formal cooperators in the planning process. While the Association of O&C Counties 

represents most of the counties at the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group meetings, BLM district 

managers also maintain relationships with local county representatives. 

Documenting Disagreement or Inconsistencies with 

Cooperating Agencies116 The Cooperating Agency Advisory Group and its sub-groups have provided the BLM with a unique 

opportunity to share the BLM’s thinking early in the planning process and for the BLM to hear the ideas 

and concerns cooperating agencies have with how the BLM has been planning and analyzing thus far. At 

this point in the process, all cooperators have had numerous opportunities to express their opinions about 

content and process, and to make suggestions about how the BLM might improve its plan. By and large, 

 

116 This summary documenting disagreement or inconsistencies with cooperating agencies was provided to the BLM 

by the outside, impartial facilitation team from Oregon Consensus after reviewing meeting summaries and letters 

from the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group. 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

869 | Page

most disagreements that have arisen have been resolved through dialogue at meetings of the full group 

and its work groups. Nearly all cooperators have been positive about the level of engagement and the 

general direction of the planning process. However, the Association of O&C Counties (which is the 

designated representative of 15 counties) has continued to express a high level of concern about the 

BLM’s planning process. 

Specifically, the Association of O&C Counties continues to assert that the BLM’s Purpose and Need 

statement was fatally flawed by failing to place sustained yield timber production as the primary purpose 

of the planning effort. In letters to the BLM Director, State Director and Project Manager, and at nearly 

all Cooperating Agency meetings, the Association of O&C Counties representatives have maintained that 

the BLM should have placed sustained yield timber as the primary focus of the planning effort with all 

other actions required by other laws and treaties falling secondary to that purpose. As a result, the 

Association of O&C Counties has expressed disagreement with the purpose and need, the planning 

criteria, and the range of alternatives. The Association of O&C Counties maintains that the O&C Act and 

legal opinions that have stemmed from it mandate that the BLM should first provide a minimum of 500 

million board feet of sustained yield timber harvest per year, then balance all other needs after that has 

been provided. The Association of O&C Counties and its member counties have stated that, because the 

BLM has sought to analyze what a balanced approach between the competing laws, treaties and needs of 

all cooperating agencies might look like, the BLM has created a range of alternatives that is too narrow to 

achieve the primary purpose and the level of sustained yield required by law and court decisions. 

That said, the Association of O&C Counties continues to attend and actively participate in the 

Cooperating Agency Advisory Group and its work groups, making certain that all members are aware of 

this fundamental disagreement—and requesting that the BLM broaden the range of alternatives by 

including the alternative developed in the 2008 Western Oregon Plan Revision. 

Consultation 

Endangered Species Act 

Before signing a Record of Decision on the RMP revisions, the BLM will consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service 

signed an ESA Consultation Agreement, which identifies responsibilities for each agency and defines the 

processes, products, actions, timeframe, and expectations for the consultation process. The ESA 

Consultation Agreement, signed June 18, 2013, is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/esa-consult-agree.pdf. 

As part of this consultation, the BLM will prepare biological assessments of the potential effects of 

implementing the proposed RMP. In these biological assessments, the BLM will describe the proposed 

RMP, the geographic area addressed by the RMP, and the manner in which the RMP would affect 

threatened, endangered, and proposed species and their designated and proposed critical habitats. 

As part of this consultation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

will provide their biological opinions. These biological opinions will include assessments of the status of 

the species and critical habitats involved, contain reviews of the potential effects of the RMP on these 

species and habitats, and provide evaluations of whether the RMP would be likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitats. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service will prepare separate biological opinions 

dealing with terrestrial and aquatic species under their respective ESA jurisdiction. Additional 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

870 | Page

information on the biological assessments and biological opinions is available in the ESA Consultation 

Agreement. 

In addition to their role as formal cooperators, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service have met with the BLM repeatedly throughout the planning in preparation for the ESA 

consultation on the RMPs for Western Oregon. As part of that work and consistent with the ESA 

Consultation Agreement, the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have met as a Terrestrial Technical 

Team in April 2013, September 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and March 2014 to discuss the 

analytical methodology for evaluating the effects of the alternatives on listed species and producing 

analytical information for the biological assessments. The BLM also met directly with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in April 2014 to discuss specifically the forest management approach for northern 

spotted owl critical habitat in Alternative D considered in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

The BLM convened a group including representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

Environment Protection Agency in April and May 2013 to develop a strategic proposal for riparian 

management. The Environmental Protection Agency has participated in these meetings in the capacity of 

their technical expertise related to water quality. The BLM, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency met as a Riparian Technical Team to develop 

that strategic proposal in detail to be included among the alternatives in the Draft RMP/EIS. DS 

Consulting facilitated all meetings of the Riparian Technical Team. The Riparian Technical Team met 

seven times from August 2013 to January 2014 and presented their work to the Cooperating Agency 

Advisory Group on January 30, 2014. 

In addition, the BLM has met directly with the National Marine Fisheries Service in March 2014, April 

2014, and June 2014 to discuss analytical methodology for evaluating the effects of the alternatives on 

listed fish species and producing analytical information for the biological assessment. The BLM met 

again in December 2014 with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue discussions on the biological needs of listed fish species. 

Water and Air Quality Management 

As part of these RMP revisions, the BLM will concurrently coordinate with various agencies on water 

and air quality management. The BLM will coordinate with the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (the federally designated management agency) on water 

quality standards and other requirements of the federally designated management agency as authorized by 

the Clean Water Act. Similarly, the BLM will coordinate with the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and U.S. Forest Service when authorizing implementation 

actions to minimize the impacts of the emissions from prescribed burns. 

List of Preparers 

Westside Steering Committee 

The Westside Steering Committee is comprised of BLM Oregon/Washington Deputy State Director - 

Division of Resources, the six BLM district managers represented in the RMP revisions, and a 

representative from the Coquille Indian Tribe. This committee provides leadership and direction to the 

RMP revisions planning process.
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

871 | Page

Key Project Staff 

An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists and managers from the BLM districts and state office, 

and contract personnel prepared the Draft RMP/EIS for the RMPs for Western Oregon. The following 

table lists the staff, the organization where each staff member works, and their area of responsibility. 

Brief biographies for each BLM interdisciplinary team member are included below in Table 4-2. 

Table 4-2. List of key project staff. 

Name BLM Office Area of Responsibility 

Michael Allen Oregon State Office Management and Program Analyst 

Stewart Allen Oregon State Office Socioeconomics 

Peter Broussard Coos Bay District Sustainable Energy 

Mark Brown Oregon State Office Project Manager 

Dan Carpenter Coos Bay District Hydrology 

Susan Carter Roseburg District Rare Plants and Fungi 

J. Byron Clayton Oregon State Office Lands and Realty 

Lori Crumley Lakeview District Grazing and Wild Horses 

Craig Ducey Oregon State Office Inventory Data Support 

Louisa Evers Oregon State Office Air Quality and Climate Change 

Paul Fyfield Oregon State Office Cartography 

Eric Greenquist Oregon State Office Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl 

Richard Hardt Oregon State Office Interdisciplinary Team Leader 

Claire Hibler Salem District Invasive Species and Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

Eric Hiebenthal Oregon State Office GIS Data Management 

Aimee Hoefs Coos Bay District Writer, Editor, and Records 

Carolina Hooper Oregon State Office Vegetation Modeling 

Zach Jarrett Salem District Recreation, Visual Resource Management, and the 

National Landscape Conservation System 

Craig Kintop Roseburg District Forest Management 

Sarah Levy Oregon State Office Public Affairs Officer 

Rex McGraw Roseburg District Wildlife – All but the Northern Spotted Owl 

Arthur Miller Oregon State Office GIS and Data Analysis 

Diane Parry Medford District Minerals 

Heather Partipilo Coos Bay District Assistant Editor 

Lauren Pidot Oregon State Office Associate Interdisciplinary Team Leader 

Cory Sipher Roseburg District Fisheries 

Dale Stewart Oregon State Office Soils 

Brian Thauland Oregon State Office Roads 

Shelli Timmons Oregon State Office Management Analyst 

Heather Ulrich Eugene & Salem Districts Cultural Resources and Tribal Interests 

Jena Volpe Medford District Fire and Fuels 

Abe Wheeler Roseburg District Forest Management 

Mike Allen – Management and Program Analyst. Mike earned a Bachelor of Science in Wildlife 

Management at Humboldt State University. Mike started his 37-year career with the BLM as a wildland 

firefighter on the Lakeview District. That led to wildlife biologist positions in Lakeview and Prineville. 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

872 | Page

He worked 16 years on the Salem District as a Natural Resource Specialist performing wildlife surveys, 

timber sale preparation, and public outreach. Mike has been a Management and Program Analyst at the 

Oregon State Office for 3 years. 

Stewart Allen – Socioeconomics. Stewart earned a Bachelor of Arts in mass communications and a 

Bachelor of Arts in psychology at the University of Utah, a Master of Arts in social/environmental 

psychology at Claremont Graduate School, and a Ph.D. in forestry (with a minor in psychology) at the 

University of Montana. He has 34 years of experience in the human dimensions of natural resources 

including 20 years with the Federal Government and one and a half years with the BLM as 

Socioeconomic Specialist, a zoned position shared by Oregon/Washington, California, and Alaska. 

Peter Broussard – Sustainable Energy. Pete earned a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering at the 

University of Southwestern Louisiana. Registered as a professional engineer for 36 years, he currently 

holds professional engineering licenses in three states. Most of his private-sector career has been in the 

electric utility, gas pipeline, and petroleum industries. His public service includes eight years in the 

military as a combat engineer, and five years with the BLM as the Engineering Supervisor in the Coos 

Bay District. 

Mark Brown – Project Manager. Mark Brown currently serves as the RMPs for Western Oregon Project 

Manager in the BLM Oregon State Office. He previously served as the BLM Partnership Coordinator. His 

federal career began as a Presidential Management Fellow with the National Park Service and U.S. Forest 

Service before joining the BLM in 2002. He earned a Master of Environmental Management from Yale 

University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and a Master of Public Administration at 

Portland State University, Hatfield School of Government. 

Dan Carpenter – Hydrology. Dan earned a Bachelor of Science in soil conservation from Washington 

State University. He has worked as a professional hydrologist for the past 35 years with the U.S. Forest 

Service and the BLM on the Oregon Coast, Western Cascades, and Great Basin in Nevada. He is 

currently the District Hydrologist in the Coos Bay District. 

Susan Carter – Rare Plants and Fungi. Susan earned a Bachelor of Arts in botany and environmental 

biology (double major) from Humboldt State University and has 25 years of experience working as a 

botanist with the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service. She is currently the District Botanist in the Roseburg 

District. 

J. Byron Clayton – Lands and Realty. Byron earned a Bachelor of Arts in geography at Appalachian State 

University and a Master of Science in geography at Portland State University. He began work for the 

BLM in 2001 as a student cartographer with the Land Records Team in the Branch of Lands and 

Minerals. He is currently the Supervisory Geographer of the Land Records Team in the Branch of 

Geographic Sciences in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Lori Crumley – Grazing and Wild Horses. Lori earned a Bachelor of Science in range ecology and a 

Master of Science in plant science at the University of Idaho. She has seven years of experience working 

for the Federal Government as a Range Management Specialist. For the last three years, she has been a 

Range Management Specialist for the Lakeview Field Office in the Lakeview District. 

Craig Ducey – Inventory Data Support. Craig earned a Bachelor of Science in botany at the University of 

Wyoming and a Master of Science in geography at Portland State University. He has 14 years of 

experience as a GIS/Remote Sensing Specialist in the BLM Oregon State Office. 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

873 | Page

Louisa Evers – Air Quality and Climate Change. Louisa earned a Bachelor of Science in forestry from the 

University of Tennessee, a Master of Science in forestry with an emphasis in fire ecology from the 

University of Idaho, and a Ph.D. in environmental science with an emphasis in rangeland ecology from 

Oregon State University. She has 28 years of experience with BLM and the U.S. Forest Service in fuels 

and fire management, fire ecology, vegetation ecology, and climate change. She is currently the Research 

Liaison and Climate Change Coordinator in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Paul Fyfield – Cartography. Paul earned a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Science in geography at 

Portland State University. He has worked for the BLM Oregon State Office in Portland since 2001. He is 

currently a Cartographer with the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Eric Greenquist – Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl. Eric earned a Bachelor of Arts in biology at the 

University of Missouri and a Master of Science in wildlife ecology at Ohio University. He has worked as 

a professional wildlife biologist for 37 years, including 34 years with the BLM with the past 22 years in 

western Oregon. He is the District Wildlife Biologist in the Eugene District, where he leads the wildlife 

and endangered species management programs. 

Richard Hardt – Interdisciplinary Team Leader. Richard earned a Bachelor of Arts in natural sciences at 

Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Landscape Architecture at Harvard University, and a Ph.D. in 

Forest Resources at the University of Georgia. He has 20 years of experience working for the BLM and is 

currently a planner in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Claire Hibler – Invasive Species and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Claire earned a Bachelor 

of Science in forest management at Oregon State University and a Bachelor of Arts in general biology at 

Humboldt State University. Claire is a founding member of, and participates on, the steering committee 

for the Western Invasives Network, which spans northwest Oregon, part of southwest Washington, and 

the Columbia River Gorge. She has worked in the Salem District for more than 25 years, serving as the 

District Botanist since 2001. 

Eric Hiebenthal – GIS Data Management. Eric earned a Bachelor of Science in geography at Oregon 

State University. He has 18 years of experience with the BLM working with GIS, specializing in GIS 

Data Management. He is currently a GIS Data Management Specialist in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Aimee Hoefs – Writer, Editor, and Records. Aimee earned a Bachelor of Arts in molecular biology at 

Colgate University. She has worked for the BLM for nineteen years and has been a NEPA specialist for 

the past seven years. She is currently the Myrtlewood Field Office Planning and Environmental 

Coordinator in the Coos Bay District. 

Carolina Hooper – Vegetation Modeling Lead. Carolina earned a Bachelor of Science in forestry at 

Humboldt State University and a Master of Science in forestry at Oregon State University. She has 

worked in forest inventory and planning for the last 20 years with the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM. 

She is currently a Forester/Resource Information Analyst in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Zach Jarrett – Recreation, Visual Resource Management, and the National Landscape Conservation 

System. Zach earned a Bachelor of Science in recreation resource management at Oregon State 

University and a Master of Science in natural resource planning at Humboldt State University. He has 13 

years of experience working for the BLM in western Oregon and is currently an outdoor recreation 

planner in the Oregon State Office working on regional recreation and travel planning projects. 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

874 | Page

Craig Kintop – Forest Management. Craig earned a Bachelor of Science in forest resources management 

at the University of Minnesota. He has more than 38 years of experience working for the U.S. Forest 

Service and the BLM and is currently the District Forester/Silviculturist in the Roseburg District. 

Sarah Levy – Public Affairs Officer. Sarah earned a Bachelor of Arts at the University of Southern 

California, and a Master of Science in natural resources and environment at the University of Michigan, 

School of Natural Resources and Environment. Sarah has six years of experience with the U.S. Forest 

Service working in public affairs, recreation, and research and is currently a Public Affairs Officer with 

the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Rex McGraw – Wildlife. Rex earned a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in wildlife biology at 

the University of Montana, Missoula. He has 16 years of experience with the BLM and is currently the 

District Wildlife Biologist in the Roseburg District. 

Arthur Miller – GIS and Data Analysis Lead. Arthur earned Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts in 

geography at Oregon State University. He has over 25 years of experience working with the BLM in 

Oregon, with an emphasis on the use of geographic information systems for resource and land use 

planning. He is currently a Geographic Information Specialist with the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Diane Parry – Minerals. Diane earned a Bachelor of Arts in geology at Humboldt State University. She 

has 28 years of experience as a geologist with the BLM and is currently the Lead Geologist in the 

Medford District, zoned to the westside of Oregon. 

Heather Partipilo – Assistant Editor. Heather earned her Bachelors of Science degree in Botany and a 

Master of Science degree in Botany and Plant Pathology from Oregon State University. She has worked 

on the Lakeview District as a botanist and is currently a Planning and Environmental Coordinator for the 

Umpqua Field Office of the Coos Bay District. 

Lauren Pidot – Associate Interdisciplinary Team Leader. Lauren earned a Bachelor of Arts in government 

at Wesleyan University and a Master of Science in natural resource policy at the University of Michigan. 

She has over six years of experience with the BLM and is currently a planner for the BLM Oregon State 

Office. 

Cory Sipher – Fisheries. Cory earned a Bachelor of Science in biology at the State University of New 

York at Cortland and a Master of Science in fishery biology at Colorado State University. Cory has been 

with the BLM for 12 years, starting his career as a fisheries biologist in the South River Field Office of 

the Roseburg District. He has served as the District Fisheries Biologist in the Roseburg District since 

2012. 

Dale Stewart – Soils. Dale earned a Bachelor of Science in forestry and a Master of Science in biological 

sciences at Michigan Technological University. He has over 35 years of experience working in the 

forestry, soil, and hydrology disciplines with the BLM and U.S. Forest Service in Oregon. He is currently 

the Soil, Water, and Air Program Lead in the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Brian Thauland – Roads. Brian earned a Bachelor of Science in forest management at Iowa State 

University. He has 36 years of experience with the BLM in forest engineering and currently provides 

transportation program support at the BLM Oregon State Office. 

Shelli Timmons – Management Analyst. Shelli earned a Bachelor of Arts in Business Communication at 

the University of Phoenix. Shelli has over 15 years of experience in the administration and management 

fields, the last 4 of which have been in the BLM Oregon State Office. 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

875 | Page

Heather Ulrich – Cultural Resources and Tribal Interests. Heather earned a Bachelor of Arts and Master 

of Science in anthropology at the University of Oregon. She has been with the BLM since 2007 and 

currently works as the District Archaeologist and Tribal Liaison in both the Salem and Eugene Districts. 

Jena Volpe – Fire and Fuels. Jena earned a Master of Science in biology/fire ecology from Southern 

Oregon University. She has 12 years of experience in fire ecology and fuels management with the 

National Park Service and the BLM in southwest Oregon and is currently a Fire Ecologist in the Medford 

District. 

Abe Wheeler – Forest Management. Abe earned an Associate of Arts in business administration at Linn 

Benton Community College, and a Bachelor of Science in forest management at Oregon State University. 

He has seven years of experience with the BLM in field forestry, timber sale contract preparation, sale 

planning, and project leadership. Abe was also a key player in the recent design, analysis, and 

implementation of Roseburg District's Secretarial Pilot Project, as well as other more recent ecological 

forestry projects. He is currently a Plans Forester in the South River Field Office of the Roseburg District. 

Several contract efforts support the work of the interdisciplinary team: 

x A team of specialists at Mason, Bruce, & Girard, Inc., under the project management of Mark 

Rasmussen (Mason, Bruce, & Girard, Inc.), has conducted vegetation modeling of the alternatives 

using the Woodstock Optimization Platform model (Woodstock). Carolina Hooper of the 

interdisciplinary team has directed this work. 

x A team of specialists at Environmental Resources Management (ERM) and subcontractors, under 

the project management of Clive Graham, ERM, has conducted socioeconomic analysis of the 

alternatives. Stewart Allen of the interdisciplinary team has directed this work. 

x David W. LaPlante of Natural Resource Geospatial in Yreka, California, and Jeffrey R. Dunk of 

Humboldt State University in Arcata, California, have assisted the BLM with its evaluation of the 

northern spotted owl. They used the MaxEnt computer model to forecast how northern spotted 

owl habitat conditions would change on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon under 

different management scenarios. They used the spatially explicit, individual-based population 

model HexSim to forecast how northern spotted owls would respond demographically to such 

changes. Eric Greenquist and Craig Ducey of the interdisciplinary team have directed this work. 

x A team of specialists at ECONorthwest assisted the BLM with its evaluation of recreation supply 

and demand throughout the project area. ECONorthwest collected recreation supply and demand 

data to identify particularly valuable recreation activities or resources for development, and 

estimate the value of recreation use and improvements. Zach Jarrett of the interdisciplinary team 

has directed this work.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

877 | Page

This section provides the main acronyms and abbreviations used in the document. 

ACEC area of critical environmental concern 

AQI Air Quality Index 

ASQ allowable sale quantity 

AUM animal unit month 

bf board foot or board feet 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

C carbon 

CBWR Coos Bay Wagon Road 

CDP Census Designated Place 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMAI culmination of mean annual increment 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

CVS Current Vegetation Survey 

DBH diameter at breast height 

DPS distinct population segment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area 

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FOI Forest Operations Inventory 

FR Federal Register 

FRI fire return interval 

FS U.S. Forest Service 

FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GFMA General Forest Management Area 

GIS geographic information system 

GNN gradient nearest neighbor 

HITA High Intensity Timber Area 

HLB Harvest Land Base 

HMA herd management area 

HUC hydrologic unit code 

ILAP Integrated Landscape Assessment Project 

LITA Low Intensity Timber Area 

LSR Late-Successional Reserve 

Mbf thousand board feet 

Mg megagram 

MITA Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

Mmbf million board feet 

MW megawatt 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

878 | Page

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service\ 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

O3 ozone 

O&C Oregon and California Lands Act 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

ODF Oregon Department of Forestry 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OHTA Owl Habitat Timber Area 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

ORV outstandingly remarkable value 

PCT Pacific Crest Trail 

PM2.5 particular matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

PM10 particular matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers 

QMD quadratic mean diameter 

RCP representative concentration pathway 

RMA Recreation Management Area 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROW right-of-way 

SCC social cost of carbon 

SFP special forest product 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SPTH site-potential tree height 

SSRA Smoke Sensitive Receptor Area 

SYU Sustained Yield Unit 

RMP resource management plan 

RNA research natural area 

ROD record of decision 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

TDSA Tribal Designated Statistical Area 

Tg teragram 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TPCC Timber Productivity Capability Classification 

UTA Uneven-aged Timber Area 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of Interior 

USC United States Code 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VRI visual resource inventory 

VRM visual resource management 

 
Glossary

879 | Page

Glossary 

Aboriginal homelands – Lands referenced in treaties and or legislation, although not officially ceded by 

a ratified treaty. It can also describe an area where people originated from prior to being relocated to 

reservations. 

Acquired lands – Public lands that the Federal government has obtained by purchase, condemnation, 

gift, or exchange, as distinguished in the decision area from Coos Bay Wagon Road lands, O&C lands, 

and public domain lands. 

Active crown fire – A solid flame consistently maintained in the canopy of the stand of trees or shrubs. 

Age class – A system that categorizes forest stands by interval of years. For this analysis, the interval is 

10-year increments. For example, a stand of ten-year age class of 60 includes ages 56-65. 

Aggregated retention – See variable-retention harvest system. 

Air quality attainment area – A geographic area with air quality as good as or better than the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards as defined in the Clean Air Act. An area may be in attainment for one or 

more criteria pollutants but also be in nonattainment for one or more other criteria pollutants. 

Air quality maintenance area – A geographic area that had a history of nonattainment, but are now 

consistently meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Maintenance areas have been redesignated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from “nonattainment” to “attainment 

with a maintenance plan,” or designated by the Environmental Quality Commission. 

Air quality nonattainment area – A geographic area that has not consistently met the clean air levels set 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Allotment – An area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments 

generally consists of BLM-administered lands but may include other federally managed, state-owned, and 

private lands. 

Allowable Sale Quantity/Annual Productive Capacity – These terms are synonymous. 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. 

Anadromous fish – Fish that are born and reared in freshwater, move to the ocean to grow and mature, 

and return to freshwater to reproduce. 

Ancestral territory – Homelands and traditional territory of ancestral Tribes. Lands that may or may not 

have been formally ceded by a Tribe. May reference lands from which Tribes were forcibly removed and 

may or may not have been compensated for later. May also reference reservation lands that were taken 

back later. 

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. 
Glossary

880 | Page

Annual sustained yield capacity – Synonymous with annual productive capacity. 

Aquatic habitat – Habitat that occurs in free water. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) – Lands where special management attention is 

needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish, 

and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes or to protect life and provide safety from 

natural hazards. 

Basal area – The cross-sectional area of a single plant stem, of all stems of a species in a stand, or of all 

plants in a stand (including the bark) that is measured at breast height (about 4.5 feet up from the ground) 

for larger plants (like trees) or measured at ground level for smaller plants. 

Beneficial use – In water use law, reasonable use of water for a purpose consistent with the laws and best 

interest of the people of the state. Such uses include, but are not limited to, the following: instream, out of 

stream, and ground water uses, domestic, municipal, industrial water supply, mining, irrigation, livestock 

watering, fish and aquatic life, wildlife, fishing, water contact recreation, aesthetics and scenic attraction, 

hydropower, and commercial navigation. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Methods, measures, or practices designed to prevent or reduce 

water pollution. Usually, BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. 

Bioclimatic envelope – The range of climatic conditions in which a species can survive and reproduce. 

Biological legacies – An organism, a reproductive portion of an organism, or a biologically derived 

structure or pattern inherited from a previous ecosystem. Biological legacies often include large trees, 

snags, and down logs left after harvesting to provide refugia and to enrich the new stand structurally. See 

variable-retention harvest. 

Biological Opinion – The document resulting from formal consultation that states the opinion of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service as to whether or not a federal action is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 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) – 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. 

British thermal unit – A common unit of measuring energy in the English Inch-Pound (vs. Metric) 

system. Abbreviated Btu or BTU, it is the amount of heat required to raise 1 pound of water 1 °F. 

Broadcastburn (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

881 | Page

BTU – See British thermal unit. 

Bureau sensitive species – Plant or animals species eligible for federal listed, federal candidate, state 

listed, or state candidate (plant) status, or on list 1 in the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base, or approved 

for this category by the BLM State Director. 

Cable yarding – The movement of cut trees or logs from the area where they are felled to the landing on 

a system composed of suspended cables. 

Candidate species – Taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient information on 

their status and threats to propose the species for listing as endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act, but for which issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. Separate lists for plants, vertebrate animals, and invertebrate animals are published 

periodically in the Federal Register. 

Canopy – The area consisting of branches and foliage formed collectively by adjacent trees and other 

woody species in a forest stand. Where significant height differences occur between trees within a stand, 

formation of a multi-layered condition can result. 

Canopy base height – The average distance (height) from the ground level to the lower branches of the 

trees that form the main forest canopy where there is sufficient crown loading in needle and 1-hour fuels 

for a certain level of surface fire intensity to transition into the crown. 

Canopy bulk density – The mass of available canopy fuel per unit canopy volume. 

Canopy cover – a measure of the percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection of the tree 

crowns. 

Canopy closure – The proportion of the sky hemisphere obscured by vegetation when viewed by a single 

point. 

Ceded lands – Tribal lands acquired by the United States government that a tribe ceded, granted, 

relinquished, sold, or lost rights to under a treaty or other agreement or law of the United States in 

exchange for rights and/or benefits. 

Checkerboard ownership – A land ownership pattern in which every other section (square mile) is in 

federal ownership as a result of federal land grants to early western railroad companies. 

Clearcut – A timber harvesting method that removes essentially all trees in an area, producing a fully 

exposed microclimate over the majority of the harvested area. 

Climax stage – See seral stages. 

Closed canopy – The degree to which the canopy (forest layers above one’s head) blocks sunlight or 

obscures the sky. It can only be accurately determined from measurements taken under the canopy to 

account for openings in the branches and crowns. 

Coarse woody debris/downed 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. 
Glossary

882 | Page

Conditional crown fire – A crown fire that will not initiate within the stand under given conditions, but 

canopy fuels are sufficiently dense to support an active crown fire entering from an adjacent stand. 

Commercial forest land base – Forest lands declared suitable for producing timber and having a 

minimum level of productivity of 20 cubic feet/acre/year. Contrast with harvest land base. 

Commercial thinning – Any type of thinning producing merchantable material at least equal to the value 

of the direct cost of harvesting. See thinning. 

Condition class (fire regimes) – Fire regime condition classes are a measure describing the degree of 

departure from historical fire regimes, possibly resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components, 

such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. One or more 

of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire suppression, timber harvesting, livestock 

grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plan species, introduced insects or disease, or other 

management activities. 

Conservation strategy – A management plan for a species, group of species, or ecosystem that 

prescribes standards and guidelines that if implemented provide a high likelihood that the species, groups 

of species, or ecosystem, with its full complement of species and processes, will continue to exist welldistributed throughout a planning area. 

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 listed as 

threatened or endangered or its critical habitat. 

Convection – Transfer of heat by the automatic circulation of fluids. 

Cooperating agency – A tribe or Federal, State, or local government agency that assists the lead federal 

agency in developing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. These can be any 

agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 1501.6). 

Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) Lands – Public lands that were granted to the Southern Oregon 

Company for construction of a military road, but subsequently reconveyed to the United States. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) – An advisory council to the President of the US established 

by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs to analyze and interpret 

environmental trends and information. 

County service area – Refers to those counties where tribal members reside that all tribally-operated 

programs and services are available to them. The particular number and specific counties vary from Tribe 

to Tribe. 

Criteria pollutants – Six principle pollutants considered most harmful to public health and the 

environment and that can be monitored effectively. They include carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), and particulate matter of two different 

aerodynamic diameters (PM10 and PM2.5). 

Critical habitat – Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat is defined as: (1) the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by a federally listed species on which are found physical and 

biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management 
Glossary

883 | Page

considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a listed 

species, when it is determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 

Crown – Upper part of a tree or other woody plant that carries the main system of branches and the 

foliage. 

Crown fire – A fire that burns in the upper tree or shrub canopy. Crown fires are sometimes classified as 

independent (conditional) or dependent (active or passive) to distinguish the degree of independence from 

the surface fire. 

Cubic foot – A unit of solid wood, one foot square and one foot thick. 

Culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) – The age in the growth cycle of a tree or stand at 

which the mean annual increment (MAI) for which some attribute, e.g., wood volume of a tree or stand 

growth is at maximum. At culmination, MAI equals the periodic annual increment (PAI). 

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 and/or cultural 

groups. 

Cumulative effect – The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, 

but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

Current Vegetation Survey – BLM’s regional permanent plot inventory. Each sampling point has a 

series of nested concentric sub-plots, in which trees of different diameter classes are measured. Live and 

dead trees, coarse woody debris, and understory vegetation are measured. The plots are located on a 1.7-

mile grid, on BLM land, if at least one subplot is forested. 

Debris flow – A rapid moving mass of rock fragments, soil, and mud, with more than half of the particles 

being larger than sand size. 

Decision area – The lands within the planning area of this RMP revisions for which the BLM has 

authority to make land use and management decisions. In general, the BLM has jurisdiction over all 

BLM-administered lands (surface and subsurface) and over subsurface minerals in areas of split estate 

(i.e., areas where the BLM administers federal subsurface minerals, but the surface is not owned by the 

BLM). 

Deciview – a unit of visibility proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction; a measure of 

how hazy the atmosphere is over a period; the smaller the number, the clearer the air. 

Desired future condition – For rangeland vegetation, the condition of rangeland resources on a 

landscape scale that meet management objectives. It is based on ecological, social, and economic 

considerations during the land planning process. It is usually expressed as ecological status or 

management status of vegetation (species composition, habitat diversity, and age and size class of 

species) and desired soil qualities (soil cover, erosion, and compaction). In a general context, desired 

future condition is a portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and 

objectives are fully achieved. 
Glossary

884 | Page

Detrimental soil disturbance – The limit where the innate soil properties change and the inherent 

capacity to sustain growth of vegetation is reduced. Detrimental soil disturbance generally represents 

unacceptable levels of erosion, loss of organic matter, soil compaction, soil heating, or soil displacement. 

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, exchange, 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, Desert Land Entry or other land law statutes. 

Disturbance (natural) – A force that causes significant change in structure and/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. 

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. 

Even-aged management – A silvicultural system, which creates forest stands that are primarily of a 

single age or very narrow range of ages. See even-aged stand. 

Even-aged stand – A stand composed of a single distinct age class managed as a discrete operational 

unit. See even-aged management. 

Fire frequency – The number of times that fires occur within a defined area and time period. 

Fire hazard – A fuel complex, defined by volume, type condition, arrangement, and location, that 

determines the degree of ease of ignition and of resistance to control. 

Fire regime – Description of the patterns of fire occurrences, frequency, size, severity, and sometimes 

vegetation and fire effects as well, in a given area or ecosystem. A fire regime is a generalization based on 

fire histories at individual sites. 

Fire resilient forest – A forest having characteristics that limit fire severity and increase the resistance of 

the forest to mortality. 
Glossary

885 | Page

Fire return interval – The time between fires in a defined area, usually at the scale of a point, stand or 

relatively small landscape area. This is called Mean Fire Interval (MFI) in the LANDFIRE system, where 

it refers to the average number of years between fires in representative stands. 

Fire suppression – Fire management actions taken to extinguish a fire or confine fire spread. 

Fifth-field watershed – Individual watershed within a Hydrologic Unit as defined by the U.S. Geological 

Survey, typically averages 87,000 acres in size. 

Floodplain – Level lowland bordering a stream or river onto which the flow spreads at flood stage. 

Forage – All browse and herbaceous foods available to grazing animals, including wildlife and domestic 

livestock. 

Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) – An intensive inventory that provides managers with information 

regarding age, species, stand location, size, silvicultural needs, and recommended treatment based on 

individual stand conditions and productivity. 

Forestland – Land at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, and including land that formerly 

had such tree cover and capable of redeveloping forested conditions. 

Fluid minerals – Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources. 

Fuel loads – The amount of combustible material present per unit area. 

Genetic gain – The average improvement of a specific trait in a population of progeny over the average 

of the parental population, e.g., height growth increase. 

Geographic Information System (GIS) – A system of computer hardware, software, data, people, and 

applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and display a potentially wide array of geospatial 

information. 

Geothermal energy – Natural heat from within the Earth, captured for production of electric power, 

space heating or industrial steam. 

Gradient Nearest Neighbor – A method to characterize forest vegetation across a region that integrates 

vegetation measurements from regional networks of field plots, mapped environmental data, and Landsat 

TM data. The method applies direct gradient analysis (canonical correspondence analysis) and nearestneighbor imputation to ascribe detailed ground attributes of vegetation to each patch in a regional 

landscape. 

Gravel interstitial space – The pockets between pieces of gravel. 

Green-tree – A live tree. 

Green-tree retention – A stand management practice in which live trees are left within harvest units to 

provide a legacy of habitat components over the next management cycle. See variable-retention harvest. 

Ground-based yarding – The movement of cut trees or logs from the area where they are felled to the 

landing through the use of mechanical equipment or animals that move along the ground. 
Glossary

886 | Page

Group selection harvest – In an uneven-aged system, trees are harvested in small groups. Synonymous 

with “patch cut.” See selection cutting. 

Growth and yield modeling – Simulated projections of forest stand growth and development, from 

which timber volume estimates and other stand attributes expected to be produced per unit area under a 

certain set of conditions are derived. 

Handpile – Piling of fuels by hand. 

Harvesting – The process of cutting and removing of merchantable trees from a forested area. 

Harvest land base – Those lands on which the determination and declaration of the Annual Productive 

Capacity / Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) is based. The ASQ is based on implementing a set of specific 

timber management activities and assumes those practices will be repeated over time and results in a 

sustainable harvest level. 

Helicopter yarding – The movement of cut trees or logs from the area where they are felled to the 

landing through the use of helicopters. 

Herbaceous vegetation – Seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial vegetation that does not develop 

persistent woody tissue, but dies down at the end of a growing season. 

Herd Management Area – Public land under the jurisdiction of the BLM that has been designated for 

special management emphasizing the maintenance of an established wild horse or burro herd. 

High-severity fire – Greater than 75 percent of the total canopy cover, or basal area, is killed by the sum 

of all fire effects. 

Intermittent stream – A stream that flows most of the time, but occasionally is dry or reduced to pools. 

Intrinsic potential (stream) – A stream’s inherent ability to provide high quality habitat for salmonids. 

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. 

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. 

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. 
Glossary

887 | Page

Locatable minerals – Metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, nickel, etc.) 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 exclusive 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 3809 for other public lands. 

Lop and scatter – The cutting of branches, tops, and unwanted boles into lengths that will lie close to the 

ground and spreading debris more or less evenly. 

Low-severity fire – Less than 25 percent of the total canopy cover or basal area is killed by the sum of all 

fire effects. 

Machine pile – The piling of activity fuels with machinery. 

Mass wasting – The downslope movement of earth materials caused by gravity. This is an all-inclusive 

term that includes, but is not limited to: landslides, rock falls, debris avalanches, and creep. It does not, 

however, include surface erosion by running water. 

Mean annual increment (MAI) – the total cumulative quantity produced over time of some attribute of a 

tree or stand growth, e.g., wood volume divided by the total age of the tree or stand. 

Mechanical mastication – The mechanical crushing, grinding, shredding of shrubs, small trees, and 

downed woody material, leaving a low-profile matted continuous surface fuel bed. 

Merchantable – Trees or stands having the size, quality and condition suitable for marketing under a 

given economic condition, even if not immediately accessible for logging. 

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. 

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% and less than 75% 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 longerinterval stand replacement fires. 

Modeling – A scientific method that operates by a structured set of rules and procedures to simulate 

current conditions and predict future conditions. 

Monitoring – The review on a sample basis, of management practices to determine how well objectives 

are being met, as well as the effects of those management practices on the land and environment. 

Multi-layered canopy – Forest stands with two or more distinct canopy layers. 
Glossary

888 | Page

Multi-aged stand – Two-aged and uneven-aged stands. 

National Landscape Conservation System – Special Congressional or Presidential land use 

designations such as National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Areas. 

Non-commercial thinning (management) – Cutting merchantable trees but not removing them from the 

stand. 

No Surface Occupancy – A fluid minerals leasing 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. 

O&C lands – Public lands granted to the Oregon and California Railroad Company and subsequently 

revested to the United States. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) – Any motorized track or wheeled vehicle designed for cross-country 

travel over any type of natural terrain. 

Off-highway vehicle designation – Designation of lands made in a land use plan for use of off-highway 

vehicles: 

Open: All types of vehicle use is permitted at all times, anywhere in the area subject to certain 

operating regulations and vehicle standards. 

Limited: Restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. 

Closed: Off-road vehicle use is prohibited. 

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 – Remnants of life from past geological ages as seen in fossil plants and 

animals. 

Particulate matter (PM) – A complex mixture consisting of varying combinations of dry solid 

fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid, typically measured in 

micrometers (e.g., PM2.5 – particular matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

2.5 micrometers). 

Passive crown fire – A fire that initiates from the surface fuels, up through the ladder fuels, and into the 

aerial fuels in the crowns of trees in which individual trees or groups of trees torch. 

Peak flow – The highest amount of stream or river flow occurring in a year, or from a single storm event. 

Perennial stream – A stream that typically has running water on a year-round basis. 

Periodic annual increment (PAI) – the difference in a stand attribute at two successive measurements, 

divided by the number of years between measurements. PAI is an approximation to current annual 

increment, which is not directly measurable. 
Glossary

889 | Page

Physiographic province – A geographic area having a similar set of biophysical characteristics and 

processes due to effects of climate and geology, which result in patterns of soils and broad-scale plant 

communities. Habitat patterns, wildlife distributions, and historical land use patterns may differ 

significantly from those of adjacent provinces. 

Pile burning – Activity fuels, once piled by machine or by hand, are burned in place. 

Planning area – All lands within the geographic boundary of this RMP revision regardless of 

jurisdiction. 

Planned ignition – The intentional initiation of a wildland fire by hand-held, mechanical or aerial device 

where the distance and timing between ignition lines or points and the sequence of igniting them is 

determined by environmental conditions (weather, fuel, topography), firing technique, and other factors 

which influence fire behavior and fire effects. 

Plant association group – A vegetation classification including five to ten closely related plant 

associations, or groupings of plants that occur together in similar environments, typically defined by their 

climates (temperature and moisture), soils, and history of natural disturbances, such as wildfires, diseases 

and insect outbreaks. 

Pre-commercial thinning (PCT) – The practice of reducing the density of trees within a stand by manual 

cutting, girdling, or herbicides to maintain or promote growth increases of desirable tree species. The 

trees killed are generally not merchantable and not removed from the treated area. 

Preferred Alternative – Term used in the Council on Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and BLM planning regulations. Guidance from the 

Council on Environmental Quality explains that the preferred alternative is the alternative that the agency 

believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, considering economic, environmental, 

technical, and other factors. 

Prescribed fire – A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives 

identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements have been met prior 

to ignition. See planned ignition. 

Progeny test site – A test area for evaluating parent seed trees by comparing the growth of their offspring 

seedlings. 

Public domain lands – Original holdings of the United States never granted or conveyed to other 

jurisdictions, or reacquired by exchange for other public domain lands. 

Public land – Land or interest in land owned by the U.S. and administered by the Secretary of the Interior 

through the BLM without regard to how the U.S. acquired ownership, except lands located on the Outer 

Continental Shelf and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Quadratic mean diameter – The diameter of the tree of average basal area in a stand at breast height. 

See diameter breast height. 

Recovery plan – A plan for the conservation and survival of an endangered species or a threatened 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, for the purpose of improving the status of the species to 

the point where listing is no longer required. 
Glossary

890 | Page

Regeneration – (n.) Tree seedlings or saplings existing in a stand. (v.) The process of re-establishing 

trees on a tract of forest land where harvest or some natural event has removed existing trees. 

Regeneration harvest(ing) – Any removal of trees intended to assist regeneration already present or 

make regeneration possible. 

Relative density (RD) – A means of describing the level of competition among trees or site occupancy in 

a stand, relative to some theoretical maximum based on tree density, size and species composition. 

Relative density is determined mathematically by dividing the stand basal area by the square root of the 

quadratic mean diameter. 

Relevant and important resource value – Criteria used to evaluate nominated Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern. 

Renewable energy – See sustainable energy. 

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. 

Right-of-way – A permit or an easement that authorizes use of public lands for certain specified 

purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, reservoirs, and so on; also, the 

lands covered by such an easement or permit. 

Riparian area – A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and adjacent upland areas that 

directly affect it. 

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. 

Seed orchard – A plantation of clones or seedlings from selected trees; isolated to reduce pollination 

from outside sources, weeded of undesirables, and cultured for early and abundant production of seed. 

Selection harvest(ing) – A method of uneven-aged management involving the harvesting of single trees 

from stands (single-tree selection) or in groups up to four (4) acres in size (group selection) without 

harvesting the entire stand at any one time. 

Seral stages – The series of relatively transitory plant communities that develop during ecological 

succession from bare ground to the climax stage. 

Shelterwood harvest(ing) – A regeneration harvest method under an even-aged silvicultural system. 

With this method a portion of the mature stand is retained as a source of protection during the 

regeneration period. The retained trees are removed when protection requirements have been met. 
Glossary

891 | Page

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, precommercial thinning, and commercial thinning. 

Silvicultural prescription – A planned series of treatments designed to change current stand structure to 

one that meets management goals. 

Silvicultural system – A planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and reestablishing a stand. 

The system name is based on the number of age classes managed within a stand, e.g., even-aged, twoaged, uneven-aged). 

Site class – A classification of an area’s relative productive capacity for tree growth commonly expressed 

in terms of the heights of the largest trees in a stand at a common “index” age, usually 50 or 100 yearsold. Site classes are numbered from 1 (most productive) to 5 (least productive). 

Site potential tree height – Is the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or 

older) for a given site class. 

Slash – The branches, bark, tops, cull logs, and broken or uprooted trees left on the ground after logging 

has been completed. 

Slope stability – The resistance of a natural or artificial slope, or other inclined surface, to failure by 

landsliding (mass movement). 

Snag – Any standing dead, partially-dead or defective (cull) tree at least 10 inches in diameter at breast 

height and at least 6 feet tall. A hard snag is composed primarily of sound wood, generally merchantable. 

A soft snag is composed primarily of wood in advanced stages of decay and deterioration, generally not 

merchantable. 

Soil compaction – An increase of the soil bulk density (weight per unit volume) compared to undisturbed 

soil, and a decrease in porosity (particularly macropores) resulting from applied loads, vibration or 

pressure. 

Soil productivity – Capacity or suitability of a soil, for establishment and growth of a specified crop or 

plant species. 

Soil quality – The capacity of a soil to function for specific land uses or within ecosystem boundaries. 

This capacity is an inherent characteristic of a soil and varies from soil to soil. Indicators such as organicmatter content, salinity, tilth, compaction, available nutrients, and rooting depth help measure the health 

or condition of the soil-its quality-in any given place. 

Special forest products – Those plant and fungi resources that are harvested, gathered or collected by 

permit, and have social, economic, or spiritual value. Common examples include mushrooms, firewood, 

Christmas trees, tree burls, edibles and medicinals, mosses and lichens, floral and greenery, and seeds and 

cones, but not soil, rocks, fossils, insects, animal parts, or any timber products of commercial value. 

Special status species – Plant or animal species in any of the following categories: 

x Threatened or endangered species 

x Proposed threatened or endangered species 

x Candidate species 
Glossary

892 | Page

x State-listed species 

x Bureau sensitive species 

Stand – An aggregation of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in composition, age, 

arrangement, and condition so that it is distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas and managed as 

a discrete operational unit. 

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 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, or high-severity surface fires, 

or ground fires. 

State-listed species – Plant or animal species listed by the State of Oregon as threatened or endangered 

pursuant to ORS 496.004, ORS 498.026, or ORS 564.040. 

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. 

Stumpage price – The value of standing timber. 

Suitable river – An eligible river segment found through administrative study to meet the criteria for 

designation as a component of the National System, as specified in Section 4(a) of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. 

Surface fire – A fire that burns on the surface of the ground and consumes surface fuels. 

Surface fuel – Fuels lying on or near the surface of the ground, consisting of leaf and needle litter, dead 

branch material, downed logs, bark, tree cones, and low stature living plants. 

Sustainable energy – Energy that comes from resources that are naturally replenished on a human 

timescale such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat, as opposed to “fossil energy”

which comes from resources replenished on a geological timescale. 

Sustained yield – The board foot volume of timber that a forest can produce in perpetuity at a given 

intensity of management; the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular 

periodic output of the various renewable resources without impairment of the productivity of the land. 

Sustained yield unit (SYU) – An administrative unit for which an allowable sale quantity is calculated; 

in western Oregon, a BLM district. 

Thinning – A silvicultural treatment made to reduce the density of trees primarily to improve tree/stand 

growth and vigor, and/or recover potential mortality of trees, generally for commodity use. See precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, variable-density thinning. 
Glossary

893 | Page

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. 

Tribal consolidation area of ancestral lands – The specific area of land described by the Tribe, 

approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and placed into trust for the Tribe according to 25 CFR 151.2. 

Tribal fee land – Lands in which a Tribe has acquired title to through purchase or donation but the 

federal government has not put into trust, therefore state and local laws apply including payment of 

property and timber harvest taxes. 

Trust land – Land in which the federal government holds title to for the use and benefit of a Tribe. 

Two-aged stand – A stand composed of two (2) distinct age classes intimately mixed and/or in 

aggregated groups producing a two-story structure managed as a discrete operational unit. 

Two-aged system – A silvicultural system intended to regenerate and maintain stands with two distinct 

age classes. 

Underburn – A fire that consumes surface fuels but not the overstory canopy. 

Underburning – Prescribed burning under a forest canopy. 

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 and/or 

in aggregated groups producing a multi-layered canopy structure managed as a discrete operational unit. 

Use of wildland fire – Management of either wildfire or prescribed fire to meet resource objectives. 

Usual and accustomed areas – Areas regularly utilized and accessed by antecedent tribes or bands prior 

to treaty signing. 
Glossary

894 | Page

Variable-density thinning (VDT) – A thinning method where two or more densities of retained trees are 

used to promote stand heterogeneity through the development of multi-layered canopies. Provision of 

conditions conducive to the initiation and growth of regeneration is usually an objective of VDT. 

Variable-retention harvest (VRH) – An approach to regeneration harvesting that is based on the 

retention of structural elements or biological legacies from the harvested stand for integration into the 

new stand to achieve various ecological objectives. The resultant stand is generally two-aged. 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 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 quality – The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to its 

suitability for a particular use. 

Watershed – An area in which all surface waters flow to a common point. 

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 FLPMA, and, prior to 2003, through the 

planning process authorized by Section 202 of FLPMA. 

Wildfire – Unplanned ignition of a wildand fire (such as a fire caused by lightning or unauthorized and 

accidental human – caused fires) and escaped prescribed fires. 

Wildfire risk – The likelihood and susceptibility for a wildfire to adversely affect human values (e.g. life, 

property, ecological functions and resources, etc.). 

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. 
Glossary

895 | Page

Wildland fire – A general term describing a non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) – The line, area, or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels. 

Windthrow – A tree or trees uprooted or felled by the wind. 

Yarding – The process of moving cut logs to a landing, particularly by cable, ground-based or helicopter 

yarding systems. 

 
Index

896 | Page

Index 

A

air quality ..... viii, 38, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 114, 115, 116, 119, 120, 122, 156, 608, 852, 870, 879, 910 

allowable sale quantity .......................................... 35, 4, 78, 236, 258, 877, 879, 892, 905, 917, 1025, 1027 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy ..................................................... 22, 23, 229, 235, 286, 296, 317, 325, 812 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ..... v, vi, 32, 34, 11, 17, 36, 38, 45, 51, 63, 75, 85, 123, 124, 337, 

364, 365, 366, 368, 391, 438, 503, 633, 640, 871, 873, 890, 910, 921, 923, 924, 931, 1034, 1061, 1062, 

1066, 1106, 1254 

B

barred owl..... ....... xxiii, 37, 40, 774, 775, 778, 779, 780, 794, 795, 796, 799, 800, 804, 1455, 1487, 1497, 

1498, 1500, 1502, 1503, 1504 

Bureau Sensitive species ................................... 36, 414, 423, 429, 431, 680, 838, 936, 957, 971, 980, 1100 

C

carbon storage . viii, xx, 36, 79, 80, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 155, 156, 158, 472, 482, 501, 502, 523, 1105, 

1106, 1108 

Cascade Siskiyou National Monument ................................ xviii, 3, 23, 89, 380, 381, 418, 428, 1235, 1237 

D

detrimental soil disturbance xxi, 36, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 622, 623, 

624, 625, 626, 929 

E

employment......... xx, xxi, xxiv, 37, 102, 472, 477, 515, 527, 528, 529, 531, 532, 533, 535, 536, 538, 539, 

541, 543, 544, 545, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 565, 566, 567, 568, 580, 583, 584, 585, 

586, 588, 590, 598, 599, 604, 606, 662, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1315, 1335, 1337, 1344, 1345, 1348, 1350, 

1351, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1361, 1376 

environmental justice .................................... xxi, xxiv, 473, 478, 589, 590, 593, 597, 598, 599, 1368, 1372 

F

fire resiliency .................................................................. 9, 10, 177, 178, 181, 912, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072 

fire resistance ...... ix, 34, 159, 173, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 202, 211, 212, 1128, 

1129, 1130, 1132, 1133 

fisher .................................... xiii, xxii, 524, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 708, 740, 937, 1082, 1420, 1421 

G

greenhouse gas emissions ...... .viii, 34, 79, 80, 132, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 151, 155, 156, 159, 161, 162, 

502, 903, 1054, 1057, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114 

I

invasive plants ...... xi, xviii, 35, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 

336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 343, 344, 354, 356, 387, 438, 439, 714, 715, 1074 
Index

897 | Page

L

land tenure .......................................................................................... xviii, 12, 38, 364, 365, 921, 922, 1394 

lands with wilderness characteristics ............. xviii, 35, 11, 45, 52, 63, 75, 76, 371, 377, 378, 809, 852, 924 

livestock grazing..... .... xi, xviii, 35, 38, 12, 75, 87, 232, 321, 322, 326, 339, 341, 343, 345, 354, 355, 356, 

379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 418, 419, 423, 425, 436, 467, 470, 482, 523, 606, 

714, 715, 719, 827, 829, 830, 831, 842, 844, 882, 908, 909, 941, 942,943, 953, 954, 955, 966, 967, 968, 

979, 1113, 1228, 1235, 1237, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250 

locatable mineral ....... xii, xviii, 45, 51, 63, 75, 389, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 405, 427, 438, 854, 

910, 921, 924, 925, 926, 927, 1251, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1259 

M

marbled murrelet ..... xiii, xxii, 38, 7, 9, 24, 25, 29, 36, 44, 45, 50, 51, 62, 63, 74, 75, 76, 81, 141, 150, 157, 

160, 259, 260, 265, 267, 268, 503, 506, 524, 673, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 

730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 740, 743, 868, 905, 948, 960, 961, 973, 982, 983, 987, 1028, 1029, 

1031, 1032, 1033, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1082, 1093, 1094, 1098, 1412 

N

northern spotted owl..... .. xiii, xiv, xxii, xxiii, 29, 30, 37, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 22, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35, 36, 40, 

44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 62, 63, 70, 74, 76, 80, 81, 87, 99, 100, 102, 103, 141, 150, 157, 160, 161, 242, 

246, 253, 260, 263, 265, 266, 268, 503, 506, 508, 524, 570, 605, 681, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 

752, 753, 754, 755, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 

783, 784, 790, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 

811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 868, 870, 875, 884, 

905, 906, 938, 939, 945, 949, 951, 957, 970, 976, 977, 979, 987, 998, 1002, 1016, 1025, 1029, 1030, 

1031, 1033, 1035, 1043, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1049, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054,1055, 1056, 1060, 1079, 

1082, 1083, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1100, 1103, 1113, 1413, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 

1462, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1496, 

1497, 1498, 1500, 1503, 1504, 1508 

Northwest Forest Plan..xxiii, 29, 5, 7, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 80, 87, 98, 99, 155, 161, 223, 234, 235, 285, 421, 

422, 432, 433, 440, 485, 570, 606, 676, 681, 692, 720, 721, 723, 736, 745, 749, 750, 774, 775, 804, 

805, 806, 808, 1047, 1049, 1055, 1346, 1362, 1365, 1413, 1455, 1486 

O

off-highway vehicle ....... 37, 5, 11, 93, 321, 426, 447, 461, 623, 636, 637, 643, 827, 878, 933, 1066, 1067, 

1068, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1377, 1383, 1384, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1414 

P

Pacific Connector Pipeline .............................................................................................. 23, 95, 96, 103, 368 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail .................................. xii, xix, 405, 407, 408, 409, 410, 412, 1380, 1381 

R

red tree vole.......... xiii, 20, 28, 44, 45, 50, 51, 62, 63, 74, 75, 259, 260, 265, 266, 267, 505, 682, 738, 739, 

740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 961, 962, 983, 1001, 1029, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1082, 1093, 1430 

right-of-way ...... xxiii, 95, 343, 367, 368, 446, 447, 468, 522, 631, 633, 635, 636, 644, 647, 650, 845, 853, 

855, 878, 923, 1388 
Index

898 | Page

S

salable mineral....... . xviii, 36, 45, 51, 63, 75, 389, 391, 392, 395, 396, 397, 405, 426, 438, 854, 910, 921, 

924, 925, 926, 1170, 1251, 1254 

sediment....... ..... xi, xvii, 35, 13, 37, 81, 219, 221, 222, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 286, 298, 303, 308, 312, 

313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 346, 418, 524, 658, 663, 829, 906, 907, 908, 909, 916, 946, 947, 

958, 960, 971, 973, 980, 982, 1142, 1143, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1155, 1156, 1158, 

1159, 1161, 1162, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1170, 1171, 1178, 1179, 1244, 1248, 1249 

special forest products ... x, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 322, 343, 481, 482, 495, 497, 521, 522, 527, 528, 605 

stream shade ...................................................................................................... 232, 233, 287, 318, 319, 859 

Sudden Oak Death .............................................................. 76, 141, 148, 359, 362, 945, 956, 957, 970, 981

Survey & Manage.... ... vi, vii, xix, xxii, 36, 20, 24, 262, 265, 285, 414, 416, 421, 422, 423, 424, 428, 429, 

431, 432, 433, 435, 438, 439, 440, 680, 681, 682, 683, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 745, 838, 

1436, 1439, 1441, 1443, 1447, 1448 

sustainable energy ......................................................... 37, 39, 482, 629, 631, 632, 633, 634, 890, 931, 932 

T

Timber Production Capability Classification ............................................................ 36, 893, 931, 999, 1177 

V

Visual Resource Management..... ..... xx, xxii, 37, 11, 18, 39, 46, 52, 64, 75, 268, 366, 368, 369, 405, 446, 

469, 483, 506, 525, 632, 633, 644, 664, 665, 667, 845, 855, 871, 873, 894, 921, 934, 1026, 1034 

W

West Eugene Wetlands ..................................................................... 3, 23, 89, 419, 420, 428, 439, 838, 841 

Wild and Scenic River..... .... xxiii, 38, 11, 45, 52, 64, 75, 76, 130, 267, 391, 479, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 

850, 851, 852, 853, 858, 860, 924, 925, 1097, 1098, 1103, 1197, 1206, 1210, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 

1261, 1285 

wild horses .................................................................................................................. 38, 843, 844, 886, 935 

wildfire...... ... viii, xvii, xxiii, 34, 10, 99, 100, 106, 110, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 132, 133, 134, 

136, 137, 139, 140, 154, 155, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 173, 177, 186, 187, 195, 197, 198, 200, 204, 

205, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 242, 253, 277,281, 284, 292, 418, 434, 436, 439, 482, 661, 

688, 701, 714, 724, 747, 748, 749, 751, 765, 767, 773, 774, 775, 806, 811, 812, 813, 814, 843, 893, 

894, 914, 915, 1011, 1012, 1015, 1028, 1035, 1045, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 

1055, 1056, 1058, 1059, 1107, 1108, 1111, 1112, 1128, 1162, 1429, 1456, 1482, 1483, 1486, 1487