Appendix A – Major Legal Authorities

900 | Page

programs for management of the public lands. 

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

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

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

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

accordance with such laws. 

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

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

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

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

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

the O&C Act shall prevail. 

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

requires the consideration and public availability of information regarding the environmental 

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

This includes consideration of alternatives and mitigation of impacts. 

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

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

This includes abiding by requirements of State Implementation Plans. 

x The Clean Water Act of 1987, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251), establishes objectives to restore and 

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

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

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

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

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

conditions on lands of all ownerships. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

connection between safe drinking water and watershed protection and management. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adversely modifying its designated or proposed critical habitat (Sec. 1536 [a], Interagency 
Appendix A – Major Legal Authorities

901 | Page

Cooperation). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interagency Cooperation, and 50 CFR 402). 

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

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

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

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

protection of a shared migratory bird resource. 

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

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

designation as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers. 

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

recommendations to Congress for Federal lands to be set aside for preservation as wilderness. 

x The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), protects cultural resources on Federal lands 

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

x The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), expands 

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

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

eligible for or included in the National Register of Historic Places. It also directs the pro-active 

management of historic resources. 

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

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

religious beliefs or practices. 

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

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

under specified conditions. 

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

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

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

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

minerals or mineral materials other than coal. 

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

development and conservation of oil and gas resources. 

x The Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), provides that a 
Appendix A – Major Legal Authorities

902 | Page

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

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

adequately addressed in Federal land use plans: 

o Potential oil and gas resources are identified. 

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

development of oil and gas resources are determined. 

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

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

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

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

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

studying methods for reclamation and the disposal of waste. 

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

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

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

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

provides for classification of lands for particular uses. 

Executive Orders 

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

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

vehicle use shall be controlled to protect public lands. 

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

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

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

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

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

to: 

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

practitioners; and 

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

x Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; 63 FR 

27655) provides, in part, that each Federal agency shall establish regular and meaningful 

consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in developing regulatory practices 

on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities. 

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

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

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

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

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

minimize risk or harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. 
Appendix A – Major Legal Authorities

903 | Page

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

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

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

Act in promoting conservation of migratory bird populations. 

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

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

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

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

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

and seek the advice of State fish and wildlife agencies. 

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

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

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

management. 

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

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

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

adaptation and resilience. 

Secretarial Orders 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indian trust assets. 

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

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

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

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

heritage resources that the Department manages. 

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

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

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

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

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

on America’s Great Outdoors. 
Appendix A – Major Legal Authorities

904 | Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

other applicable requirements of law and other resource management considerations. 

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

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

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

our Nation's valuable natural and cultural resources. 

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

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

bureaus and offices will follow to ensure that the DOI fulfills its trust responsibility. 

 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

905 | Page

Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction 

This section identifies the management objectives and direction that would apply under all four action 

alternatives. This section begins by providing an overview of management objectives and direction 

common to all for major allocations, before providing objectives and direction common to all by resource. 

The following section describes the elements that are unique to each action alternative. 

The BLM would permit activities that are not speci¿cally mentioned in the management direction if they 

are consistent with management objectives. 

Common to All by Major Allocation 

Harvest Land Base 

This allocation includes all lands not reserved from the Harvest Land Base. 

Management Objectives 

x Manage forests to achieve continual timber production that can be sustained through a balance of 

growth and harvest. 

x Offer for sale the declared allowable sale quantity of timber. 

x Recover economic value from timber harvested after a stand-replacement disturbance, such as a fire, 

windstorm, disease, or insect infestations. 

x In harvested or disturbed areas, ensure the establishment and survival of desirable trees appropriate to 

the site and enhance their growth. 

x Enhance the economic value of timber in forest stands. 

x See also below under Fire, Fuels, and Wildfire Response; Forest Management; Northern Spotted Owl 

management. 

Management Direction 

x See below under Fire, Fuels, and Wildfire Response; Forest Management; Northern Spotted Owl 

management.

Late Successional Reserves 

Management Objectives 

x Protect stands of older, structurally-complex conifer forest. 

x Maintain habitat for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. 

x Promote the development of habitat for the northern spotted owl in stands that do not currently meet 

suitable habitat criteria. 

x Promote the development of nesting habitat for marbled murrelet in stands that do not currently meet 

nesting habitat criteria. 

x See also below under Fire, Fuels, and Wildfire Response; Forest Management; Northern Spotted Owl 

management. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

906 | Page

Management Direction 

x See below under Fire, Fuels, and Wildfire Response; Forest Management; Northern Spotted Owl 

management.

x Within the LSR, the BLM may undertake activities such as individual tree removal, including the 

felling of hazard trees and stream logs, and the construction of linear and nonlinear rights-of-way or 

other facilities, including communication sites, as long as:

o The forest stand continues to support the same northern spotted owl life history requirements. 

o Nesting-roosting habitat continues to support northern spotted owl nesting and roosting; dispersal 

habitat continues to support northern spotted owl movement and survival. 

Riparian Reserves 

Management Objectives in the Decision Area West of Highway 

97 

x Contribute to the conservation and recovery of listed fish species and their habitats and provide for 

conservation of special status fish and other special status riparian associated species. 

x Maintain and restore the proper functioning condition of riparian areas, stream channels and wetlands 

by providing forest shade, sediment filtering, wood recruitment, stability of stream banks and 

channels, water storage and release, vegetation diversity, nutrient cycling and cool and moist 

microclimate. 

x Maintain water quality and streamflows within the range of natural variability, to protect aquatic 

biodiversity, provide quality water for contact recreation and drinking water sources. 

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. 

x Maintain high quality waters within ODEQ designated Source Water Protection watersheds. 

x See also below under Fisheries. 

Management Direction in the Decision Area West of Highway 

97 

x Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing danger trees and blowdown. 

x Yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, maintenance, and improvement would be allowed, 

where there is no practicable alternative to accomplish resource management objectives. 

x Use site-specific BMPs (Appendix I) to maintain water quality during road construction and 

maintenance activities, including discretionary actions of others crossing BLM lands. 

x Suspend winter haul when the ground is saturated and monitoring indicates sediment runoff to 

streams is predicted to occur from road degradation. 

x Any substantive modifications of flood plains or wetlands must include off-site mitigation on Federal 

lands and maintain a “no net loss” of floodplains and wetlands value.

x Maintain equal value for floodplains and wetlands in terms of structure and function between the 

Selected and Offered lands in an exchange. 

x Install sanitation systems that maintain water quality, (e.g. sealed vault or similar in new recreational 

developments). 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

907 | Page

x Mining operators with an accepted Notice or approved Plan of Operations will comply with 

performance standards (43 CFR 3809.420) including all applicable State and Federal water quality 

standards. 

x Prevent slash burning within 30 feet of streams. 

x Ground-based machinery for fuels reduction projects would not be operated within 50 feet of streams 

or on slopes >35 percent. 

x Decommission streamside roads, where not needed for future management purpose. 

x See also below under Fisheries. 

Management Objectives for Forested Lands in the Decision 

Area East of Highway 97 

x Provide for conservation of special status fish and other special status aquatic species. 

x Provide for riparian and aquatic conditions that supply stream channels with shade, sediment filtering, 

leaf litter and large wood sources, and stream bank stability. 

x Maintain and restore water quality and hydrologic functions. 

x Maintain and restore access to stream channels for all life stages of fish species. 

Management Directions for Forested Lands in the Decision 

Area East of Highway 97 

Table B-1. Riparian Reserve distances by water feature. 

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance*

Perennial and fish-bearing streams 150 feet on each side of a stream channel as measured 

from the ordinary high water line. 

Non-fish bearing intermittent streams, lakes, 

natural ponds, and wetlands >1 acre 

100 feet on each side of a stream channel as measured 

from the ordinary high water line. 

Constructed impoundments and ponds, and 

wetlands < 1 acre Extent of riparian vegetation

*

 Reported distances are measured as slope distance 

All water features 

x Implement salvage harvest of timber after a stand-replacing disturbance as needed to reduce hazards 

to public health and safety in the Wildland Urban Interface. 

x Fall and remove trees as needed for safety or operational reasons, including but not limited to: danger 

tree removal, creation of yarding corridors adjacent to nearby harvest units, and road construction, 

improvement, or maintenance. 

x Implement instream and riparian restoration activities, such as placement of boulders and large wood 

in streams including tree lining from adjacent riparian areas for all streams. Place an emphasis on 

streams that have high intrinsic potential for fish, high priority fish populations (such as those defined 

in recovery plans), or high levels of chronic sediment inputs. 

x Remove or modify constructed fish passage barriers to restore access to stream channels for all life 

stages of fish species. 

x Apply fuels treatments and prescribed burns in the Riparian Reserve as needed to reduce the potential 

for uncharacteristic wildfires. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

908 | Page

x Restrict livestock from the Riparian Reserve of streams with ESA-listed or anadromous fish species 

until 30 days following the emergence of salmonids from spawning beds. 

x Manage livestock grazing in the Riparian Reserve at a level that allows maintenance or development 

of the proper functioning condition of riparian and wetland plant communities. Implement practices 

such as installing and maintaining livestock exclosures, managing season of use and intensity, 

developing off-stream watering facilities, and other appropriate techniques to attain this condition. 

Perennial and fish-bearing streams 

x Apply thinning and other silvicultural treatments to accelerate the development of potential natural 

forest stand conditions including late successional stand characteristics and native riparian shrub 

communities. 

x Do not apply mechanical treatments within 60 feet (slope distance) on either side of the edge of the 

stream channel, as measured from the ordinary high water line. 

x Retain snags and coarse woody debris in thinning operations, except for safety or operational reasons 

(e.g., maintaining access to roads and facilities). 

x Do not apply mechanical treatments on slopes >35 percent, sensitive soils, or slide prone areas. 

x Retain and promote long-term shade conditions. 

Non-fish-bearing intermittent streams 

x Apply thinning and other treatments to speed the development of large trees to provide an eventual 

source of large woody debris to stream channels. 

x Do not apply mechanical treatments within 35 feet (slope distance) on either side of the edge of the 

stream channel, as measured from the ordinary high water line. 

x Retain all snags and coarse woody debris in thinning operations except for safety or operational 

reasons (e.g., maintaining access to roads and facilities). 

Lakes, natural ponds, and wetlands 

x Apply thinning and other treatments to speed the development of potential natural vegetation 

communities. Do not apply mechanical treatments within 35 feet (slope distance) on either side of the 

edge of the water body, area of riparian vegetation, or seasonally saturated soils (whichever is 

greater). 

x Retain all snags and coarse woody debris in thinning operations except for safety or operational 

reasons (e.g., maintaining access to roads and facilities). 

Constructed impoundments and ponds 

x Apply thinning and other treatments to speed the development of potential natural vegetation 

communities. 

Management Objectives for non-forested lands in the decision 

area east of Highway 97 

x Provide for conservation of Special Status fish and other Special Status aquatic species. 

x Provide for the riparian and aquatic conditions that supply stream channels with shade, sediment 

filtering, leaf litter and large wood, and stream bank stabilization. 

x Maintain and restore water quality. 

x Maintain and restore access to stream channels for all life stages of fish species. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

909 | Page

x Maintain and restore the proper functioning condition and ecological site potential of riparian and 

wetland areas. 

Management Directions for non-forested lands in the decision 

area east of Highway 97 

Table B-2. Riparian Reserve distances. 

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance118

Non-forested lands: all streams and wetlands The extent of riparian vegetation as indicated by 

hydrophilic vegetation 

x Manage livestock grazing in the Riparian Reserve at a level that allows maintenance or development 

of the proper functioning of riparian and wetland plant communities. Methods for attaining this 

condition will include, but are not be limited to, installing and maintaining livestock exclosures, 

managing season of use and intensity, developing off-stream watering facilities, and implementing 

other appropriate techniques. 

x Remove conifer encroachment in the Riparian Reserve where conifers are interfering with the natural 

vegetation community type, or where excessive erosion may occur. 

x Implement road improvement, storm proofing, maintenance, or decommissioning to reduce chronic 

sediment inputs along stream channels and water bodies. 

x Apply prescribed burns and weed treatments in the Riparian Reserve as needed to reduce the potential 

for uncharacteristic wildfires. 

x Implement instream and riparian restoration activities, such as placement of large wood and boulders 

in streams. Remove or modify constructed fish passage barriers to restore access to stream channels 

for all life stages of fish species. 

x Apply BMPs for roads, stream and riparian restoration work, and vegetation management as needed 

to maintain or restore water quality (Appendix I). 

x Manage livestock grazing where listed fish species occur to prevent direct impacts to spawning and 

incubation. 

 

 

118 Reported distances are measured as slope distance. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

910 | Page

Common to All by Resource 

Air Quality 

Management Objectives 

x Protect air quality related values in Federal mandatory Class I areas. 

x Prevent exceedances of national, state, or local ambient air quality standards. 

Management Direction 

x For prescribed burning activities, comply with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. 

x Use BMPs to reduce dust from unpaved road surfaces during extended management operations, such 

as timber sales and wildfires. Example practices include reducing vehicle speed or applying dust 

suppressants. 

x Follow State Implementation Plan requirements for activities that could negatively affect the status of 

air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Management Objective 

x Maintain or restore important and relevant values in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, 

including Research Natural Areas, and Outstanding Natural Areas. 

Management Direction 

x Implement activities as necessary to maintain or restore important and relevant values (Appendix F). 

x Develop site-specific stipulations for leasable mineral development, as necessary, to maintain or 

restore relevant and important values. Examples might include no surface occupancy or conditional 

surface uses based on resource protection needs. 

x Close Areas of Critical Environmental Concern with identified special management needs to salable 

mineral development. 

x Petition for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry Areas of Critical Environmental Concern with 

identified special management needs associated with locatable mineral development. 

x Manage all Areas of Critical Environmental Concern as Right-Of-Way Avoidance Areas. 

Cultural/Paleontological Resources 

Management Objectives for Cultural Resources 

x Preserve and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate 

uses by present and future generations. 

x Reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused deterioration 

or potential conflict with other resources by ensuring that all authorizations for land and resource use 

will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

911 | Page

Management Direction for Cultural Resources 

x Evaluate all documented cultural resources for NRHP eligibility. Protect all NRHP eligible or listed 

sites through avoidance or other protection measures. 

x Conduct public education and outreach activities and develop materials in order to educate and 

interpret for the public the cultural and historic resources within the planning area. 

x Assign all cultural resources into one of the use allocations in Table B-3.

Table B-3. Cultural use allocations with desired outcomes and management actions. 

Use Allocation Desired Outcome Management Action 

Scientific Use Preserved until research potential 

is realized 

Permit appropriate research including 

data recovery 

Conservation for future 

use 

Preserved until conditions for use 

are met Propose protection measures/designations 

Traditional use Long-term preservation Consult with Tribes; determine 

limitations 

Public use Long-term preservation, on-site 

interpretation Determine limitations, permitted uses 

Experimental use Protected until used Determine nature of experiments 

Discharged from 

management 

No use after recordation, not 

preserved Remove Protective measures

Management Objectives for Paleontological Resources 

x Protect and preserve significant localities from natural or human-caused deterioration or potential 

conflict with other resources. 

x Provide appropriate scientific, educational, and recreational use, such as research and interpretive 

opportunities for paleontological resources. 

Management Direction for Paleontological Resources 

x Do not conduct management activities in significant localities where such activities would harm 

paleontological resources. 

x Conduct public education, outreach activities, and develop materials to educate the public on 

paleontological resources existing within the planning area. 

Eastside Klamath Falls Management Area 

This land use allocation applies to the Klamath Falls Field Office lands east of Highway 97. The nonforested land objectives and direction apply to all non-forested lands within the Klamath Falls Field 

Office east of Highway 97. If there is no management direction described below for a specific resource, 

default to the management direction for west of Highway 97. 

Management Objectives for forested lands 

x Manage the Eastside Forest Management Area on a sustainable basis for multiple uses including 

wildlife habitat, recreational needs, riparian habitat, cultural resources, community stability, and 

commodity production, including commercial timber and other forest products. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

912 | Page

x Promote development of fire-resilient forests. Apply prescribed burns, mechanical or hand fuels 

treatments to reduce the potential for uncharacteristic wildfires. Apply maintenance treatments at 

appropriate intervals to retain fire resilient conditions. 

Management Direction for forested lands 

x Utilize uneven-aged management in managing forest stands. This will include use of a combination of 

harvesting methods including thinning, single tree selection harvest, and group selection harvest. 

x Conduct uneven-aged management harvests for the removal and sale of timber and biomass. Harvests 

will be applied to stands of any age for any one or more of the following purposes: maintain growth 

and vigor of the stand; adjust stand composition or dominance; recover anticipated mortality; reduce 

stand susceptibility to natural disturbance such as fire, windstorm, disease, or insect infestation; 

improve merchantability and value; and promote multi-structural conditions in forest stands. 

x Retain an overstory component of trees in uneven-aged management harvest units to provide shade, 

reduce wind speed, and promote overall fire resiliency in the stand. Maintain relative density (Curtis 

1982) between 15 and 55, but allow relative density to vary outside of this range based on vegetative 

type, site productivity, and fire risk factors such as slope, aspect, and elevation. 

x Incorporate group selection harvest of up to five acres in size individually, and an aggregate level 

of up to 25 percent of the area of the treated stand within uneven-aged management harvest units 

when needed to: maintain or develop desired species composition; achieve desired diameter 

distribution; or address natural disturbances. 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. Retain overstory trees as needed within 

regeneration harvest areas to provide for shade, frost protection, seeding, or other silvicultural 

needs. 

x Convert lands historically supporting conifer species (other than juniper) that are currently 

growing primarily brush or hardwoods to conifer species suitable to the site. 

x Apply pre-commercial thinning to forest stands to achieve long-term management objectives. 

x Apply pruning to enhance timber value and for fuels and disease management. 

x Retain snags and coarse woody debris during harvest of stands, except for safety or operational 

reasons. When the existing level of snags, on the average per acre over the stand to be treated, is 

either: (1) less than two snags over 16” DBH, or (2) the existing coarse woody debris over 12”

in diameter and 12 feet in length totals less than 40 feet, new snags and coarse woody debris will 

be created to meet these levels. Also: 

o Snag and coarse woody debris levels described above will be met by any combination of the 

creation of new snags and coarse woody debris from live conifer trees and the retention of 

existing levels of snags (Class I and Class II) and coarse woody debris (Class I and Class II). If 

existing levels of snags and coarse woody debris are insufficient to meet these levels in a thinning 

project, the desired levels can be satisfied by including in the project decision the creation of 

snags and coarse woody debris within five years to meet these levels after completion of the 

harvest or associated fuels treatment. 

o Snag and coarse woody debris retention or creation levels will be met at the scale of the harvest 

unit and are not intended to be attained on every acre. Snag and coarse woody debris retention 

will be variable per acre throughout the area being treated. 

o If the pre-harvest quadratic mean diameter of the stand is less than 16” then the snags to be 

created or retained will be 2 snags per acre with a diameter larger than the quadratic mean 

diameter of the stand.
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

913 | Page

Management Objectives for Non-Forested Lands 

x Manage non-forest lands with the intent of maintaining or improving wildlife habitat and rangeland 

conditions based on ecological site parameters. Where conditions are currently late seral or potential 

natural community, maintain these conditions. Where conditions are early or mid seral, improve 

conditions towards late seral or potential natural community. 

x Manage non-forest lands for multiple uses in addition to those listed above including: recreational 

needs, community stability, and commodity production. Commodities include firewood, logs, 

biomass, chips, and other products and byproducts from juniper woodlands and rangelands. 

x Promote development of fire-resilient forest. 

x Provide for the conservation of BLM Special Status Species. 

x Meet Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife management goals for wildlife on public domain 

lands. 

Management Direction for Non-Forested Lands 

x Vegetation communities encroached by invasive juniper would be treated using prescribed fire, 

mechanical, chemical, and manual treatments. Manage to conserve juniper on sites composed of 

woodland soils. 

x Thin, pile and burn, or remove encroaching western juniper that hinders attainment of desired forage 

conditions to maintain and improve forage for big game. 

x Retain old “legacy” juniper when it meets the following definition. Old Juniper refers to individual 

trees that likely originated in the “pre-settlement” period, before 1870. It is assumed that these trees 

are growing on sites that they are adapted to, since they began growing there under “natural 

conditions” when natural processes (including lightning fires) determined vegetation patterns. Older 

junipers are commonly found in rocky areas where vegetation is sparse and natural fire frequency is 

low. Characteristics of older juniper include some or all of the following: 

o Crown is flat, rounded, broad at top, or irregular (as opposed to the more pointed tops of 

younger trees) 

o Spike top 

o Numerous dead branches 

o Branches covered with coarse, bright yellow-green lichen (Letharia, or wolf lichen) 

o Large diameter lower branches 

o Large diameter trunk relative to height 

o Trunk has spirally-twisted bark, deep furrows 

o Hollow trunk 

x Apply prescribed burns, mechanical or hand fuels treatments to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. Apply maintenance treatments at appropriate intervals to retain fire 

resilient conditions. 

x Treat emergent or new weed populations. Contain or reduce noxious weed infestations on BLMadministered land using an integrated pest management approach. Continue to survey BLMadministered land for noxious weed infestations and implement actions to reduce infestations. 

x Plant native species when quantity and quality of forage is determined to be limiting factor in 

achieving management goals. 

x Manage unoccupied or historic sage grouse habitat consistent with the Greater Sage Grouse 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon. 

x Maintain or enhance wildlife habitat on rangelands. 

x Continue the existing road closures to motorized vehicles, except for administrative purposes, 

between November 1 and April 15 in the Klamath Deer Winter Range. This seasonal road closure 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

914 | Page

includes South Gerber, Willow Valley, Harpold Ridge, Bryant Mountain, North Bryant, Windy 

Ridge, and Lorella. 

x Maintain visual barriers such as trees or other vegetation from 25 to 50 feet wide along roads within 

the designated deer winter range. 

x Plant forage species along roadsides, skid trails, and on disturbed areas, or create forage plots when 

forage quality is determined to be a limiting factor in achieving the management goals of the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Include forage retention requirements for wildlife when 

implementing silvicultural treatments or habitat management activities. 

Fire, Fuels, and Wildfire Response 

Management Objectives 

For all Allocations 

x Respond to wildfires in a manner that provides for public and firefighter safety while meeting land 

management objectives by utilizing the full range of fire management options. 

x Fire management strategies should be risk-based decisions that consider firefighter and public safety, 

values at risk, management objectives, and costs that are commensurate with the identified risk. 

x Actively manage the land to restore and maintain resilience of ecosystems to wildfire and decrease 

the risk of uncharacteristic large high-intensity/severity wildfires. 

x Manage fuels to reduce wildfire hazard, risk, and negative impacts to communities and infrastructure, 

landscapes, ecosystems, and highly valued resources. 

For LSR-Dry 

x Apply landscape-scale, science-based adaptive restoration treatments that will better enable forests to: 

1) recover from past management measures, 2) respond positively to climate-driven stresses, wildfire 

and other disturbance with resilience, 3) ensure positive or neutral ecological impacts to wildfire, and 

4) contribute to NSO recovery. 

x Reduce the risk of loss of key late-successional structure through the development of vertical and 

horizontal heterogeneity. 

x Increase diversity of stocking levels and size classes within the stand or landscape. 

Management Direction 

All Allocations 

x Take immediate action to suppress all human-caused ignitions at the lowest cost and with the fewest 

negative consequences with respect to firefighter and public safety. 

x Apply the full range of fire management options to natural ignitions or escaped prescribed fires. 

o These fires may be used to achieve management objectives when expected fire behavior and 

potential effects of a fire, or a part of a fire, are aligned with the management objectives and 

direction of the underlying land use allocation. 

x Conduct wildfire rehabilitation and restoration efforts 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 Treat both activity and natural hazardous fuels to modify the fuel profile (i.e., raise canopy base 

heights or reduce surface and ladder fuels and crown bulk density) to reduce potential wildfire spread, 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

915 | Page

intensity, and severity and improve effective fire management opportunities within the wildland urban 

interface and in close proximity to other highly valued resources. 

o Treat fuels in a way that increase intervals between future maintenance treatments and provide 

maximum effectiveness over time. 

x Create fuel beds or fuel breaks that reduce the potential for high-intensity fire spread within the 

wildland urban interface and in close proximity to other highly valued resources. 

x When applying prescribed fire do not compromise habitat of Special Status Species plants that are 

limited in distribution. 

x Work in partnership with local, State, and Federal stakeholders to build capacity within the 

communities bordering Federal lands to reduce the risks and threats from wildland fire. 

x Conduct necessary vegetation maintenance treatments to ensure effective and efficient ground and 

aerial access and utilization of existing natural and man-made strategic infrastructure (i.e., pump 

chances and other fire suppression water sources, key road systems, containment lines, fuel breaks 

and helispots, etc.) that may be used during fire management operations. 

Dry Forests in all Allocations 

x Treat fuels to restore landscapes with the highest risk of uncharacteristic wildfires (i.e., high 

frequency fire regimes) and the greatest potential for hazard reduction consistent with underlying 

management objectives and directions. 

o Modify fuel beds to produce characteristic fire behavior and fire effects representative of the fire 

regime. 

x Implement prescribed fire in low/mixed severity or high-frequency fire regimes to emulate historic 

fire function and processes in a manner consistent with land management objectives and directions. 

o Apply prescribed fire across the landscape to create a mosaic of spatial and temporal stand 

conditions and patterning (appropriate to the fire regime). Based on site-specific considerations, 

take measures to prevent and control fire regime altering species. 

x Apply maintenance treatments (thinning, prescribed burning, etc.) at appropriate intervals to retain 

fire resilient conditions consistent with underlying management objectives and directions. 

o Apply treatments that maintain or restore community-level structural characteristics, promote 

desired species composition, and emulate ecological conditions produced by historic fire regimes 

on non-ASQ land allocations or TPCC withdrawn areas, such as oak woodlands, meadows, 

grasslands, and shrublands. 

Dry LSR and UTA 

x Protect trees established prior to 1850 by removing adjacent fuels to reduce risk of fire related 

mortality 

Riparian Reserve 

x Implement fuel treatment and fire management strategies, practices, and activities that meet Riparian 

Reserve management objectives. 

x In the case of prescribed fire or wildfire, apply the following principles to meet resource and 

management objectives, unless they would impede public or fire personnel safety or protection of 

private property values. Fire management plans should address requirements for additional exemption 

situations: 

o Locate incident bases, camps, helibases, helispots, staging areas, and other centers for incident 

activities outside of the Riparian Reserve. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

916 | Page

o Avoid application of chemical retardant, foam, or other chemicals to waterways unless the fire is 

deemed a threat to human safety or private property. 

o Locate and manage water drafting sites to minimize adverse effects on riparian habitat and water 

quality. 

Fisheries 

Management Objectives 

x Improve the distribution and quantity of high quality fish habitat across the landscape for all life 

stages of ESA-listed, BLM Special Status Species, and other fish species. 

x Maintain and restore access to stream channels for all life stages of aquatic species. 

Management Direction 

Riparian Reserve 

x Create spawning, rearing, and holding habitat for fish using a combination of accepted techniques 

including log and boulder placement in stream channels, tree tipping, and gravel enhancement to 

create habitat for fish species. 

x Where appropriate for restoration purposes, fell trees into the stream channel from the Riparian 

Reserve to create habitat for aquatic species and to create gaps and openings near streams to promote 

early seral vegetation. 

x Maintain or improve roads in the Riparian Reserve in a condition that will not contribute sediment to 

streams that will hinder spawning habitat for fish. This could include maintaining vegetated ditch 

lines, improving road surfaces and installing cross drains at appropriate spacing. 

x Replace stream crossings that currently or potentially block or hinder fish passage with crossings that 

allow aquatic species to pass at each life stage and at a range of flows. 

All Allocations 

x When no longer needed for stand management and where adjacent landowner rights-of-way allow, 

decommission roads along streams in valley bottoms. 

Forest Management 

Management Objectives 

All allocations 

x Enhance the health, stability, growth, and vigor of forest stands. 

x In harvested or disturbed areas, ensure the establishment and survival of desirable vegetation 

appropriate to the site. 

x Allow necessary falling and removal of live or dead trees for safety or operational reasons. 

x Allow road construction and maintenance, placement of yarding corridors, and construction of skid 

trails and landings based on operational needs as well as for those with valid and existing access 

rights. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

917 | Page

All allocations in the Harvest Land Base 

x Manage forests to achieve continual timber production that can be sustained through a balance of 

growth and harvest. 

x Offer for sale an allowable sale quantity. 

x Recover economic value from timber harvested after a stand-replacement disturbance, such as a fire, 

windstorm, disease, or insect infestations. 

x In harvested or disturbed areas, ensure the establishment and survival of desirable trees appropriate to 

the site and enhance their growth. 

x Enhance the economic value of forest stands. 

UTA and the Dry Forest in LSR allocations 

x Increase diversity of stocking levels and size classes within the stand or landscape. 

Management Direction 

HITA, MITA, LITA, UTA, OHTA, LSR, and RR 

x Promote the establishment and survival of desirable vegetation through stand maintenance treatments. 

x Apply pre-commercial thinning to forest stands to achieve appropriate stocking levels. 

x Fall and remove live or dead trees as needed for safety or operational reasons, including but not 

limited to: hazard tree removal, creation of yarding corridors or skid trails adjacent to nearby harvest 

units, and road construction, improvement, or maintenance. 

x Road construction, maintenance, improvement, and decommissioning; as well as construction of skid 

trails and yarding corridors would be allowed. 

All allocations in the Harvest Land Base 

x Silvicultural treatments would be applied to remove timber volume. 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. 

x Prepare newly harvested and inadequately stocked areas for the regeneration of desirable tree species. 

x Site preparation methods include mechanical or manual procedures, and prescribed burns. 

x Apply silvicultural treatments to enhance timber value and for fuels, insect, and disease management. 

In all allocations with untreated skips or aggregated group 

retention 

x Candidate areas and features for untreated skips and aggregate retention could include any of the 

following: 

o Areas containing concentrations of trees that are older and larger than the prevailing stand 

conditions 

o Areas containing trees with unique characteristics (e.g., deformed boles, cavities) 

o Areas containing concentrations of large down wood 

o Patches dominated by hardwood trees 

o Areas of structural complexity 

o Productive native shrub patches 

o Areas containing concentrations of snags 

o Representative patches of the pre-harvest stand 

o Patches of herbaceous understory vegetation 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

918 | Page

o Areas of “sensitive” soils (i.e., steep and unstable areas, shallow soils, and areas with a high 

potential for soil movement or excessive soil erosion; 

o Areas containing unique habitats such as seeps, rock outcrops, and areas of unique diversity 

o Areas with concentrated bird or rodent nest structures 

Dry LSRs 

x Utilize uneven-aged and integrated vegetation management in designing and implementing 

treatments. This will include use of a combination of silviculture treatments, fire and fuels 

management activities, and harvest methods. Activities include planting, prescribed fire, thinning, 

single tree selection harvest, and group selection harvest. 

x Uneven-aged and integrated vegetation management would be applied for the following reasons: 

o promote the development of large, open grown trees and multi-cohort stands; 

o develop diverse understory plant communities; 

o To increase or maintain vegetative species diversity; 

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity and heterogeneity; 

o Allow for hardwood persistence; 

o To adjust stand composition or dominance; 

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

infestation. 

x Uneven-aged and integrated vegetation management treatments would meet the following criteria, 

post-treatment: 

o Stand average relative percent max SDI targets would be between 35 percent and 45 percent. 

o For stands  10 acres: 

 Maximum group selection opening size, 4 acres 

 Maximum percentage of stand area in group selection openings, 25 percent 

 Minimum percentage of stand area in untreated skips 10 percent 

 At least 1⁄2 of the skips would be implemented as retention islands unattached to the 

exterior unit boundaries, 

o For stands < 10 acres: 

 Maximum group selection opening size, 2.5 acres, 

 No maximum percent of stand in openings, and no minimum percent of stand in skips. 

x Following large scale disturbances and when regenerating group selection openings, develop 

heterogeneous vegetation patterns. 

o Regenerate a mixture of species appropriate to the site using variable spacing within 5 years of 

disturbance or harvest. 

 Natural regeneration, artificial regeneration, or a combination would be allowed. 

 50-70 percent of full stocking is considered acceptable. 

 Regenerate a higher proportion of fire tolerant species at lower densities, in variable 

patterns, within a skip and gap framework in areas of higher relative fire probability 

(often southern slopes and ridge tops, and areas prone to heavy shrub/brush/hardwood 

regrowth) that present the highest risk of losing high density replanting. 

 Regenerate a higher proportion of fire intolerant species at higher densities in areas that 

coincide with low relative fire probability and provide a higher confidence of retaining 

these species. 

x Following large scale disturbances; 

o Maintain at least 10 percent of the stand un-stocked with trees in gaps  1⁄4 acre in size for at least 

two decades to accelerate development of heterogeneous fuel conditions. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

919 | Page

UTA and Dry Forests in LSR and OHTA 

x Retain dominant Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Pine (Pinus spp.), incense-cedar (Calocedrus 

decurrens), madrone (Arbutus menziessii), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and oak (Quercus

spp.) trees established prior to 1850, except where removal is necessary for safety or operational 

reasons. 

o These trees will be identified based on bark, limb, and crown characteristics. 

o A reasonable effort shall be made to identify these trees and retain them, understanding there is 

no practicable way to ensure 100 percent retention. 

x Protect and develop “legacy trees” on the landscape, by reducing competition. 

o Release “legacy trees” that originated prior to 1850 in order to improve vigor and resistance to 

fire, drought, disease and other disturbances. 

UTA 

x Utilize uneven-aged and integrated vegetation management in designing and implementing 

treatments. This will include use of a combination of silviculture treatments, fire and fuels 

management activities, and harvest methods. Activities include planting, prescribed fire, thinning, 

single tree selection harvest, and group selection harvest. 

x Uneven-aged and integrated vegetation management would be applied to: 

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity 

o Promote the development of large, open grown trees and multi-cohort stands 

o Develop diverse understory plant communities 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity 

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity and heterogeneity 

o Allow for hardwood persistence 

o Adjust stand composition or dominance 

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

x Uneven-aged and integrated vegetation management treatments would meet the following criteria, 

post-treatment: 

o Post-thinning stand average relative percent max SDI targets will be between 20 percent and 45 

percent. 

o For stands  10 acres: 

 Maximum group selection opening size, 4 acres 

o Maximum percentage of stand area in group selection openings, 30 percent 

 Minimum percentage of stand area in untreated skips 10 percent 

 At least 1⁄2 of the skips would be implemented as retention islands unattached to the exterior 

unit boundaries 

o For stands < 10 acres: 

 No maximum group selection opening size, no maximum percent of stand in openings, and 

no minimum percent of stand in skips 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. 

x Remove all merchantable dead and down timber from disturbed areas where removal is 

economically viable. 

x Following large scale disturbances and when regenerating group selection openings, develop 

heterogeneous vegetation patterns. 

x Regenerate a mixture of tree species appropriate to the site using variable spacing within 5 years 

of disturbance or harvest. 

o Natural regeneration, artificial regeneration, or a combination of the two would be allowed. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

920 | Page

o Regenerate a higher proportion of fire tolerant species at lower densities, in variable patterns, 

within a skip and gap framework in areas of higher relative fire probability (often southern 

slopes and ridge tops, and areas prone to heavy shrub/brush/hardwood regrowth) that present 

the highest risk of losing high density replanting. 

o Regenerate a higher proportion of fire intolerant species at higher densities in areas that 

coincide with low relative fire probability and provide a higher confidence of retaining these 

species. 

x Following large scale disturbances, maintain at least 10 percent of the stand un-stocked with trees in 

gaps  1⁄4-acre in size for at least two decades to accelerate development of heterogeneous fuel 

conditions. 

Management Objectives for Density Management Study Sites 

x Maintain the integrity of the study sites. 

Management Direction for Density Management Study Sites 

x Prohibit management activities in study sites that would adversely alter study data until the Phase 2, 

10-year follow-up data collection is complete, and then return the land to underlying land use 

allocation. 

Hydrology 

Management Objective 

x Maintain water quality within the range of natural variability that meets ODEQ water quality 

standards for drinking water, contact recreation, and aquatic biodiversity. 

Management Direction 

x Select and implement site-level BMPs to maintain water quality, for BLM activities and discretionary 

actions of others crossing BLM lands.

Invasive Species 

Management Objective 

x Prevent the introduction of invasive species and the spread of existing invasive species infestations on 

BLM-administered lands. 

Management Direction 

x Implement measures to prevent, detect, and rapidly control new invasive species infestations. 

x Use manual, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and biological treatments to manage invasive species 

infestations. 

x Treat invasive plants and host species for invasive forest pathogens in accordance with the Records of 

Decision (RODs) for the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Environmental Impact 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

921 | Page

Statement and the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 

Oregon Environmental Impact Statement (July 2010). 

Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics 

Note: These objectives and direction apply to areas outside of designated Wilderness Areas and 

Wilderness Study Areas that the BLM has identified as having wilderness characteristics and for which 

the BLM is analyzing a plan decision to manage for the protection of those wilderness characteristics. 

Management Objectives 

x Provide appropriate levels of protection to preserve inventoried wilderness characteristics of areas 

determined to possess wilderness characteristics (e.g., appearance of naturalness, outstanding 

opportunities for primitive unconfined recreation or solitude) outside of existing Wilderness Study 

Areas, while considering competing resource demands and manageability.

Management Direction 

x Petition for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 

x Establish closed OHV area designation 

x Require no surface occupancy for leasable mineral development. 

x Close to salable mineral development 

x Designate as Right-Of-Way Exclusion Areas 

x Designate as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II 

x Restrict construction of new structures and facilities unrelated to the preservation or enhancement of 

wilderness characteristics or necessary for the management of uses allowed under the land use plan. 

x Retain public lands in Federal ownership 

Lands, Realty, and Roads 

Management Objectives 

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

values. 

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

programs. 

x Provide needed right-of-ways, permits, leases, and easements over BLM-administered lands in a 

manner that is consistent with State and Federal laws. 

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

them, where necessary, from the implementation of nondiscretionary public land and mineral laws. 

x Provide a road transportation system that serves resource management needs 

(administrative/commercial) and casual use needs (recreational/domestic) for both BLM-administered 

lands and adjacent privately owned lands. 

Management Direction 

x Lands in Zone 1 are retained under BLM administration. Lands in Zone 1 include: 

o National Landscape Conservation System designated lands 

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

922 | Page

o Research Natural Areas 

o Outstanding Natural Areas 

o Lands acquired with Land and Water Conservation Funds 

x Lands in Zone 2 are available for exchange to enhance public resource values, improve management 

capabilities, or reduce the potential for land use conflict. Zone 2 lands consist of all lands not listed in 

the descriptions of either Zone 1 lands or Zone 3 lands (Appendix J). 

x Lands in Zone 3 are available for disposal using appropriate disposal mechanisms. These lands 

include: 

o Lands that are either not practical to manage, or are uneconomical to manage (because of their 

intermingled location and non-suitability for management by another Federal agency) 

o Survey hiatuses 

o Unintentional encroachments 

x Survey hiatuses and unintentional encroachments discovered in the future will be assigned to Zone 3. 

x Land boundary adjustments due to river movement discovered in the future, which meets the disposal 

criteria defined in Appendix J will be assigned to Zone 3. 

x Reversionary interests reserved by the United States in patented lands located within the planning 

area may be considered for conveyance out of Federal ownership. 

x The BLM may dispose of lands designated in Zones 2 and 3 that provide habitat for listed species, 

including critical habitat, only following consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service or National 

Marine Fisheries Service and upon a determination that such action is consistent with relevant law 

and maximizes public resource values. 

x As required by the Oregon Public Lands Transfer and Protection Act (Public Law 105-321), the acres 

of O&C lands of all classifications, and the acres of O&C and public domain lands that are available 

for harvesting, would not be reduced through disposal, exchange, or sale. The total net change in land 

tenure in the planning area would be evaluated at 10-year intervals. 

x Lands would be acquired or disposed of to facilitate resource management objectives as opportunities 

occur. See the Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria section in Appendix J. 

x The public domain lands in Zones 2 and 3 have been classified under Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing 

Act and would be available for disposal. 

x Newly acquired lands would be managed for the purpose for which they were acquired or in a manner 

that is consistent with management objectives for adjacent BLM-administered lands or other BLMadministered lands having similar resource values (Appendix J). 

x Temporary-use permits, as identified under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Section 

302), would be issued for a variety of uses, such as, but not limited to, stockpile and storage sites and 

as tools to authorize unintentional trespass situations pending final resolution. 

x No leases or permits would be issued for landfills or other waste disposal facilities. 

x Land-use authorizations would be used to resolve agricultural or occupancy trespasses, where 

appropriate. 

x Existing rights-of-way, permits, leases, and easements would be recognized as valid uses. 

x Withdrawals would be limited to the area needed and would restrict only those activities needed to 

accomplish the purposes of the withdrawal. 

x Formal land withdrawals being relinquished by the Bureau of Land Management or other Federal 

agency shall be processed according to the procedures stated under 43 CFR 2372. If the lands are 

found suitable for return to the public domain, the revocation order will recommend the management 

prescriptions developed in the environmental review. The lands shall be managed according to 

management prescriptions for those lands having the same or similar resource values in the same 

general area of the land withdrawal. 

x Designated wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as wild rivers, lands managed for 

wilderness characteristics, and VRM Class I areas would be Right-Of-Way Exclusion Areas where 

future right-of-ways would not be granted except when mandated by law. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

923 | Page

x Recreation Management Areas, Study Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Research 

Natural Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as scenic and recreational rivers, and VRM Class II 

areas would be Right-Of-Way Avoidance Areas. Future right-of-ways may be granted in avoidance 

areas if the BLM determines that the right-of-way proposals are compatible with the protection of the 

values for which the land use was designated, or when no feasible alternative route or designated 

right-of-way corridor is available as applicable with BLM laws and policy. 

x Utility corridors would be the preferred location for energy transmission or distribution facilities. 

Corridors would generally be 1,000 feet on each side of the centerline. The rights-of-way granted 

would be the minimum necessary to accommodate a specific request. No development or 

management activities would be permitted that would conflict with construction, operation, or 

maintenance of facilities corresponding to the purpose of the utility corridor. 

x Communication facilities would be allowed on existing developed communication sites where they 

do not conflict with other management objectives. Applications for communication facilities on 

undeveloped communication sites would require a site plan (Appendix J). 

x Expansion of existing communication sites and the development of new sites would be allowed. The 

priority for accommodating the need for additional capacity would be the use of existing sites and 

facilities. 

x Construct new permanent/temporary roads where needed to meet resource management objectives, 

including major culverts and bridges as necessary, to established BLM engineering design standards. 

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

x Maintain existing roads, including major culverts and bridges, to provide access for both resource 

management and casual use activities while protecting water quality and facility investments and 

providing user safety, to established BLM maintenance standards. Apply as needed road maintenance 

and wet weather road use BMP’s. Remove hazard trees and downed trees along roads for safety or 

operational reasons. 

x Fully decommission or obliterate (permanent closure) roads with no future resource management 

need. Decommission (long-term closure) roads not currently needed for resource management but 

that will be operated and maintained again in the future. Apply as needed road closure BMPs. Close 

roads only with the approval of affected reciprocal right-of-way permittees. 

Minerals 

Management Objectives 

x Mange the development of leasable (including traditional and non-traditional hydrocarbon resources), 

locatable, and salable resources in an orderly and efficient manner. 

x Maintain availability of mineral material sites needed for development and maintenance of access 

roads for forest management, timber harvest, local communities, rights-of-way for energy production 

and transmission, and for other uses. 

Management Direction 

x Notice-level locatable mining proposals in areas known to contain Federally-proposed or listed 

threatened or endangered species, or their proposed or designated critical habitat, will proceed as a 

Notice if the BLM determines that the proposal would have no effect on listed species or their 

proposed or designated critical habitat. If the BLM determines that there will be an effect on listed 

species or critical habitat, the notice must be resubmitted as a plan of operations. 

x Energy and mineral development can occur concurrently or sequentially with other resource uses. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

924 | Page

Leasable: Oil, Gas, or Coalbed Natural Gas Resources119

x Maintain all lands as open to leasable mineral development except where closed by legislation. 

x Maintain Recreation Management Areas, designated (where not already closed by legislation) and 

suitable Wild and Scenic River segments, protected lands with wilderness characteristics, and Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern as open to leasable mineral development with site-specific 

stipulations, such as no surface occupancy or conditional surface uses based on resource protection 

needs. 

x Apply site-specific stipulations as needed to protect Federally-listed threatened and endangered 

species and their critical habitats. 

Locatable 

x Petition for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry protected lands with wilderness characteristics 

and suitable Wild and Scenic River segments. 

x Petition for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry Recreation Management Areas when mineral 

entry is not compatible with meeting recreation objectives or maintaining Recreation Setting 

Characteristics (RSCs). 

x Petition for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry Areas of Critical Environmental Concern with 

identified special management needs associated with locatable mineral development. 

x Retain all other areas not congressionally or secretarially withdrawn as open for locatable mineral 

entry. 

Salable 

x Close protected lands with wilderness characteristics and designated (where not already closed by 

legislation) and suitable Wild and Scenic River segments to salable mineral development. 

x Close Recreation Management Areas to salable mineral development when not compatible with 

meeting recreation objectives or maintaining RSCs. 

x Close Areas of Critical Environmental Concern with identified special management needs to salable 

mineral development. 

x Maintain all other areas not closed through legislation as open to salable mineral entry. 

x Appendix L provides a reasonably foreseeable development scenario and the stipulations that will be 

applied to developments. 

National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) 

Management Objectives for all NLCS 

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

the National Landscape Conservation System and other congressionally designated lands. 

Management Objectives for Wild and Scenic Rivers 

x See common to all NLCS objectives 

 

119 The Sustainable Energy section addresses Geothermal Resources. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

925 | Page

Management Direction for Wild and Scenic Rivers 

x Protect outstandingly remarkable values of designated Wild and Scenic River corridors (including 

those classified as wild, scenic, or recreational). 

x Provide interim protection to Wild and Scenic River corridors (including those classified as wild, 

scenic, or recreational) that are suitable for inclusion as components of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers system until Congress makes a decision to designate them. 

x Provide interim protection to Wild and Scenic River corridors (including those classified as wild, 

scenic, or recreational) that are eligible but have not yet been studied for suitability as components of 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system pending suitability evaluations. 

x Designate as Right-Of-Way Avoidance Areas. 

x Require controlled surface use limitations. 

x Require timing limitations. 

x Require no surface occupancy for leasable mineral development. 

x Petition for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

x Close to salable mineral development. 

x Retain public lands in Federal ownership. 

Management Objectives for Wilderness Areas 

x See all common to all NLCS units 

x Preserve the wilderness character of designated Wilderness Areas. 

Management Direction for Wilderness Areas 

x Exclude all prohibited uses of Wilderness (as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the BLM 

Wilderness Management Manual) unless they have been demonstrated using the minimum 

requirements decision guide to be the minimum necessary to administer the area for the purposes of 

the Wilderness Act. 

Management Objectives for Wilderness Study Areas 

x See all common to all NLCS units. 

x Preserve wilderness characteristics in WSAs in accordance with non-impairment standards as defined 

under the management policy for Wilderness Study Areas (USDI BLM Manual 6330), until Congress 

either designates these lands as wilderness or releases them for other purposes. 

Management Direction for Wilderness Study Areas 

x Close all WSAs to motorized and mechanized travel. Travel required for valid existing rights would 

be allowed. 

x Prohibit the approval of new rights-of-way that do not satisfy the non-impairment standard. 

x Designate as Class I. 

Management Objectives for National Trails System 

x See all common to all NLCS units. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

926 | Page

Management Direction for National Trails System 

x Provide for the enjoyment and appreciation of the resources, qualities, values, and associated settings 

and primary uses within National Trail right-of-ways and for which National Trails are designated. 

x Enhance, promote, and protect the scenic, natural, and cultural resource values associated with current 

and future designated National scenic and historic trails. 

x For National trail management corridors: 

o Designate a Special Recreation Management Area. 

o Designate as VRM Class II. 

o Allow timber harvest activity only to protect or maintain RSCs or to achieve recreation 

objectives. 

o Require a controlled surface use stipulation on surface occupancy and surface disturbing 

activities. 

o Petition for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

o Close to salable mineral development. 

o Require no surface occupancy for leasable mineral development. 

Rare Plants and Fungi 

Management Objectives 

x Provide for conservation and contribute toward the recovery of plant and fungi species that are listed, 

or are candidates for listing, under the Endangered Species act. 

x Support the persistence and resilience of natural communities, including those associated with nonHarvest Land Base forests, oak woodlands, shrublands, grasslands, cliffs, rock outcrops, talus slopes, 

meadows, and wetlands. Support ecological processes and disturbance mechanisms to allow for a 

range of seral conditions. 

Management Direction 

x Manage Federally-listed species consistent with recovery plans and designated critical habitat, 

including the protection and restoration of habitat; altering the type, timing, and intensity of actions; 

and other strategies designed to recover populations of species. 

x Conduct surveys for Federally-listed and candidate species on BLM land with suitable habitat. 

x Maintain or restore natural processes, native species composition, and vegetation structure in natural 

communities outside of the Harvest Land Base through prescribed fire, thinning, removal of 

encroaching vegetation, retention of legacy components (e.g., large trees, snags, and down logs), and 

planting or seeding native species. 

x Use only species native to the plant community when re-vegetating degraded or disturbed areas. 

x Retain or reconnect the hydrologic flows to wetlands. 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

Management Objectives 

x Provide a diversity of quality recreational opportunities. 

x Meet legal requirements for visitor health and safety and mitigate resource user conflicts. 

x Mitigate recreational impacts on natural and cultural resources; in allocations where other resources 

are dominant, provide recreational opportunities where they can be managed consistent with the 

management of these other resources. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

927 | Page

x Develop new recreation opportunities (e.g., trails, trailheads, restrooms) to address recreation activity 

demand created by growing communities, activity groups, or recreation-tourism if: 

o Recreation development is consistent with interdisciplinary land use plan objectives; and 

o The BLM has secured commitments from partners in the form of a cooperative management 

agreement, adopt a trail agreement, memorandum of understanding, etc. 

Management Direction 

x Manage Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and Extensive Recreation Management 

Areas (ERMAs) in accordance with their planning frameworks. 

x Protect RSCs within SRMAs to prohibit activities that would degrade identified characteristics. 

x Pursue and prioritize public access to BLM-administered lands that have high recreational potential or 

historic recreation use. 

x Petition for withdrawal RMAs from locatable mineral entry as identified in specific RMA 

frameworks. 

x Allow the discharge of firearms for recreational target shooting on BLM lands, outside areas with fire 

arm use restrictions (see RMA frameworks), provided that the firearm is discharged toward a proper 

backstop sufficient to stop the projectile’s forward progress beyond the intended target. 

x Issue Special Recreation Permits as a discretionary action for a variety of uses that are consistent with 

resource and program objectives. 

x Prohibit vending permits outside special events on BLM administered lands. 

x Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually during the primary use season of June through 

October. 

x If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being protected, resource damage is occurring, 

or user conflicts need to be addressed, management action will be created to establish an allocation 

system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation use. 

x Develop and maintain partnerships with recreation-based organizations and service providers. These 

partnerships should engage partners in the planning, implementation and monitoring of recreation 

opportunities and facilities on BLM-administered public lands. 

Management Objective 

x Manage significant caves to allow for appropriate access while protecting pristine and fragile 

resources, wildlife values, scientific and research values, and visitor safety. 

Management Direction 

x Manage significant caves to maintain the current level of remoteness from motorized and mechanized 

vehicles and to preserve the natural appearance of the cave. Prohibit construction of new facilities, 

roads, or trails to access the caves. Allow for only minor modifications (e.g., tape, signage, and rescue 

caches) for scientific purposes and to accommodate safe use. Maintain low evidence of use and other 

people. 

x Manage visitor frequency, visitor numbers, and season of use through monitoring and subsequent 

implementation decisions described through cave management plans for each significant cave, group 

of caves, or complex of caves. 

x Focus all management actions on specific activity outcomes for caving and research. Outcomes will 

be for participants to enjoy and learn about cave and karst resources. Specific benefit outcomes will 

be for environmental benefits, such as increased environmental stewardship, and the preservation and 

protection of unique biological, paleontological, archaeological, and mineralogical aspects. Social 

benefits will be to provide environmental learning and appreciation of cave and karst systems. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

928 | Page

x Continue to allow appropriate access while addressing issues and concerns relating to visitor safety 

and preservation of the caves’ values. If issues or concerns arise, apply necessary managerial controls, 

such as closures, permits, trip requirements, and gating. Administer and authorize research, inventory, 

work projects, and digging trips. Provide information and education materials to authorized visitors. 

Do not market or promote cave and karst resources. 

Management Objective 

x Ensure public health and safety from hazards associated with formerly used defense sites (FUDS). 

Management Direction 

x Manage the portion of the Modoc Aerial Gunnery and Bombing Range located within the Klamath 

Falls Field Office to avoid or limit exposure to areas that may contain hazards associated with 

munitions and explosives of concern. Munitions and explosives of concern may include unexploded 

ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents when munitions constituents are 

present in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive hazard. The site may also be contaminated 

with munitions constituents that are not present in high enough concentrations to represent an 

explosive hazard, but in high enough concentrations to be a toxicity hazard in soil, groundwater, 

surface water, or air. 

x Coordinate uses on BLM-administered lands within FUDS with State and Federal military agencies 

to ensure public safety. Develop, as needed, cooperative agreements or Memorandums of 

Understanding to ensure communication, coordination, and safe use of public lands within FUDS. 

Soil Resources 

Management Objectives 

x Maintain or enhance the inherent soil functions (e.g., ability of soil to take on water, store water, 

regulate outputs for vegetative growth and stream flow, and resistance to erosion or compaction) of 

managed ecosystems so that the overall soil properties (e.g., bulk density, infiltration rate, soil 

texture, or organic matter levels) do not decline beyond acceptable levels that would impede said 

functions across the plan area. 

x Provide landscapes that stay within natural soil stability failure rates during and after management 

activities. 

Management Direction 

x Apply BMPs (Appendix I) as needed to maintain or restore soil functions and quality. 

x Allow management actions or activities that retain at least 80 percent of the inherent soil functions in 

proper working order. No detrimental soil disturbances of the immediately harvested or treated unit 

area shall exceed 20 percent of the unit area; this is a combined total of all detrimental impacts (e.g. 

timber harvesting, biomass removal, or fuel risk reduction treatments in various environments), 

including roads and landings. Detrimental soil disturbance occurs when soil properties change in a 

negative manner and the inherent capacity to sustain growth of vegetation is reduced (Powers et al. 

1998, USDA 1998). Detrimental soil disturbance can occur from one or a combination of all of these 

processes: erosion, loss of organic matter, severe heating to seeds or microbes, soil displacement, or 

compaction. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

929 | Page

x Failing to meet the following condition on areas treated constitutes an area (percentage based) with 

detrimental soil disturbance: The cumulative level of all soil-disturbing activities, existing or new, for 

each activity area is at or below the 20 percent detrimental level. 

x Use the Natural Resources Conservation Service Erosion Hazard Rating System to identify areas of 

erosion from disturbed soil treatment sites. Maintain the percent of effective ground cover needed to 

control surface erosion, such as medium to large gravels, cobbles, intact duff, and slash, in addition to 

vegetation or biological crusts (Robichaud et al. 2013) for each listed hazard level outlined in the 

table below. In the second year these standards rise to at least 30, 40, 60, and 75 percent depending on 

hazard level to ensure erosion protection is established or improving. 

Table B-4. Soil erosion ratings. 

NRCS Erosion Hazard Rating* Percent Cover 

Very Severe 60% 

Severe 45% 

Moderate 30% 

Slight 20% 

* Rating obtained from County Soil Survey information by map unit. 

x In order to avoid reaching detrimental soil conditions, no more than 49 percent of top soil and organic 

matter can be mechanically removed within any given area that is equal to or greater than 4.5 feet 

wide and 100 square feet in total area. If 50 percent or more of the topsoil or organic matter is 

mechanically removed, the entire disturbed area counts toward the allowable 20 percent of the project 

area in detrimental soil conditions. 

x Do not allow land disturbing activities to cause soils to exceed the critical bulk densities outlined in 

Table B-5. Compaction is noted when a change in soil structure from crumb or granular structure to 

massive or platy structure takes place anywhere from the surface to depths of 36 inches. The platy 

structure is generally continuous, not spotty. Exceeding these conditions constitutes a detrimental soil 

condition that counts toward the allowable 20 percent of the detrimental soil total. 

Table B-5. Critical limiting bulk densities for each soil texture class (Pierce et al. 1983) 

Soil Texture Class Critical Bulk Density 

(g/cm3) 

Sandy 1.69 

Coarse-loamy 1.63 

Fine-loamy 1.67 

Coarse-silty 1.67 

Fine-silty 1.54 

Clayey (35-45%) 1.49 

Clayey (45-100%) 1.39 

Timber Harvest and Fuels Reduction 

x Use designated skid trails and where practicable existing skid trails, prior to developing or 

designating new trails when harvesting or conducting fuel treatments with tracked or wheeled 

machinery to reduce amount of compacted area. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

930 | Page

x When operations conclude in regeneration units, remove all compacted equipment trails with 

acceptable tillage methods. Such trails shall increase water routing and storage functions, limit access, 

improve root and microbial population growth, and improve planting access. 

x When operations conclude within thinning or uneven harvest units, remove compacted equipment 

trails not necessary for future use with acceptable tillage methods such that residual stands do not 

incur root or bole damage impacts. Tilled trails shall return soil functions to the extent practical to 

increase water routing and storage functions, limit access, improve root and microbial population 

growth and improve planting access. 

x Operate all ground based machinery during a seasonal period of low soil moisture content (based on 

soil texture; this is generally from June 1 to October 15) to provide the greatest level of resistance to 

the forces of compaction. 

x Operate all ground-based machinery on slopes equal to or less than 35 percent except on sensitive or 

fragile soils in the southern part of the planning area. For those soils, operate on slopes equal to or 

less than 20 percent except when the percentage of clay in the top six inches averages greater than 15 

percent, in which case equal, to or less than 35 percent is acceptable. Fragile soils are skeletal or 

shallow soils (less than 20 inches deep), soils with less than 4 inches of Horizon A, or soils from 

granite and schist parent materials. Mechanical harvesting equipment with tracks (e.g. excavators, 

loaders, forwarders, and harvesters) may be used on short pitch slopes of greater than 35 percent but 

less than 45 percent when necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length determined on a sitespecific basis, generally less than 50 feet). 

x In unit areas where less than 20 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities; do not 

exceed 20 percent following project implementation or restoration activities. In unit areas where more 

than 20 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, at a minimum; do not exceed 

the prior existing conditions during implementation activities. In either case, remove unneeded or 

unused portions of existing conditions as well as any created conditions to meet or be below the 20 

percent limit with acceptable tillage methods. 

x To limit detrimental soil compaction from tracked or wheeled equipment, allow only equipment 

tracks that are Class 0 or 1 (ruts no more than 2 inches deep with compaction of soil no more than 4 

inches below the surface) as defined in Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol Field Guide 

(USDA 2009). Class 2 and 3 equipment tracks (ruts greater than 2 inches with soil compacted in platy 

nature up to 12 inches below surface) will constitute detrimental soil conditions and will be counted 

towards the allowable 20 percent any time tracked or wheeled equipment is employed. 

Prescribed Fire 

x Detrimental soil conditions exist when levels of heat related from burning material (broadcast or pile 

burning) reach the top layer of mineral soil and change the soil structure. Therefore, consume only the 

organic materials and prevent less than 15 percent of the mineral soil surface from changing in color. 

Usually to reddish color with a layer of blackened soil from charring of organic matter by heat 

conducted through top layer of mineral soil into a one-half inch layer below the reddish color. Soils 

exceeding these conditions are to be included as a portion of the 20 percent detrimental soil limit 

meant to preserve soil resources. 

x Limit all ground-based machine use to the same conditions for compaction area of extent and 

determination, slope and seasonal conditions and removal of detrimental soil conditions. Till all 

compacted areas with an acceptable tillage method such that residual stands do not incur root or bole 

damage if present. Tilled trails would return soil functions to the extent practical to increase water 

routing and storage functions, limit access, improve root and microbial population growth, and 

improve planting access. 

x Ensure that slope is assessed by qualified specialists (Geologist, Geomorphologist, Engineer, or Soil 

Scientist), to identify unstable landforms for any potential of landslides. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

931 | Page

x If there are structures or public roads downslope from a proposed timber operation that may be 

effected by a rapidly moving landslide, i.e. slope gradients exceed 80 percent (except in the Tyee 

Core Area where it is 75 percent) or the headwall and draw slopes exceed 70 percent (except in the 

Tyee Core Area where it is 65 percent), follow the ODF (Technical Note Number 6) protocol or use 

the Timber Production Capability Classification to identify the unstable conditions and restrict forest 

management actions. 

Sustainable Energy 

Management Objectives for all Sustainable Energy 

x Develop sustainable energy resources to the maximum extent possible without precluding other land 

uses. 

Management Direction for all Sustainable Energy 

x Exclude from sustainable energy development areas that are part of the National Landscape 

Conservation System (e.g., Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, National Monuments, NCAs, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and Scenic Trails), Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACECs), and lands managed for the protection of wilderness characteristics. 

x Development of sites will apply BMPs as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other resource uses. 

Appropriate BMPs will be applied based on site-specific conditions and include, but are not limited 

to: 

o Outdoor light will be controlled with motion or heat sensors to the maximum extent practicable 

o Outdoor lighting will be hooded and directed downward to minimize horizontal and skyward 

illumination to the maximum extent practicable 

o The use of high-intensity lighting will be minimized 

o Non-disturbance buffer zones will be established to protect sensitive habitats or areas of high risk 

for species of concern 

o Any pets of operations staff kept on-site will be controlled to avoid harassment and disturbance of 

wildlife 

o Existing roads and utility corridors will be used to the maximum extent feasible; the number and 

length and size of new roads, lay-down areas, and borrow areas will be minimized 

o Traffic volumes will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable and roads will be 

maintained adequately to minimize associated impacts 

o Permanent fencing will be installed and maintained around electrical substations, emergency 

generators and other areas potentially hazardous to human health 

o Necessary infrastructure requirements will be consolidated wherever possible, including electric 

power transmission lines, pipelines and market access corridors and support utility infrastructure 

o Energy conversion sites will be kept clean of debris, garbage, fugitive trash or waste, and graffiti; 

the accumulation of scrap heaps, dumps and storage yards will be kept to a minimum 

o Facilities used for sustainable energy harvesting, conversion and transmission will be designed to 

discourage the perching or nesting by birds 

o Facilities used for sustainable energy harvesting, conversion and transmission will be integrated 

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

cables, prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting 

o Secondary containment will be provided for all on-site hazardous materials and waste storage, 

including fuel. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

932 | Page

Management Direction for Biomass Energy Development 

x Timber harvest slash could be offered for sale as biomass energy conversion feedstock as an 

alternative to being burned on-site. 

x Timber harvest slash could be offered for sale as biomass energy conversion feedstock as an 

alternative to being left in place for soil stabilization. 

Management Direction for Wind Energy Development 

x Development of sites will apply BMPs as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other resource uses. 

Appropriate BMPs will be applied based on site-specific conditions and include, but are not limited 

to: 

o Turbine tower access doors will be locked to limit public access 

o Turbines will not be on or proximate to landscape features known to attract raptors 

o Turbines will not be on or proximate to bat hibernation, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies, 

in known bat migration corridors or in known bat flight paths between colonies and feeding areas 

o Turbine arrays and turbine design will encompass design elements including visual uniformity, 

use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, non-reflective paints, and prohibition of 

commercial messages on turbines 

o Inoperative turbines will be repaired, replaced, or removed in a timely manner 

o When fencing is necessary, construction will incorporate wildlife-compatible design standards 

o The use of guy wires on communication towers and meteorological towers at wind energy project 

sites will be avoided 

o The installation of meteorological towers on a project site will be kept to a minimum and will not 

be located in sensitive habitats or in areas where ecological resources known to be sensitive to 

human are present 

o Only a portion of the turbines within the wind project will be lighted and all pilot warning lights 

will fire synchronously 

o No wildlife habitat enhancements or improvements such as ponds, guzzlers, rock piles, brush 

piles, bird nest boxes, nesting platforms, wildlife food plots, etc. that would attract small 

mammals will be added to wind energy facilities 

o Only shielded, separated or insulated electrical conductors that minimize electrocution risk to 

avian wildlife will be used 

Management Direction for Geothermal Energy Development 

x Development of sites will apply BMPs as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other resource uses. 

Appropriate BMPs will be applied based on site-specific conditions and include, but are not limited 

to: 

o Geothermal energy drilling and development will minimize impacts to livestock operations 

o Reclamation of the land disturbed during the development of geothermal resources will 

incorporate certified weed-free mulch 

o Above-ground piping on site will be raised for sufficient wildlife passage 

o Any liquid that is at elevated temperatures or contains contaminants that are toxic or harmful to 

fur or feathers will be isolated from wildlife access with fencing, netting or complete enclosure 

o Management Objectives for Sustainable Energy Transmission Corridors 

o Provide land corridors that allow overhead or underground cables or pipelines necessary to 

connect sustainable energy conversion sites with transmission or sales networks that do not 

preclude other land uses. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

933 | Page

Management Direction for Sustainable Energy Transmission 

Corridors 

x Development of sites will apply BMPs as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other resource uses. 

Appropriate BMPs will be applied based on site-specific conditions and include, but are not limited 

to: 

o Overhead lines will be sited away from areas where bird crossing are frequent 

o Overhead lines will be marked in accordance with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

(APLIC) collision guidelines 

o Overhead lines will be installed such that the conductors parallel tree lines, employ bird flight 

diverters or are otherwise screened so that bat and bird collision risk is reduced 

o Pipeline ROW clearings will be of sufficient width so as to double as fire breaks in wildland 

locations 

o Pipelines constructed above ground will be raised higher to allow wildlife passage where needed 

to avoid potential alterations to predator-prey dynamics. 

Trails and Travel Management 

Management Objectives 

x Maintain a comprehensive travel network that best meets the full range of public, resource 

management, and administrative access needs.

x Protect fragile and unique resource values from damage by OHV use and provide OHV use 

opportunities where appropriate.

Management Direction 

x Permit motorized vehicle travel anywhere within an area designated as open to off-highway vehicle 

use. 

x Prohibit motor vehicle travel in areas closed to off-highway vehicle use. Access by means other than 

motorized vehicle, such as mechanized or non-motorized use, is permitted. 

x Restrict motor vehicle travel in areas limited to off-highway vehicle use. Limited area designations 

are established where number or type of vehicles; time or season of use; permitted or licensed use 

only; use limited to designated roads and trails; or other limitations or necessary to meet resource 

management objectives. 

x Manage OHV Recreation Management Areas (SRMA/ERMA) according to interim management 

guidelines until subsequent comprehensive travel management plans are completed (Appendix N). 

x Develop closed or abandoned roads, where feasible, to provide additional motorized and nonmotorized trail opportunities 

x Develop motorized and non-motorized trail design guidelines that are activity specific and tied to trail 

based experience objectives. 

x Prohibit motor vehicle use within designated deer and elk winter range between November 1 and 

April 15. 

x Develop motorized travel management areas and trails in a manner designed to minimize conflicts 

between OHV use and other existing, or proposed, recreational uses of the same, or neighboring, 

public lands; and in a manner designed to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing 

conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

934 | Page

Visual Resource Management 

Management Objectives (VRM General) 

x Protect the quality of the scenic values on public lands where VRM is an issue or where high-value 

visual resources exist, and protect areas having high scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and public 

visibility.

Management Direction (VRM General) 

x Only allow activities that are determined to meet visual management objectives using the Visual 

Resource Contrast Rating system. 

x Manage visual resources on BLM-administered lands according to the objectives for each VRM class.

Management Objectives (VRM Class I) 

x Prohibit activities that would disrupt the existing character of the landscape in VRM Class I areas.

Management Direction (VRM Class I) 

x Designated, suitable, and eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as wild, Wilderness 

Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and Wilderness Instant Study Areas will be managed as VRM Class I 

areas.

x Manage VRM Class I areas in accordance with natural ecological changes. Prohibit activities that 

would lower the inventory class of VRM I areas. The level of change to the characteristic landscape 

will be very low and will not attract attention. Changes will repeat the basic elements of form, line, 

color, texture, and scale found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

x Establish VRM Class I areas as Right-Of-Way Exclusion Areas. 

Management Objectives (VRM Class II) 

x Retain the existing character of the landscape in VRM Class II areas.

Management Direction (VRM Class II) 

x Designated, suitable, and eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as scenic will be 

managed as VRM Class II areas.

x Special Recreation Management Areas that fall within the Primitive and Backcountry category of the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) will be managed as VRM Class II areas. 

x Manage VRM Class II areas for low levels of change to the characteristic landscape. Management 

activities will be seen but will not attract the attention of the casual observer. Changes will repeat the 

basic elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape.

Management Objective (VRM Class III) 

x Partially retain the existing character of the landscape in VRM Class III areas. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

935 | Page

Management Direction (VRM Class III) 

x Designated, suitable, and eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as recreational will be 

managed as VRM Class III areas. 

x Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

(ERMAs) that fall within the Middle country category of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum will 

be managed as VRM Class III areas. 

x Manage VRM Class III areas for moderate levels of change to the characteristic landscape. 

Management activities will attract attention but will not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Changes will repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Management Objective (VRM Class IV) 

x Allow for major modification of the existing character of the landscape in VRM Class IV areas. 

Management Direction (VRM Class IV) 

x All lands that are not designated as Class I, II, or III, will be managed as VRM Class IV areas.

x Manage VRM Class IV areas for high levels of change to the characteristic landscape. Management 

activities will dominate the view and will be the major focus of viewer attention.

Wild Horses 

Management Objective 

x Manage and maintain a healthy population of wild and free-roaming horses in the Pokegama Herd 

Management Area of the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Management Direction 

x Gather horses to maintain the appropriate management level of 30-50 head. During gathers, the 

number of horses will normally be reduced to the low end of the appropriate management level, and 

then allowed to increase to the top end of the appropriate management level before another gather 

occurs. Horses may also be removed from private land per private landowner request. Horses straying 

outside the herd management area will be removed or returned to the herd management area. 

x Periodically introduce horses from other herd areas to the Pokegama herd to maintain viable herd 

genetic diversity. 

x Maintain existing water developments that provide season-long water for wild horses within the herd 

management area. Consider new developments that would assist in meeting the herd management 

objectives. 

x Provide periodic repair and maintenance of fences that protect riparian areas from concentrated use 

by wild horses. 

x Adjust the appropriate management level if monitoring data identifies a change in long-term forage 

availability or rangeland health assessments and evaluations determine that wild horse numbers, or 

patterns of grazing use is a contributing factor toward not meeting one or more of the Oregon 

Standards for Rangeland Health. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

936 | Page

Wildlife 

Management Objectives 

x Conserve and recover ESA-listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend so that ESA 

protections are no longer needed for those species. 

x Implement proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau Sensitive 

species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under the ESA. 

x Conserve or create habitat for species addressed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the ecosystems 

on which they depend. 

Management Direction 

x Implement conservation measures to mitigate specific threats to Bureau Sensitive species during the 

planning of activities and projects. Conservation measures include altering the type, timing, location, 

and intensity of actions. 

x Manage naturally occurring special habitats to maintain their ecological function including: seeps, 

springs, wetlands, natural ponds, vernal pools/ponds, natural meadows, rock outcrops, caves, cliffs, 

talus slopes, mineral licks, oak savannah/woodlands, sand dunes, and marine habitats. 

x Manage human-made special habitats as wildlife habitat when compatible with their engineered 

function including bridges, buildings, quarries, pump chances/heliponds, abandoned mines, and 

reservoirs. 

x [Klamath Falls; Medford] Maintain or enhance Special Status Species wildlife habitat on rangelands. 

x [Roseburg] For the Columbia white-tailed deer, continue to implement the record of decision for the 

North Bank Habitat Management Area. 

Bald and Golden Eagles 

x Protect known bald eagle or golden eagle nest sites and bald eagle winter roosting areas. Prohibit 

activities that will disrupt nesting where bald eagles or golden eagles are currently nesting. 

x Routine use and maintenance of existing roads and other facilities where such use pre-dates the 

eagles’ successful nesting activity can continue.

x Do not remove overstory trees within 330 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests. 

x Do not conduct timber harvest operations (including road construction, tree felling, and yarding) 

during the breeding season within 660 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests. Decrease the distance 

to 330 feet around alternate nests within a particular territory, including nests that were attended 

during the current breeding season but not used to raise young, or after eggs laid in another nest 

within the territory have hatched. 

x Prohibit operation of off-road vehicles within 330 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests during the 

breeding season. In areas without forest cover or topographic relief to provide visual and auditory 

screening, prohibit operation of off-road vehicles within 660 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests 

during the breeding season. 

Bats 

x Protect bat maternity colonies and bat hibernacula with a 250-foot buffer. Within this 250-foot buffer, 

protect the site from destruction, vandalism, disturbance from road construction or blasting, or any 

other activity that could change temperatures or drainage patterns at the site and maintain existing 

habitat conditions. Restoration necessary to protect this habitat would be allowed. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

937 | Page

x Prohibit human access into caves and abandoned structures (unless for education, monitoring, or 

research) where white-nose syndrome (fungal disease that infects bats) is found in the bats residing 

within. Prohibition of human access into such caves or abandoned structures would include signing 

and physical closure in such a way that air flow patterns are maintained, people are excluded, and bats 

can freely enter and exit. Where physical closure of the cave or mining structure is not feasible, then 

the roads or trails that provide human access would be closed to public access. 

Deer or Elk Management Areas (Klamath Falls, Medford, and 

Salem) 

x Restrict motor vehicle use within designated deer or elk management areas between November 1 and 

April 15. Techniques such as gating or signing will be used to impose the restrictions. Administrative 

use of all roads will occur, as needed, on a year-round basis. 

x Maintain visual barriers of vegetation (e.g., brush, shrubs, small trees) 25 feet wide along roads 

within designated deer or elk management areas. These visual barriers may discontinuous where 

needed to facilitate operations. 

x Plant forage species along roadsides, skid trails, and on disturbed areas, or create forage plots where 

forage for deer or elk is limited within designated deer or elk management areas. 

x [Klamath Falls; Medford specific] Thin, pile and burn, or remove encroaching western juniper that 

hinders attainment of desired forage conditions to maintain and improve forage for deer or elk. Retain 

old juniper during these treatments. 

Fisher 

x Retain structures used as known fisher natal and maternal den sites. 

x Within the Applegate, Chetco, Illinois, Middle Rogue, Upper Klamath, Upper Klamath Lake, and 

Upper Rogue sub-basins, retain conifers and hardwoods that have structures that are typically used as 

denning or resting sites (e.g., cavities, mistletoe, rust brooms) by fisher: 

o Live or dead conifers  36 inches DBH that have cavities, mistletoe, or rust brooms; 

o Live or dead hardwoods  24 inches DBH that have cavities, mistletoe, or rust brooms; 

x Restrict activities that create noise or visual disturbance(s) above ambient conditions within 0.5 miles 

of known fisher natal and maternal den sites from February 1 to June 30. 

Gray Wolf 

x Restrict activities that create noise or visual disturbance(s) above ambient conditions within one mile 

of active gray wolf dens from April 15 to August 31. 

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander - 

x Maintain habitat conditions for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander at those high-priority sites that do 

not have the risk of high intensity fire by restricting activities that would have adverse effects on 

substrate, ground cover, forest condition (e.g. canopy cover) or microclimate.

x Reduce fuel loading at those high-priority sites that do have a risk of high-intensity fire within desired 

conditions to improve Siskiyou Mountains salamander habitat.

Western Snowy Plover (Coos Bay) 

x The BLM’s contribution to the recovery of the western snowy plover consists of the following 

actions: 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

938 | Page

o Prohibit disrupting activities during the breeding season where western snowy plover are 

currently nesting. 

o Restrict public use of breeding areas during the breeding season. 

o Employ predator management to reduce loss of western snowy plovers. 

o Implement habitat restoration measures to maintain open sand conditions for nesting. 

Northern Spotted Owl 

Northern Spotted Owl Management Direction 

All allocations 

x Manage habitat conditions for northern spotted owl movement and survival between and through 

large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat. 

LSR 

x Protect120 stands of older, structurally-complex conifer forest. 

LSR and OHTA 

x Manage for large blocks of nesting-roosting habitat that support clusters of reproducing owls, such 

blocks are distributed across the variety of ecological conditions, and are spaced to facilitate 

movement of dispersing owls between and through the blocks. 

x Promote the development of habitat for the northern spotted owl in stands that do not currently meet 

suitable habitat criteria. 

x Maintain121 habitat for the northern spotted owl. 

 

120 Protect northern spotted owl habitat means to prohibit harvesting activities in a conifer forest stand except as 

provided in this definition. Harvesting activities are limited to the following: felling of live or dead hazard trees and 

stream logs, the construction of linear and nonlinear rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding corridors or other facilities, 

as long as the forest stand continues to support the same northern spotted owl life history requirements; nestingroosting habitat continues to support northern spotted owl nesting-roosting; dispersal habitat continues to support 

northern spotted owl movement and survival. Other Silvicultural activities, such as fire suppression, fuels reduction, 

insect and disease control, and other activities needed to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands 

may occur, even if they maintain, downgrade, or remove northern spotted owl habitat. 

121 Maintain northern spotted owl habitat refers to a silvicultural activity that changes a conifer forest stand but 

maintains structural characteristics such that the stand continues to support the same northern spotted owl life 

history requirements; nesting-roosting habitat continues to support northern spotted owl nesting-roosting; dispersal 

habitat continues to support northern spotted owl movement and survival. Scientific findings support the idea that 

conifer forest stands can be altered in a manner that does not necessarily change their use by northern spotted owls 

(see the summary in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, USDI FWS 2011, p. III-15). 

Although structural characteristics vary across the northern spotted owl’s range, northern spotted owl nestingroosting habitat generally is characterized by conifer stands with a multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by 

large (> 30 inches diameter at breast height) conifer overstory trees, and an understory of shade-tolerant conifers or 

hardwoods,  60 percent canopy cover, substantial decadence in the form of large, live conifer trees with deformities 

(such as cavities, broken tops, and dwarf mistletoe infections; numerous large snags), ground cover characterized by 

large accumulations of logs and other woody debris, and a canopy that is open enough to allow northern spotted 

owls to fly within and beneath it. Northern Spotted owl dispersal habitat generally is characterized by conifer forest 

stands with an average diameter of  11 inches at breast height and  40 percent canopy cover. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

939 | Page

Northern Spotted Owl Management Direction 

LSR 

x Such stands are a subset of, and represent the highest value, northern spotted owl nesting-roosting 

habitat. Although specific stand characteristics vary across the northern spotted owl range due to 

climatic gradients and abiotic factors (e.g., aspect), they generally have large-diameter conifer trees (

30 inches at breast height), a multi-layered, multispecies canopy, high canopy cover ( 60 percent), 

an understory of shade-tolerant conifers or hardwoods, decadence components such as large live trees 

with broken-tops, cavities and mistletoe infections, large snags, fallen trees, and a canopy that is open 

enough for northern spotted owls to fly through and beneath it. 

LSR and OHTA 

x In conifer forest stands that are not older and more structurally-complex, apply silvicultural 

treatments to promote the development of structurally-complex forest. 

x In stands that are currently nesting-roosting habitat, maintain nesting-roosting habitat function 

regardless of northern spotted owl occupancy. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

940 | Page

Alternative A 

Forest Management 

Management Objectives for HITA 

x See common to all Harvest Land Base lands

Management Direction for HITA 

x See common to all Harvest Land Base lands 

x Offer for timber for sale from regeneration harvest units with area totaling not less than 8 percent and 

not more than 17 percent of the area in this land use allocation in each Field Office per decade. 

x Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands  60 years old for any of the following reasons: 

o To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

o To develop a balanced age class distribution: Equal number of acres in each 10-year age class 

throughout this LUA in each Field Office. 

o Conduct post-disturbance salvage or manage dead or dying stands due to insects or disease. 

o Insect and disease management. 

o Convert stands with a composition of commercially undesirable tree species or an inadequate 

stocking of commercially desirable tree species to stands that are fully stocked by 

commercially desirable tree species. 

x Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands < 60 years old for any one of the above reasons, 

or for the following reason: 

o In order to reset stand development in stands that are overly dense that would not respond 

well to commercial thinning. Overly dense stands are generally characterized as having 

average crown ratios in trees over 8” DBH of  20 percent or average height to diameter 

ratios of trees over 8” DBH  80. 

x Remove all merchantable material from regeneration harvest units, except when overstory trees 

must be left to provide protection to the regenerating understory. Harvest these trees after such 

protection is no longer needed. 

o Regeneration harvest units will be adequately reforested with species mix appropriate to the 

site within five years of project completion. 

x Offer timber for sale from commercial thinning harvest units. 

x Apply commercial thinning for one or more of the following reasons: 

o To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

o To recover current or anticipated mortality, 

o To adjust stand composition or dominance, 

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

infestation; 

o To improve merchantability and value. 

x Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning at levels above that needed to occupy the 

site, but below densities that will result in loss of stand vigor and health. 

o Post-thinning stand average relative percent max SDI targets will be between 35 percent and 

45 percent. 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. 

x Remove all merchantable dead and down timber from disturbed area, where removal is 

economically viable. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

941 | Page

Management Objectives for UTA 

x See common to all alternatives 

Management Direction for UTA 

x See common to all alternatives 

Grazing 

Management Objectives 

x Provide for livestock grazing consistent with other resource objectives while maintaining or 

improving the health of the public rangelands.

x Prevent livestock from causing trampling disturbance to spawning beds where Federally-listed 

salmonid fish species occur. 

Management Direction (all Districts) 

x For streams with salmonid species listed under the Endangered Species Act, livestock will not be 

released into riparian areas until 30 days following emergence of salmonids from spawning beds. 

Management Direction (Medford, Klamath Falls) 

x Manage livestock grazing in accordance with the “Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington.” Figure 3-122 shows 

lands available for livestock grazing. Appendix K contains the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Oregon/Washington. 

x Maintain current grazing levels and management practices for the allotments shown in Appendix K. 

Make adjustments when rangeland health assessments and evaluations of monitoring data identify 

that livestock grazing is a contributing factor toward not meeting one or more of the Standards for 

Rangeland Health for Oregon and Washington. 

x Develop range improvements when needed to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health for Oregon 

and Washington, RMP objectives, or other allotment specific objectives. 

x Rest from livestock grazing those areas disturbed by natural and human-induced events including but 

not limited to wildland fire, prescribed burns, timber management treatments, juniper cuts, and 

rehabilitation. Resume livestock grazing after determination that soil and vegetation have recovered 

from the initial disturbance to support livestock grazing. Exceptions would be for cases where such 

grazing would not impede either site recovery, or where livestock are used as a tool to aid in 

achieving certain recovery objectives. 

x Authorize livestock grazing through management agreements, temporary nonrenewable grazing 

permits or leases, or special use permits on lands not available for livestock grazing through the 

issuance of a grazing lease or permit to control invasive plants, reduce fire danger, or accomplish 

other management objectives. 

Management Direction (Coos Bay) 

x Lands within the grazing allotments identified on Table B-6 will not be available for livestock 

grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease or permit. Grazing will not continue to be authorized 

under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Grazing may be authorized through management 

agreements, temporary nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with 

the grazing regulations. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

942 | Page

Table B-6. Allotments not available for livestock grazing, Coos Bay District. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Bullock 20006 8 12 

Kellogg 20007 3 6 

Middle Creek 20001 - 5 

New River 30001 530 97 

Totals 541 120 

Management Direction (Klamath Falls) 

x Lands within the grazing allotments identified on Table B-7 will not be available for livestock 

grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease or permit. Grazing will not continue to be authorized 

under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Grazing may be authorized through management 

agreements, temporary nonrenewable grazing permits, or leases, or special use permits consistent 

with the grazing regulations. 

Table B-7. Allotments not available for livestock grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres)

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs)

Edge Creek* 00102 5,950 - 

Plum Hills 00813 160 20 

Totals 6,110 20 

* The portion of the Upper Klamath Scenic River within the Edge Creek Allotment will be closed to grazing. This portion of the 

allotment is not allocated any AUMs. The remainder of the allotment will be available for grazing.

x Close exclosures and other areas identified on Table B-8 to grazing. 

Table B-8. Exclosures or other areas closed to grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number Area Closed (Typically Entire Area Inside the Exclosure Fencing) 

Edge Creek 00102 Hayden Creek Exclosures (2) 

Fox Lake Exclosure 

Buck Lake 00104 Tunnel Creek Exclosure 

Surveyor Campground Exclosure 

Dixie 00107 Dixie (Long Prairie Creek) Exclosure 

Jeld-Wen 00822 Aspen Exclosure 

Rodgers 00852 Van Meter Flat Reservoir Exclosure 

Yainax 00861 Bull Spring Exclosure 

Timothy Spring Exclosure 

Bear Valley 00876 Holbrook Spring Exclosure 

Bumpheads 00877 Bumpheads Reservoir Outlet Exclosure 

Antelope Creek Exclosure 

Horsefly 00882 Long Branch Exclosure 

Caseview Spring Exclosure 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

943 | Page

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number Area Closed (Typically Entire Area Inside the Exclosure Fencing) 

Norcross Spring Exclosure/Area within the spring exclosure fence 

Boundary Spring Exclosure

Barnes Valley Riparian Pasture (except as scheduled) 

Pankey Basin 00884 Pankey Creek Riparian Exclosure 

Dry Prairie 00885 Ben Hall Creek Riparian Pasture (except as scheduled) 

Horse Camp Rim 00886 21 Reservoir Exclosure 

Pitchlog 00887 

Pitchlog Creek Exclosure 

Willow Spring Exclosure

CCC Spring Exclosure 

Willow Valley 00890 

East Fork Lost River Exclosure 

Duncan Spring/Antelope Creek Exclosures (2)

Antelope Riparian Pasture (except as scheduled) 

Wood River 30855 Entire area excluded from regular grazing use via the 1996 Upper 

Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland ROD/RMP

Management Direction (Medford) 

x Lands with grazing allotments identified on Table B-9 below will not be available for livestock 

grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease. Grazing will not continue to be authorized under 

Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Grazing may be authorized through management agreements, 

temporary nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with the grazing 

regulations. 

Table B-9. Allotments not available for livestock grazing, Medford District. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Trail Creek 10003 12,868 113 

Longbranch* 10004 10,844 71 

Antioch Road 10005 40 4 

Roundtop Evans 10006 27,086 110 

West Perry Road 10010 75 10 

East Perry Road 10011 40 7 

Obenchain Mountain 10014 120 12 

Nichols Gap 10018 280 18 

Eagle Point Canal 10020 465 55 

Shady Branch 10025 320 32 

Derby Station 10030 540 36 

West Derby 10034 1,120 89 

Emigrant Creek 10111 40 7 

Baldy 10120 798 87 

Lost Creek 10123 80 6 

Cartwright 10127 40 4 

Bybee Peak 10144 321 36 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

944 | Page

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Stiehl 10210 175 18 

Fielder Creek 10211 40 5 

Del Rio 10216 40 5 

Sugarloaf/Greensprings 20158 2,926 210 

Applegate 20201 25,518 294 

Tunnel Ridge 20202 2,183 14 

Timber Mountain 20204 1,720 70 

Sardine and Galls Creek 20205 3,765 158 

Sterling Creek 20207 29,209 190 

Spencer Gulch 20208 1,935 150 

Quartz Gulch 20209 680 9 

Burton Butte 20212 5 2 

Chapman Creek 20213 3,309 81 

Ecker 20217 40 6 

Stage Road 20218 40 4 

Lomas Road 20222 635 50 

Star 20223 118 24 

Pickett Mountain 20302 820 30 

Jump Off Joe 20303 80 8 

Deer Creek* 20308 1,247 0 

Reeves Creek 20309 1,672 95 

Q Bar X 20310 15 3 

Esterly Creek 20312 4,457 152 

Glade Creek 20315 560 17 

Cherry Gulch 20316 40 6 

Totals 136,306 2,298 

* These portions of the Longbranch and Deer Creek Allotments will be closed to grazing. The remainder of the allotments will be

available for grazing. 

All areas that are currently without allotments will remain closed to grazing through the issuance of a 

grazing lease or permit. 

Invasive Species 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives. 

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

945 | Page

Sudden Oak Death 

x Do not apply sudden oak death treatments. 

Late Successional Reserves 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives.

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives. 

x When treating conifer forest stands that are not nesting-roosting habitat, limit silvicultural treatments 

to those that: 

o Speed the development of, or improve the quality of northern spotted owl habitat in the stand, or 

in the adjacent stand, or both. 

o Do not preclude or delay by 10 years or more the development of northern spotted owl nestingroosting habitat in the stand and in adjacent stands. 

Moist Forests 

x Retain cut trees. 

Dry Forests 

x See common to all Dry LSRs 

x Timber salvage is prohibited, except when necessary to protect public health and safety, or to keep 

roads and other infrastructure clear of debris. 

Rare Plants and Fungi 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives 

x Provide for the conservation of Bureau Special Status plant and fungi species. 

Management Direction 

x See also common to all alternatives 

x Manage Federal candidate and Bureau Sensitive plant and fungi species consistent with any existing 

conservation agreements or strategies including the protection and restoration of habitat; altering the 

type, timing, and intensity of actions; and other strategies designed to conserve populations of the 

species. 

x Create new and augment existing populations of ESA and Bureau Special Status plant and fungi 

species to meet recovery plan or conservation strategy objectives. 

Riparian Reserve 

Management Direction in the decision area west of Highway 

97 

x See common to all alternatives 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

946 | Page

Management Direction in the decision area west of Highway 

97 

x See common to all alternatives 

Table B-10. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature. 

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance* 

All streams One site-potential tree height distance from the edge of its 

active stream channel on each side of a stream 

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as 

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area 

between such an unstable area and the unstable area has the 

potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the 

stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the stream to include 

the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area. 

Lakes, natural ponds, and wetlands >1 

acre 

One-hundred feet extending from the edge of the water feature 

Ponds and wetlands <1 acre and 

constructed impoundments of any size The extent of riparian vegetation

Non-forest ecosystem streams and 

wetlands 

Edge of the water body to the limit of the water influence area, 

as indicated by hydrophilic vegetation 

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as 

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area 

between such an unstable area and the unstable area has the 

potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the 

stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the stream to include 

the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area.

* Reported distances are measured as slope distance. 

Table B-11. Zone-specific management direction. 

All Streams 

Inner Zone 

All fish-bearing streams and perennial non-fish-bearing streams: 0 to 120 feet 

Non-fish-bearing intermittent streams: 0 to 50 feet 

Do not thin stands, except as described below under “all zones” for fuels treatments. 

Outer Zone 

All fish-bearing and perennial non-fish-bearing streams: 120 feet to one site-potential tree height 

Non-fish-bearing intermittent streams: 50 feet to one site-potential tree height 

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide stable wood to the stream. Maintain at least 

30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an average across the riparian reserve portion 

of the stand.

Moist Forests: Remove trees only as needed for safety or operational reasons. 

Dry forests: Apply fuels reduction and thinning treatments and remove cut trees as needed to reduce the 

risk of large, high severity or high intensity fire. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per 

acre, expressed as an average across the riparian reserve portion of the stand. Merchantable timber from 

thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. Otherwise, remove trees only 

as needed for safety or operational reasons. 

All Zones (Edge of active stream channel to one site-potential tree height) 

See common to all alternatives 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

947 | Page

Fell trees as needed for stream restoration and towards the stream as feasible, if key pieces, size and 

volume are inadequate, based on ODFW benchmarks or NMFS habitat analytical procedure.

Moist Forest: Retain cut or blown down trees within the Riparian Reserve. Remove trees only as needed 

for safety or operational reasons. 

Dry Forests:

Apply low or moderate-severity burns where needed to invigorate native deciduous tree species. 

Moderate severity burns will be limited to no more than 20 percent of area of the Riparian Reserve 

subwatershed (HUC 12) each year. 

Apply non-commercial tree thinning as necessary to adjust fuel loads prior to a moderate-severity burn. 

Lakes, Ponds and Wetlands > 1 acre (Edge of the water body to 100 feet)

See common to all 

Moist Forest: Retain cut or blow down trees within the Riparian Reserve. 

Dry Forests: Apply low or moderate-severity burns where needed to invigorate native tree deciduous 

species. Moderate severity burns will be limited to no more than 20 percent of area of the Riparian 

Reserve subwatershed (HUC 12) each year. 

Apply non-commercial tree thinning as necessary to adjust fuel loads prior to a moderate-severity burn. 

Ponds and Wetlands < 1 acre and Constructed Water Impoundments of any size122

Edge of the water body to the limit of the water influence area, as indicated by hydrophilic vegetation. 

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative A. 

Non-forest ecosystems streams and wetlands 

Edge of the water body to the limit of the water influence area, as indicated by hydrophilic vegetation. 

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative A. 

Unstable areas that are above or adjacent to stream channels and are likely to deliver material such 

as sediment and logs to the stream if the unstable area fails. 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area between such an unstable area and the 

unstable area has the potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the stream, extend the 

Riparian Reserve from the stream to include the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area.

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative A. 

Wildlife 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives. 

 

122 Typically, small ponds in forest environments used for fire suppression activities. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

948 | Page

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives. 

Marbled Murrelet 

x Protect existing, occupied marbled murrelet sites as of [ROD Date] as they are currently mapped 

(refer to map in the 2015 FEIS/ROD that depicts these sites). 

x Restrict activities that disrupt marbled murrelet nesting during the nesting period where marbled 

murrelets are currently nesting. 

x Note: There is no management direction to conduct intensive surveys for the marbled murrelet (or 

subsequent direction for managing future, occupied sites) under Alternative A. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

949 | Page

Alternative B 

Forest Management 

Management Objectives for LITA 

x See common to all alternatives.

x Manage habitat conditions around northern spotted owl sites to promote species recovery (high vs. 

low). 

x Provide complex early-successional ecosystems. 

x Develop diverse late successional ecosystems for a portion of the rotation. 

x Provide a variety of forest structural stages distributed both spatially and temporally. 

Management Direction for LITA 

x See common to all alternatives. 

x Protect conifer forest stands (high vs. low): 

o Within the nest patch of a northern spotted owl known or historic site. The nest patch is 

delineated as a 200-meter radius circle around a known or historic site 

x Maintain or protect all NSO nesting-roosting habitat (high vs. low): 

o Within the 500-acre core use area circle around a known or historic nest site when < 250 posttreatment acres would support nesting-roosting habitat, regardless of pre-treatment conditions or 

cause. 

o Within the mean provincial home range circle around a known or historic nest site when < 40 

percent of the post-treatment circle would support nesting-roosting habitat, regardless of pretreatment conditions or cause. 

x Offer for timber for sale from regeneration harvest units with area totaling not less than 6 percent and 

not more than 10 percent of the area in this land use allocation in each field office per decade. 

o Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands  100 years old for one or more of the following 

reasons: 

 To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

 To develop a balanced age class distribution: Equal number of acres in each 10-year age class 

throughout this LUA in each field office. 

 Post-disturbance salvage or manage dead or dying stands due to insects or disease. 

 Insect and disease management. 

 Convert stands capable of supporting conifer species that are currently growing primarily 

hardwoods or shrubs to a mix of conifer and hardwood species suitable to the site, unless the 

hardwoods or shrubs would produce a higher net monetary return. 

 To produce complex early-successional ecosystems. 

o Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands < 100 years old for any one of the above 

reasons, or for the following reason: 

 In order to reset stand development in stands that are overly dense that would not respond 

well to commercial thinning. Overly dense stands are generally characterized as having 

average crown ratios in trees over 8” DBH of  20 percent or average height to diameter 

ratios of trees over 8” DBH  80.

o Regeneration harvest units shall meet the following criteria: 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

950 | Page

 Retain 15-30 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in individual regeneration harvest units. 

If the Riparian Reserve makes up  10 percent of the stand area, retain basal area towards the 

low end of the range; if the Riparian Reserve makes up <10 percent of the stand area, retain 

basal area towards the higher end of the range. 

 Create snags sufficient to meet snag targets in Table B-18. 

 Retention shall be left in a variety of spatial patterns, including clumps, aggregated groups, 

stringers, and individual trees. 

 Retention levels can be met with trees from any species or diameter class, and retention trees 

should represent the range of diameters and species present in the pre-harvest stand. 

 Use natural regeneration to establish desired stocking of tree species appropriate to the site. 

x At least 30 percent of the stand would be maintained below 30 percent canopy cover in 

regenerated trees for at least 30 years to allow the early-successional ecosystem to 

develop and mature. 

x Offer timber for sale from commercial thinning harvest units. 

o Apply commercial thinning for one or more of the following reasons: 

 To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

 To recover current or anticipated mortality, 

 To adjust stand composition or dominance, 

 To reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation; 

 To improve merchantability and value; 

 To increase or maintain vegetative species diversity; 

 To promote or enhance the development of structural complexity. 

o Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning at levels above that needed to occupy the 

site, but below densities that will result in loss of stand vigor and health. 

 Post-thinning stand average relative percent max SDI targets will be between 25 percent and 

35 percent. 

 Implement unthinned skips and group selection openings to provide increased structural 

complexity in the post-treatment stand. 

x The total area in group selection openings shall not exceed 10 percent of the thinned 

portion of the stand. 

x at least 1⁄2 of the skips would be implemented as retention islands unattached to the 

exterior harvest unit boundaries 

 Create snags sufficient to meet snag targets in Table B-18. 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. 

o For disturbance events causing mortality of  60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous areas 

10 acres in size: 

 Follow management direction for regeneration harvest units. Areas salvaged in this way also 

count towards regeneration harvest percent targets. 

o For all other disturbance events: 

 Remove all merchantable dead and down timber from disturbed area in excess of snag targets 

set forth in table X, where removal is economically viable. 

Management Objectives for MITA 

x See common to all alternatives. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

951 | Page

x Manage habitat conditions around northern spotted owl sites to promote species recovery (high vs. 

low). 

x Provide complex early-successional ecosystems. 

x Develop late-successional ecosystems for a portion of the rotation. 

x Provide a variety of forest structural stages distributed both temporally and spatially. 

Management Direction for MITA 

x See common to all ASQ lands.

x Protect conifer forest stands (high vs. low):

o Within the nest patch of a northern spotted owl known or historic. The nest patch is delineated as 

a 200-meter radius circle around a known or historic site. 

x Maintain or protect all NSO nesting-roosting habitat (high vs. low): 

o Within the 500-acre core use area circle around a known or historic nest site when < 250 posttreatment acres would support nesting-roosting habitat, regardless of pre-treatment conditions or 

cause. 

o Within the mean provincial home range circle around a known or historic nest site when < 40 

percent of the post-treatment circle would support nesting-roosting habitat, regardless of pretreatment conditions or cause. 

x Offer for timber for sale from regeneration harvest units with area totaling not less than 8 percent and 

not more than 10 percent of the area in this Land Use Allocation in each field office per decade. 

o Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands  60 years old for one or more of the following 

reasons: 

 To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

 To develop a balanced age class distribution: Equal number of acres in each 10-year age class 

throughout this LUA in each field office. 

 Post-disturbance salvage or manage dead or dying stands due to insects or disease. 

 Insect and disease management. 

 To convert stands capable of supporting conifer species that are currently growing primarily 

hardwoods or shrubs to a mix of conifer and hardwood species suitable to the site, unless the 

hardwoods or shrubs would produce a higher net monetary return. 

 To produce complex early-successional ecosystems. 

o Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands < 60 years old for any one of the above reasons, 

or for the following reason: 

 In order to reset stand development in stands that are overly dense that would not respond 

well to commercial thinning. Overly dense stands are generally characterized as having 

average crown ratios in trees over 8” DBH of  20 percent or average height to diameter 

ratios of trees over 8” DBH  80.

o Regeneration harvest units shall meet the following criteria: 

 Retain 5-15 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in individual regeneration harvest units. If 

Riparian Reserves make up  10 percent of the stand area, retain basal area towards the low 

end of the range; if Riparian Reserves make up <10 percent of the stand area, retain basal 

area towards the higher end of the range. 

 Create snags sufficient to meet snag targets in Table B-18. 

 Retention shall be left in a variety of spatial patterns, including clumps, aggregated groups, 

stringers, and individual trees. 

x Retention levels can be met with trees from any species or diameter class, and retention 

trees should represent the range of diameters and species present in the pre-harvest stand. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

952 | Page

 Use natural regeneration, artificial regeneration, or a combination of the two to establish 

target stocking of tree species appropriate to the site within 5 years following regeneration 

harvest. 

x Up to 10 percent of the stockable stand area may be left un-stocked with trees in order to 

enhance the diversity of the early-successional ecosystem. 

x 50-70 percent of full stocking is considered acceptable. 

x At least 30 percent of the stand would be maintained below 30 percent canopy cover in 

regenerated trees for at least 30 years to allow the early-successional ecosystem to 

develop and mature. 

x Offer timber for sale from commercial thinning harvest units. 

o Apply commercial thinning for any the following reasons: 

 To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

 To recover current or anticipated mortality, 

 To adjust stand composition or dominance, 

 To reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation; 

 To improve merchantability and value. 

 To increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

 To promote or enhance the development of structural complexity. 

o Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning at levels above that needed to occupy the 

site, but below densities that will result in loss of stand vigor and health. 

 Post-thinning stand average relative percent max SDI targets will be between 25 percent and 

35 percent. 

 Implement unthinned skips and group selection openings to provide increased structural 

complexity in the post-treatment stand. 

x The total area in group selection openings shall not exceed 10 percent of the thinned 

portion of the stand. 

x at least 1⁄2 of the skips would be implemented as retention islands unattached to the 

exterior harvest unit boundaries 

 Create snags sufficient to meet snag targets in Table B-18. 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. 

o For disturbance events causing mortality of  60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous areas 

10 acres in size: 

 Follow management direction for regeneration harvest units. Areas salvaged in this way also 

count towards regeneration harvest percent targets. 

o For all other disturbance events: 

 Remove all merchantable dead and down timber from disturbed area in excess of snag targets 

set forth in Table B-18, where removal is economically viable. 

Management Objectives for UTA 

x See common to all alternatives.

Management Direction for UTA 

x See common to all alternatives. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

953 | Page

x Snags (not downed wood) will be created in sufficient numbers to meet targets established in Table 

B-18

Grazing 

 Management Objectives 

x Provide for livestock grazing consistent with other resource objectives while maintaining or 

improving the health of the public rangelands.

x Prevent livestock from causing trampling disturbance to spawning beds where Federally-listed 

salmonid fish species occur.

 Management Direction (all Districts) 

x For streams with salmonid species listed under the Endangered Species Act, livestock will not be 

released into riparian areas until 30 days following emergence of salmonids from spawning beds. 

 Management Direction (Medford, Klamath Falls) 

x Manage livestock grazing in accordance with the “Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington.” Figure 3-122 shows 

lands available for livestock grazing. Appendix K contains the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Oregon/Washington. 

x Maintain current grazing levels and management practices for the allotments shown in Appendix K. 

Make adjustments when rangeland health assessments and evaluations of monitoring data identify 

that livestock grazing is a contributing factor toward not meeting one or more of the Standards for 

Rangeland Health for Oregon and Washington. 

x Develop range improvements when needed to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health for Oregon 

and Washington, RMP objectives, or other allotment specific objectives. 

x Rest from livestock grazing those areas disturbed by natural and human-induced events including but 

not limited to wildland fire, prescribed burns, timber management treatments, juniper cuts, and 

rehabilitation. Resume livestock grazing after determination that soil and vegetation have recovered 

from the initial disturbance to support livestock grazing. Exceptions would be for cases where such 

grazing would not impede site recovery, or where livestock are used as a tool to aid in achieving 

certain recovery objectives. 

x Authorize livestock grazing through management agreements, temporary nonrenewable grazing 

permits or leases, or special use permits on lands not available for livestock grazing through the 

issuance of a grazing lease or permit to control invasive plants, reduce fire danger, or accomplish 

other management objectives. 

 Management Direction (Coos Bay) 

x Lands within the grazing allotments identified on Table B-12 will be closed to livestock grazing 

through the issuance of a grazing lease or permit. Grazing will not be authorized under Section 15 of 

the Taylor Grazing Act. Grazing may be authorized through management agreements, temporary 

nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with the grazing 

regulations. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

954 | Page

Table B-12. Allotments closed to grazing, Coos Bay District. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Middle Creek 20001 - 5 

Bullock 20006 8 12 

Kellogg 20007 3 6 

New River 30001 530 97 

Totals 541 120 

 Management Direction (Klamath Falls) 

x Lands within the grazing allotments identified on Table B-13 will be closed livestock grazing 

through the issuance of a grazing lease or permit. Grazing will not be authorized under Section 15 of 

the Taylor Grazing Act. Grazing may be authorized through management agreements, temporary 

nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with the grazing 

regulations. 

 

Table B-13. Allotments closed to grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Edge Creek* 00102 5,950 - 

Plum Hills 00813 160 20 

Totals 6,110 20 

* The portion of the Upper Klamath Scenic River within the Edge Creek Allotment will be closed to grazing. This portion of the 

allotment is not allocated any AUMs. The remainder of the allotment will be available for grazing as described.

x Exclosures and other areas identified on Table B-14 are closed to grazing 

Table B-14. Allotments closed to grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Allotment Allotment 

Number Area Closed (Typically Entire Area Inside the Exclosure Fencing) 

Edge Creek 00102 Hayden Creek Exclosures (2) 

Fox Lake Exclosure 

Buck Lake 00104 Tunnel Creek Exclosure 

Surveyor Campground Exclosure 

Dixie 00107 Dixie (Long Prairie Creek) Exclosure 

Jeld-Wen 00822 Aspen Exclosure 

Rodgers 00852 Van Meter Flat Reservoir Exclosure 

Yainax 00861 Bull Spring Exclosure 

Timothy Spring Exclosure 

Bear Valley 00876 Holbrook Spring Exclosure 

Bumpheads 00877 Bumpheads Reservoir Outlet Exclosure 

Antelope Creek Exclosure 

Horsefly 00882 

Long Branch Exclosure 

Caseview Spring Exclosure

Norcross Spring Exclosure/area within the spring exclosure fence

Boundary Spring Exclosure

Barnes Valley Riparian Pasture (except as scheduled) 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

955 | Page

Allotment Allotment 

Number Area Closed (Typically Entire Area Inside the Exclosure Fencing) 

Pankey Basin 00884 Pankey Creek Riparian Exclosure 

Dry Prairie 00885 Ben Hall Creek Riparian Pasture (except as scheduled) 

Horse Camp Rim 00886 21 Reservoir Exclosure 

Pitchlog 00887 

Pitchlog Creek Exclosure 

Willow Spring Exclosure

CCC Spring Exclosure 

Willow Valley 00890 

East Fork Lost River Exclosure 

Duncan Spring/Antelope Creek Exclosures (2)

Antelope Riparian Pasture (except as scheduled) 

Wood River 30855 Entire area excluded from regular grazing use via the 1996 Upper 

Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland ROD/RMP

 Management Direction (Medford) 

x Lands with grazing allotments identified on Table B-15 below will be closed to livestock grazing 

through the issuance of a grazing lease. Grazing will not be authorized under Section 15 of the 

Taylor Grazing Act. Grazing may be authorized through management agreements, temporary 

nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with the grazing 

regulations. 

Table B-15. Allotments closed for livestock grazing, Medford District. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Trail Creek 10003 12,868 113 

Longbranch* 10004 10,844 71 

Antioch Road 10005 40 4 

Roundtop Evans 10006 27,086 110 

West Perry Road 10010 75 10 

East Perry Road 10011 40 7 

Obenchain Mountain 10014 120 12 

Nichols Gap 10018 280 18 

Eagle Point Canal 10020 465 55 

Shady Branch 10025 320 32 

Derby Station 10030 540 36 

West Derby 10034 1,120 89 

Emigrant Creek 10111 40 7 

Baldy 10120 798 87 

Lost Creek 10123 80 6 

Cartwright 10127 40 4 

Bybee Peak 10144 321 36 

Stiehl 10210 175 18 

Fielder Creek 10211 40 5 

Del Rio 10216 40 5 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

956 | Page

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Sugarloaf/Greensprings 20158 2,926 210 

Applegate 20201 25,518 294 

Tunnel Ridge 20202 2,183 14 

Timber Mountain 20204 1,720 70 

Sardine and Galls Creek 20205 3,765 158 

Sterling Creek 20207 29,209 190 

Spencer Gulch 20208 1,935 150 

Quartz Gulch 20209 680 9 

Burton Butte 20212 5 2 

Chapman Creek 20213 3,309 81 

Ecker 20217 40 6 

Stage Road 20218 40 4 

Lomas Road 20222 635 50 

Star 20223 118 24 

Pickett Mountain 20302 820 30 

Jump Off Joe 20303 80 8 

Deer Creek* 20308 1,247 0 

Reeves Creek 20309 1,672 95 

Q Bar X 20310 15 3 

Esterly Creek 20312 4,457 152 

Glade Creek 20315 560 17 

Cherry Gulch 20316 40 6 

Totals 136,306 2,298 

* These portions of the Longbranch and Deer Creek Allotments will be closed to grazing. The remainder of the allotments will be

available for grazing. 

All areas that are currently without allotments will remain closed to grazing through the issuance of a 

grazing lease or permit. 

Invasive Species 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives 

Sudden Oak Death 

x Prevent the introduction and the spread of sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) infections on 

BLM-administered lands. 

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

957 | Page

Sudden Oak Death 

x Apply state-of-the art, integrated pest management prescriptions for treatment at all sudden oak death 

(Phytophthora ramorum) infection sites outside of the Riparian Reserve. 

Late Successional Reserves 

These are older stands as defined by district layers and includes all stands inside of large block 

development areas (new BLM-designed). 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives.

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives.

x When treating conifer forest stands that are not nesting-roosting habitat, limit silvicultural treatments 

to those that: 

o Speed the development of, or improve the quality of northern spotted owl habitat in the stand, or 

in the adjacent stand, or both. 

o Do not preclude or delay by 20 years or more the development of northern spotted owl nestingroosting habitat in the stand and in adjacent stands. 

x After any commercial harvest entry, create snags sufficient to meet snag targets in Table B-18. 

x Dry Forests (defined by Potential Vegetation Type): see common to all alternatives 

x Timber salvage is prohibited, except when necessary to protect public health and safety, or to keep 

roads and other infrastructure clear of debris. 

Rare Plants and Fungi 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives 

x Provide for the conservation of Bureau Special Status plant and fungi species 

x Support the persistence and resilience of oak species within oak woodlands and within mixed 

hardwood/conifer communities outside of the Harvest Land Base. 

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives 

x Manage Federal candidate and Bureau Sensitive species consistent with any existing conservation 

agreements or strategies including the protection and restoration of habitat; altering the type, timing, 

and intensity of actions; and other strategies designed to conserve populations of the species. 

x Outside of the Harvest Land Base, manage mixed hardwood/conifer communities to maintain and 

enhance oak persistence and structure by removing competing conifers, thinning, and prescribed fire. 

Riparian Reserve 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

958 | Page

Management Objectives (applicable throughout planning area 

except eastside Klamath Falls) 

x See common to all alternatives 

Management Direction (applicable throughout planning area 

except eastside Klamath Falls) 

Table B-16. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature. 

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance* 

All fish-bearing streams and perennial 

non-fish bearing streams 

One site-potential tree height Riparian Reserve from the edge 

of its active stream channel on each side of a stream 

Intermittent non-fish-bearing 

headwaters streams with high debris 

flow potential123

One-hundred foot Riparian Reserve from the edge of its active 

stream channel on each side of a stream 

Intermittent non-fish-bearing streams 

without high debris flow potential 

Fifty foot Riparian Reserve from the edge of its active stream 

channel on each side of a stream 

Lakes, ponds, and wetlands > 1 acre One site-potential tree height Riparian Reserve extending from 

the edge of its water feature 

Ponds and wetlands <1 acre and 

constructed impoundments of any size Fifty foot Riparian Reserve from the edge of its water body

Non-forest ecosystems: streams and 

wetlands 

Edge of the water body to the limit of the water influence area, 

as indicated by hydrophilic vegetation. 

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as 

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails. 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area 

between such an unstable area and the unstable area has the 

potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the 

stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the stream to include 

the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area. 

* Reported distances are measured as slope distance. 

Table B-17. Zone-specific management direction. 

All Fish-Bearing Streams and Non-Fish-Bearing Perennial Streams 

Lakes, Ponds and Wetlands > 1 Acre 

Inner Zone (0 to 60 feet)

Do not fall or remove trees except for safety or operational reasons or as described in all zones for in 

stream restoration, disease treatments, alder, and brushfield conversion. 

Outer Zone (60 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Apply thinning to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies and 

multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for hardwood vigor and 

persistence.

Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian species and develop structurally complex 

stands. 

 

123 High debris flow potential determined from geospatial modeling (Miller et al. 2006) with a calibration dataset for 

extreme storms to generate a relative landslide density mapping. A classification of the relative landslide density 

mapping is performed to isolate the most susceptible areas; generally, the upper tier (25%) based on a geometric 

mean or breaks in the data. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

959 | Page

Retain at least 50 percent canopy cover and 80 trees per acre expressed as an average across the riparian 

reserve portion of the stand. Created canopy openings may not exceed 1⁄2 acre, and may not exceed 10

percent of the riparian reserve area in the stand. 

Fall and remove trees as needed for riparian restoration projects or stand maintenance. 

Tree tipping requirements: 15 percent of tree basal area marked for removal will be directionally felled 

towards the stream channel and left on site.

Retain snags and coarse woody debris in thinning operations, except for safety or operational reasons (e.g. 

maintaining access to roads and facilities)

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

All Zones (Edge of active stream channel to one site-potential tree height) 

Fell trees as needed to supply wood for in-stream restoration. 

Apply treatments, including commercial treatments, as needed for treatment of diseases including but not 

limited to: Port-Orford-cedar root rot disease. 

Apply commercial treatments as needed for red alder (Alnus rubra) or brush field conversions where the 

desired forest community type is being constrained. Projects must maintain water quality targets along 

303(d) listed streams with an approved TMDL. 

Dry Forests:

Apply fuels reduction and silvicultural treatments as needed to increase stand resistance and resilience to 

insects, disease, and fire. 

Intermittent Non-Fish-Bearing Streams with High Debris Flow Potential 

Inner Zone (0 to 50 feet)

Do not fall or remove trees except for safety or operational reasons or for dry forest resiliency treatments. 

New permanent road crossings would not be allowed. 

Outer Zone (50 to 100 feet)

Apply thinning to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies and 

multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for hardwood vigor and 

persistence.

Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian species and develop structurally complex 

stands for the benefit of riparian and aquatic species including early seral species. 

Retain at least 50 percent canopy cover and 80 trees per acre expressed as an average across the riparian 

reserve portion of the stand. Created canopy openings may not exceed 1⁄2 acre, and may not exceed 10

percent of the riparian reserve area in the stand. 

Fall and remove trees as needed for riparian restoration projects or stand maintenance, including but not 

limited to alder or brush field conversions, or for treatment of diseases including but not limited to PortOrford-cedar root rot disease outbreaks. 

Tree tipping requirements: 15 percent of tree basal area marked for removal will be directionally felled 

towards the stream channel and left on site.
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

960 | Page

Retain snags and coarse woody debris in thinning operations, except for safety or operational reasons 

(e.g., maintaining access to roads and facilities). 

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale, 

where it is economically viable to do so. 

All Zones (Edge of active stream channel to 100 feet)

Dry Forests: Apply fuels reduction and silvicultural treatments as needed to increase stand resistance and 

resilience to insects, disease, and fire. 

Intermittent Non-Fish Bearing Streams with No High Debris Flow Potential (0 to 50 feet)

Do not fall or remove trees except for safety, operational reasons, or dry forest resiliency treatments. 

Apply commercial treatments as needed for treatment of diseases including but not limited to PortOrford-cedar root rot disease outbreaks. 

Dry Forests: Apply fuels reduction and silvicultural treatments as needed to increase stand resistance and 

resilience to insects, disease, and fire. 

Ponds And Wetlands <1 acre and Constructed Impoundments of Any Size (0 to 50 feet) 

Do not fall or remove trees except for safety, operational reasons, or dry forest resiliency treatments. 

Dry Forests: Apply fuels reduction and silvicultural treatments as needed to increase stand resistance and 

resilience to insects, disease, and fire. 

Non-forest Ecosystems, Streams and Wetlands 

Edge of the water body to the limit of the water influence area, as indicated by hydrophilic vegetation. 

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative B. 

Unstable Areas that are above or adjacent to stream channels and are likely to deliver material 

such as sediment and logs to the stream if the unstable area fails 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area between such an unstable area and the 

unstable area has the potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the stream, extend the 

Riparian Reserve from the stream to include the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area.

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative B. 

Wildlife 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives. 

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives. 

Marbled Murrelet 

x Conduct intensive surveys for the marbled murrelet prior to implementation of projects that could 

degrade or remove potential habitat within 0-35 miles from the coast. Potential habitat for the 

marbled murrelet is defined as: (1) mature (with or without a structurally-complex component) or 

structurally-complex coniferous forests and (2) coniferous forests < 80 years old that have platform 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

961 | Page

trees124. Platforms can be created by a wide bare branch, moss, or lichen covering a branch, mistletoe, 

witches brooms, other deformities, or structures such as squirrel nests. 

x If surveys indicate that habitat is occupied by marbled murrelets, then protect all potential habitat 

within a 300 foot of the occupied stand. 

x Protect existing, occupied marbled murrelet sites as of [ROD Date] as they are currently mapped 

(refer to map in the 2015 FEIS/ROD that depicts these sites). 

x In lieu of intensive surveys for marbled murrelets, the following options are available when 

conducting projects in stands < 80 years old: 

o Prohibit the removal or damage of platform trees. This includes the removal or damage of trees 

with platforms and the removal or damage of adjacent trees with branches that interlock the 

branches of any platform tree. 

o Prohibit timber harvest and associated ground disturbances during the marbled murrelet nesting 

period unless otherwise allowed by a biological opinion or letter of concurrence. 

o Maintain125 marbled murrelet habitat within a 1⁄2 site-potential tree height buffer around all 

platform trees. 

o Restrict activities that disrupt marbled murrelet nesting during the nesting period where marbled 

murrelets are currently nesting. 

North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Red Tree 

Vole 

x Survey proposed projects within the range of the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of 

the red tree vole that could degrade or remove habitat. Habitat that requires surveys prior to 

modification includes either (a) or (b) from each of the following two bullets: 

o (a) stands with a QMD  16 inches in the in the Northern Mesic Zone or (b) stands with QMD 

18 inches in the Mesic Zone; and 

o (a) conifer-dominated stands that are mature or structurally complex or (b) conifer-dominated 

stands that have  60 percent canopy closure and have  2 superdominant conifer trees126 per 

acre. 

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

to implementation: 

o Projects in stands < 80 years old; 

 

124 Platform Trees are trees that provide opportunities for marbled murrelet nesting. A platform tree has the 

following characteristics: 

• It occurs within 35 miles (56 km) of the coast; 

• It is a conifer; 

• It has a DBH  19.1 inches (49 cm), height > 107 feet (33 m), has at least one platform  4 inches (10 cm) in 

diameter, nesting substrate (e.g. moss, epiphytes, duff) on that platform, and an access route through the canopy that 

a murrelet could use to approach and land on the platform; 

• It has potential structure  33 feet (10 m) above the ground; 

• And it has a tree branch or foliage, either on the tree with potential structure or on a surrounding tree, which 

provides protective cover over the platform. 

125 Maintain marbled murrelet habitat refers to a silvicultural activity that changes a conifer forest stand but 

maintains structural characteristics such that the stand continues to support marbled murrelet nesting opportunities.

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

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

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

larger than the rest of the trees in the stand. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

962 | Page

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

the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; 

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

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

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

channel diversions; or 

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

fuels treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to survey requirements 

except for projects in stands < 80 years old. 

x If surveys indicate that habitat is occupied by red tree voles from the North Oregon Coast Distinct 

Population Segment, then a “habitat area” will be established for each cluster of nests that are not 

isolated from one another by more than 330 feet and includes at least one active nest. 

o Habitat areas will be at least 10 acres in size and will include 1.0 acre per nest if there are more than 10 red tree 

vole nests (e.g., 15 red tree vole nests would result in a habitat area 15 acres in size). 

o Within habitat areas, do not remove or modify nest trees, the canopy structure of the stand, or 

remove the dominant, co-dominant, or intermediate crowns. 

o Habitat areas for the North Coast Distinct Population Segment of the red tree vole may be 

designated as non-high priority and released for other management objectives if they occur south 

of Highway 20. 

o Habitat areas north of Highway 20 will not be designated as non-high priority as they are 

considered a high priority for the conservation of the species. 

Snags and Down Woody Material 

x Retain existing snags and existing down woody material during silvicultural treatments of stands, 

except for safety or operational reasons. Retain snags felled for safety or operational reasons as 

down woody material. 

x Create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-18 and Table B-19 at the time of 

silvicultural treatment. If insufficient trees are available in the size class specified, use trees from 

the largest size class available. Snags and coarse woody debris retention standards would be met 

as an average at the scale of the harvest unit, and is not intended to be attained on every acre.

Table B-18. Snag creation levels within the Harvest Land Base (MITA, LITA OHTA, UTA), in 

Alternative B. 

District/Field 

Office Province

Create This Number of Snags/Acre 

at Time of Treatment in the Harvest Land Base 

> 20 Inches DBH > 10 Inches DBH Total Trees to Snag 

Coos Bay All 1 - 1 

Eugene OR Coast Range 1 - 1 

Eugene Western Cascades 1 - 1 

Klamath Falls All 1 - 1 

Medford All - - - 

Roseburg OR Coast Range 3 - 3 

Roseburg Western Cascades 3 3 6 

Roseburg Klamath - - - 

Salem OR Coast Range 1 - 1 

Salem Western Cascades 1 - 1 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

963 | Page

Table B-19. Snag creation levels within the Reserves (LSR120, LSR no age limit, RR) in Alternative B. 

District/Field 

Office Province

Create This Number of Snags/Acre 

at Time of Treatment in the Reserve 

> 20 Inches DBH > 10 Inches DBH Total Trees to Snag 

Coos Bay All 5 5 10 

Eugene OR Coast Range 5 5 10 

Eugene Western Cascades 5 20 25 

Klamath Falls All 2 5 7 

Medford All 1 1 2 

Roseburg OR Coast Range 6 7 13 

Roseburg Western Cascades 6 25 31 

Roseburg Klamath 1 1 2 

Salem OR Coast Range 5 5 10 

Salem Western Cascades 5 20 25 

x Retain snags and down woody material at levels described in Table B-20 following a stand-replacing 

event. Snags and coarse woody debris retention standards would be met as an average at the scale of 

the salvage harvest unit, and is not intended to be attained on every acre. Quantities in excess of the 

levels described in Table B-20 could be salvaged to reduce fuel loading. 

Table B-20. When implementing fuels treatments/prescription fire snag and down woody material 

retention levels within the Reserves (LSR120, LSR no age limit, RR) under Alternative B. 

District/Field 

Office Province

Target Number of Snags and Down Wood Cover to Have at 

the Time of Treatment in the Reserve 

> 20 Inches DBH > 10 Inches DBH Percent Cover 

Coos Bay All 8 19 6% 

Eugene OR Coast Range 8 19 6% 

Eugene Western Cascades 8 19 10% 

Klamath Falls All 4 13 3% 

Medford All 3 7 2% 

Roseburg OR Coast Range 8 19 6% 

Roseburg Western Cascades 8 19 10% 

Roseburg Klamath 3 7 2% 

Salem OR Coast Range 8 19 6% 

Salem Western Cascades 8 19 10% 

Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

965 | Page

Alternative C 

Forest Management 

Management Objectives for High Intensity Timber Area (HITA) 

x See common to all alternatives

Management Directions for HITA 

x See common to all alternatives 

x Offer for timber for sale from regeneration harvest units with area totaling not less than 8 percent and 

not more than 17 percent of the area in this Land Use Allocation in each field office per decade. 

x Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands  60 years old for one or more of the following 

reasons: 

o To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

o To develop a balanced age class distribution: Equal number of acres in each 10-year age class 

throughout this LUA in each field office. 

o Conduct post-disturbance salvage and management of dead or dying stands due to insects or 

disease. 

o Insect and disease management. 

o Convert stands with a composition of commercially undesirable tree species or an inadequate 

stocking of commercially desirable tree species to stands that are fully stocked by 

commercially desirable tree species. 

x Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands < 60 years old for any one of the above reasons, 

or for the following reason: 

o In order to reset stand development in stands that are overly dense that would not respond 

well to commercial thinning. Overly dense stands are generally characterized as having 

average crown ratios in trees over 8 inches DBH of  20 percent or average height to 

diameter ratios of trees over 8 inches DBH  80. 

x Remove all merchantable material from regeneration harvest units, except when overstory trees 

must be left to provide protection to the regenerating understory. Harvest these trees after such 

protection is no longer needed. 

o Regeneration harvest units will be adequately reforested with species mix appropriate to the 

site within five years of project completion. 

x Offer timber for sale from commercial thinning harvest units. 

x Apply commercial thinning for any of the following reasons: 

o To remove timber volume 

o To recover current or anticipated mortality 

o To adjust stand composition or dominance 

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

infestation 

o To improve merchantability and value 

x Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning at levels above that needed to occupy the 

site, but below densities that will result in loss of stand vigor and health. 

o Post-thinning stand average relative percent max SDI targets will be between 35 percent and 

45 percent. 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

966 | Page

x Remove all merchantable dead and down timber from disturbed area, where removal is 

economically viable. 

Management Objectives for UTA 

x See common to all alternatives 

Management Direction for UTA 

x See common to all alternatives 

x After commercial harvest entries, retain or create snags sufficient to meet targets shown in Tables B27 or B-28. 

Grazing 

Management Objectives 

x Provide for livestock grazing consistent with other resource objectives while maintaining or 

improving the health of the public rangelands.

x Prevent livestock from causing trampling disturbance to spawning beds where Federally-listed 

salmonid fish species occur.

Management Direction (all Districts) 

x For streams with salmonid species listed under the Endangered Species Act, livestock will not be 

released into riparian areas until 30 days following emergence of salmonids from spawning beds. 

Management Direction (Medford, Klamath Falls) 

x Manage livestock grazing in accordance with the “Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington.” Figure 3-122 shows 

lands available for livestock grazing. Appendix K contains the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Oregon/Washington. 

x Maintain current grazing levels and management practices for the allotments shown in Appendix K. 

Make adjustments when rangeland health assessments and evaluations of monitoring data identify 

that livestock grazing is a contributing factor toward not meeting one or more of the Standards for 

Rangeland Health for Oregon and Washington. 

x Develop range improvements when needed to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health for Oregon 

and Washington, RMP objectives, or other allotment specific objectives. 

x Rest from livestock grazing those areas disturbed by natural and human-induced events including but 

not limited to wildland fire, prescribed burns, timber management treatments, juniper cuts, and 

rehabilitation. Resume livestock grazing after determination that soil and vegetation have recovered 

from the initial disturbance to support livestock grazing. Exceptions would be for cases where such 

grazing would not impede either site recovery, or where livestock are used as a tool to aid in 

achieving certain recovery objectives. 

x Authorize livestock grazing through management agreements, temporary nonrenewable grazing 

permits or leases, or special use permits on lands not available for livestock grazing through the 

issuance of a grazing lease or permit to control invasive plants, reduce fire danger, or accomplish 

other management objectives. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

967 | Page

Management Direction (Coos Bay) 

x Lands within the grazing allotments identified on Table B-21 will not be available for livestock 

grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease or permit. Grazing will not continue to be authorized 

under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Grazing may be authorized through management 

agreements, temporary nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with 

the grazing regulations. 

Table B-21. Allotments closed to grazing, Coos Bay. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Bullock 20006 8 12 

Kellogg 20007 3 6 

Middle Creek 20001 - 5 

New River 30001 530 97 

Totals 541 120 

Management Direction (Klamath Falls) 

x Lands within the grazing allotments identified on Table B-22 will not be available for livestock 

grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease or permit. Grazing will not continue to be authorized 

under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Grazing may be authorized through management 

agreements, temporary nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with 

the grazing regulations. 

Table B-22. Allotments not available for livestock grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Edge Creek* 00102 5,950 - 

Plum Hills 00813 160 20 

Totals 6,110 20 

* The portion of the Upper Klamath Scenic River within the Edge Creek Allotment will be closed to grazing. This portion of the 

allotment is not allocated any AUMs. The remainder of the allotment will be available for grazing. 

x Exclosures and other areas identified on Table B-23 are closed to grazing. 

Table B-23. Allotments closed to grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number Area Closed (Typically Entire Area Inside the Exclosure Fencing) 

Edge Creek 00102 Hayden Creek Exclosures (2) 

Fox Lake Exclosure 

Buck Lake 00104 Tunnel Creek Exclosure 

Surveyor Campground Exclosure 

Dixie 00107 Dixie (Long Prairie Creek) Exclosure 

Jeld-Wen 00822 Aspen Exclosure 

Rodgers 00852 Van Meter Flat Reservoir Exclosure 

Yainax 00861 Bull Spring Exclosure 

Timothy Spring Exclosure 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

968 | Page

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number Area Closed (Typically Entire Area Inside the Exclosure Fencing) 

Bear Valley 00876 Holbrook Spring Exclosure 

Bumpheads 00877 Bumpheads Reservoir Outlet Exclosure 

Antelope Creek Exclosure 

Horsefly 00882 

Long Branch Exclosure 

Caseview Spring Exclosure

Norcross Spring Exclosure/area within the spring exclosure fence 

Boundary Spring Exclosure

Barnes Valley Riparian Pasture (except as scheduled) 

Pankey Basin 00884 Pankey Creek Riparian Exclosure 

Dry Prairie 00885 Ben Hall Creek Riparian Pasture (except as scheduled) 

Horse Camp Rim 00886 21 Reservoir Exclosure 

Pitchlog 00887 

Pitchlog Creek Exclosure 

Willow Spring Exclosure

CCC Spring Exclosure 

Willow Valley 00890 

East Fork Lost River Exclosure 

Duncan Spring/Antelope Creek Exclosures (2)

Antelope Riparian Pasture (except as scheduled) 

Wood River 30855 Entire area excluded from regular grazing use via the 1996 Upper 

Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland ROD/RMP

Management Direction (Medford) 

x Lands with grazing allotments identified on Table B-24 below will be closed to livestock grazing 

through the issuance of a grazing lease. Grazing will not be authorized under Section 15 of the Taylor 

Grazing Act. Grazing may be authorized through management agreements, temporary nonrenewable 

grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with the grazing regulations. 

Table B-24. Allotments not available for livestock grazing, Medford District. 

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Trail Creek 10003 12,868 113 

Longbranch* 10004 10,844 71 

Antioch Road 10005 40 4 

Roundtop Evans 10006 27,086 110 

West Perry Road 10010 75 10 

East Perry Road 10011 40 7 

Obenchain Mountain 10014 120 12 

Nichols Gap 10018 280 18 

Eagle Point Canal 10020 465 55 

Shady Branch 10025 320 32 

Derby Station 10030 540 36 

West Derby 10034 1,120 89 

Emigrant Creek 10111 40 7 

Baldy 10120 798 87 

Lost Creek 10123 80 6 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

969 | Page

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land 

(Acres) 

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Cartwright 10127 40 4 

Bybee Peak 10144 321 36 

Stiehl 10210 175 18 

Fielder Creek 10211 40 5 

Del Rio 10216 40 5 

Sugarloaf/Greensprings 20158 2,926 210 

Applegate 20201 25,518 294 

Tunnel Ridge 20202 2,183 14 

Timber Mountain 20204 1,720 70 

Sardine and Galls Creek 20205 3,765 158 

Sterling Creek 20207 29,209 190 

Spencer Gulch 20208 1,935 150 

Quartz Gulch 20209 680 9 

Burton Butte 20212 5 2 

Chapman Creek 20213 3,309 81 

Ecker 20217 40 6 

Stage Road 20218 40 4 

Lomas Road 20222 635 50 

Star 20223 118 24 

Pickett Mountain 20302 820 30 

Jump Off Joe 20303 80 8 

Deer Creek* 20308 1,247 0 

Reeves Creek 20309 1,672 95 

Q Bar X 20310 15 3 

Esterly Creek 20312 4,457 152 

Glade Creek 20315 560 17 

Cherry Gulch 20316 40 6 

Totals 136,306 2,298 

* These portions of the Longbranch and Deer Creek Allotments will be closed to grazing. The remainder of the allotments will be

available for grazing. 

All areas that are currently without allotments will remain closed to grazing through the issuance of a 

grazing lease or permit. 

Invasive Species 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

970 | Page

Sudden Oak Death 

x Prevent the introduction and the spread of sudden oak death infections on BLM–administered 

lands. 

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives 

Sudden Oak Death 

x Apply state-of-the art, integrated pest management prescriptions for treatment at all identified sudden 

oak death infection sites. 

Late Successional Reserves 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives

x Recover economic value from timber harvested after disturbances from fire, weather events, natural 

disasters, diseases, or insect infestations. 

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives

x When treating conifer forest stands that are not nesting-roosting habitat, limit silvicultural treatments 

to those that: 

o Speed the development of, or improve the quality of northern spotted owl habitat in the stand, or 

in the adjacent stand, or both. 

o Do not preclude or delay by 20 years or more the development of northern spotted owl nestingroosting habitat in the stand and in adjacent stands. 

x After commercial harvest entries, retain or create snags sufficient to meet targets shown in Table B29. 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. 

o For disturbance events causing mortality of  60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous areas 

10 acres in size: 

 Salvage all dead wood volume in excess of down wood and snag requirements set forth in 

Table B-29. 

o For all other disturbance events: 

 Salvage timber only where needed to reduce hazards to public health and safety. 

Rare Plants and Fungi 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives 

x Provide for the conservation of Bureau Special Status plant and fungi species 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

971 | Page

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives 

x Manage Federal Candidate and Bureau Sensitive species consistent with any existing conservation 

agreements or strategies including the protection and restoration of habitat; altering the type, timing, 

and intensity of actions; and other strategies designed to conserve populations of the species. 

x Create new and augment existing populations of ESA and Special Status Species listed plants and 

fungi to meet recovery plan or conservation strategy objectives. 

Riparian Reserve 

Management Objectives (applicable throughout planning area 

except eastside Klamath Falls) 

x See common to all. 

Management Objectives (applicable throughout planning area 

except eastside Klamath Falls) 

Table B-25. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature. 

Riparian Reserve Riparian Reserve Distance* 

All fish-bearing streams and perennial 

non-fish-bearing streams 

150 feet from the edge of its active stream channel on each side 

of a stream 

Intermittent non-fish-bearing streams 50 feet from the edge of its active stream channel on each side 

of a stream 

Lakes, ponds, and wetlands > 1 acre 150 feet extending from the edge of its water feature 

Ponds and wetlands < 1 acre and 

constructed impoundments of any size 50 feet from the edge of its water body

Non-forest ecosystems streams and 

wetlands 

Edge of the water body to the limit of the water influence area, 

as indicated by hydrophilic vegetation 

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as 

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area 

between such an unstable area and the unstable area has the 

potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the 

stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the stream to include 

the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area. 

* Reported distances measured as slope distance.

Table B-26. Zone-specific management direction. 

All Fish-Bearing Streams and Non-Fish-Bearing Perennial Streams 

Lakes, Ponds, and Wetlands > 1 Acre 

Inner Zone (0 to 60 feet)

Do not fall or remove trees except for safety or operational reasons or as described in all zones for instream restoration, disease treatments, alder, and brush field conversion. 

Outer Zone (60 to 150 feet)

Apply thinning to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies and 

multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for hardwood vigor and 

persistence.
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

972 | Page

Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian species and develop structurally complex 

stands. 

Retain at least 50 percent canopy cover and 80 trees per acre expressed as an average across the riparian 

reserve portion of the stand. Created canopy openings may not exceed 1⁄2-acre, and may not exceed 10

percent of the riparian reserve area in the stand. 

Fall and remove trees as needed for riparian restoration projects or stand maintenance. 

Tree tipping requirements: 15 percent of tree basal area marked for removal will be directionally felled 

towards the stream channel and left on site.

Retain snags and coarse woody debris in thinning operations, except for safety or operational reasons 

(e.g., maintaining access to roads and facilities). 

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

All Zones (Edge of active stream channel to 150 feet) 

Fell trees as needed to supply wood for in-stream restoration. 

Apply treatments, including commercial treatments, as needed for treatment of diseases including but not 

limited to: Port-Orford cedar root rot disease and sudden oak death outbreaks. 

Apply commercial treatments as needed for red alder (Alnus rubra) or brush field conversions where the 

desired forest community type is being constrained. Projects must maintain water quality targets along 

303(d) listed streams with an approved TMDL. 

Dry Forests:

Apply fuels reduction and silvicultural treatments as needed to increase stand resistance and resilience to 

insects, disease, and fire. 

Non-Fish Bearing Intermittent Streams (0 to 50 feet)

Do not fall or remove trees except for safety, operational reasons, or dry forest resiliency treatments. 

Apply treatments, including commercial treatments, as needed for treatment of diseases including but not 

limited to Port-Orford-cedar root rot disease and sudden oak death outbreaks. 

Dry Forests:

Apply fuels reduction and silvicultural treatments as needed to increase stand resistance and resilience to 

insects, disease, and fire. 

Constructed Water Impoundments,127 Ponds, and Wetlands < 1 Acre (0 to 50 feet) 

Do not fall or remove trees except for safety, operational reasons, or dry forest resiliency treatments. 

Dry Forests:

Apply fuels reduction and silvicultural treatments as needed to increase stand resistance and resilience to 

insects, disease, and fire. 

Non-forest ecosystems streams and wetlands 

Edge of the water body to the limit of the water influence area, as indicated by hydrophilic vegetation. 

 

127 Typically, small ponds in forest environments used for fire suppression activities. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

973 | Page

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative C. 

Unstable areas that are above or adjacent to stream channels and are likely to deliver material such 

as sediment and logs to the stream if the unstable area fails 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area between such an unstable area and the 

unstable area has the potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the stream, extend the 

Riparian Reserve from the stream to include the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area.

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative C. 

Wildlife 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all alternatives 

Management Direction 

x See common to all alternatives 

Marbled Murrelet 

x Conduct intensive surveys for the marbled murrelet prior to implementation of projects that could 

degrade or remove potential habitat. Potential habitat for the marbled murrelet is defined as conifer 

stands  120 years of age.

x If future surveys indicate that habitat is occupied by marbled murrelets, then protect all mature or 

structurally complex stands (or portions thereof) within a 300 foot radius of the occupied stand. The 

protection of occupied marbled murrelet sites lasts for 10 years from the time of discovery at each 

site. 

x Protect mature or structurally complex stands within existing, occupied marbled murrelet sites as of 

[ROD Date] as they are currently mapped (refer to map in the 2015 FEIS/ROD that depicts these 

sites). The protection of occupied marbled murrelet sites lasts for 10 years from the time the ROD is 

signed. 

x Restrict activities that disrupt marbled murrelet nesting during the nesting period where marbled 

murrelets are currently nesting. 

Snags and Down Woody Material 

x Snags and coarse woody debris would be retained during thinning harvest of stands, except for safety 

or operational reasons. Stands where the quadratic mean diameter is > 14 inches before stand 

treatment are considered stands of large trees. Stands where the quadratic mean diameter is < 14 

inches before stand treatment are considered stands of small trees. New snags and coarse woody 

debris would be created when existing levels of snags and coarse wood debris do not meet the levels 

defined in Table B-27 and Table B-28. The requirement to create new snags and coarse woody 

debris would not apply to thinning and other silviculture treatments that do not remove cut trees from 

the stand. 

x Live and dead trees would be felled and removed as needed for safety or operational reasons, 

including, but not limited to, danger tree removal, creation of yarding corridors adjacent to nearby 

harvest units, and road construction or maintenance. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

974 | Page

x Snag and coarse woody debris retention or creation requirements would be met by any combination 

of new snags and coarse woody debris from live conifer trees and the retention of existing levels of 

snags (Class I and Class II) and coarse woody debris (Class I and Class II). If existing levels of snags 

and coarse woody debris are insufficient to meet these requirements in a thinning project, the 

requirement can be satisfied by including in the project decision the creation of snags and coarse 

woody debris to meet these standards using the trees remaining within 5 years after completion of the 

thinning harvest. Snag and coarse woody debris retention or creation levels would be met at the scale 

of the harvest unit and is not intended to be attained on every acre. Snag and coarse woody debris 

retention would be variable per acre throughout the area being treated. If sufficient snags or coarse 

woody debris of the minimum sizes are not available, an equivalent number of smaller snags or 

coarse woody debris would be retained. Noncommercial snags and coarse woody debris would be 

retained, except for safety or operational reasons. 

x Salvage harvest of timber after a stand-replacing disturbance would occur to recover economic value 

of the stand, so long as the salvage harvest would meet retention standards for snags and coarse 

woody debris described in Table B-29 Snags and coarse woody debris retention standards would be 

met as an average at the scale of the salvage harvest unit, and is not intended to be attained on every 

acre. 

x Timber from thinning, tree-falling, and salvage operations would be made available for sale. 

Table B-27. Snag and down woody material levels for stands of larger trees (QMD > 14inches) in the 

UTA, LSR no age limit, and RR land use allocations under Alternative C. 

Province

Snag Retention or Creation DWM Retention or Creation 

Total Trees 

Per Acre 

(TPA) 

Component 

Diametera 

(DBH) 

Totals 

Component 

Diametera 

(DBH) 

Component 

Length 

Western Hemlock 6  14 inches 240 feet/acre > 14 inches > 20 feet 

Douglas-fir and true firs 3  14 inches 120 feet/acre > 14 inches > 16 feet 

Tanoak 4  14 inches 120 feet/acre > 14 inches > 16 feet a

 Diameter measured at the small end of the log

DBH – diameter breast height 

Table B-28. Snag and down woody material levels for stands of smaller trees (QMD < 14inches) in the 

UTA, LSR no age limit, and RR land use allocations under Alternative C. 

Province

Snag Retention or Creation DWM Retention or Creation 

Total Trees 

Per Acre 

(TPA) 

Component 

Diametera 

(DBH) 

Totals 

Component 

Diametera 

(DBH) 

Component 

Length 

Western Hemlock 3  12 inches 120 feet/acre > 12 inches > 20 feet 

Douglas-fir and true firs 2  10 inches 60 feet/acre > 10 inches > 16 feet 

Tanoak 2  10 inches 60 feet/acre > 10 inches > 16 feet a

 Diameter measured at the small end of the log 

DBH – diameter breast height 

 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

975 | Page

Table B-29. Snag and down woody material levels for salvaging after a stand-replacement event in the 

“UTA, LSR no age limit,” land use allocations under Alternative C. 

Province

Snag Retention or Creation DWM Retention or Creation 

Total Trees 

Per Acre 

(TPA) 

Component 

Diametera 

(DBH) 

Totals 

Component 

Diametera 

(DBH) 

Component 

Length 

Western Hemlock 8  20 inches 480 feet/acre > 20 inches > 20 feet 

Douglas-fir and true firs 4  16 inches 240 feet/acre >16 inches > 16 feet 

Tanoak 4  20 inches 240 feet/acre > 20 inches > 20 feet a

 Diameter measured at the small end of the log 

DBH – diameter breast height 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

976 | Page

Alternative D 

Forest Management 

Management Objectives for Owl Habitat Timber Area (OHTA) 

x Manage habitat conditions around northern spotted owl sites to promote species recovery. 

x Provide complex early-successional habitat. 

x Promote and maintain function of large blocks of spotted owl habitat. 

Management Direction for OHTA 

x Protect conifer forest stands: 

o Within the nest patch of a northern spotted owl known or historic site. The nest patch is 

delineated as a 200-meter radius circle around a known or historic site. 

x When treating conifer forest stands that are not nesting-roosting habitat, limit silvicultural treatments 

to those that: 

o Speed the development of, or improve the quality of northern spotted owl habitat in the stand, or 

in the adjacent stand, or both. 

o Do not preclude or delay by 20 years or more the development of northern spotted owl nestingroosting habitat in the stand and in adjacent stands. 

x Utilize uneven-aged harvesting in managing forest stands for one or more of the following reasons: 

o To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

o To increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o To promote or enhance the development of structural complexity. 

o To adjust stand composition or dominance, 

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

infestation; 

o Conduct post-disturbance salvage and management dead or dying stands due to insects or disease. 

o Insect and disease management. 

o Convert stands capable of supporting conifer species that are currently growing primarily 

hardwoods or shrubs to a mix of conifer and hardwood species suitable to the site, unless the 

hardwoods or shrubs would produce a higher net monetary return. 

o To produce complex early-successional ecosystems. 

o In order to reset stand development in portions of stands that are overly dense that would not 

respond well to commercial thinning. Overly dense stands are generally characterized as having 

average crown ratios in trees over 8” DBH of  20 percent or average height to diameter ratios of 

trees over 8” DBH  80. 

x Uneven-aged harvesting may include use of a combination of harvesting methods including thinning, 

single tree selection harvest, and group selection harvest. 

x Uneven-aged harvest units shall meet the following criteria, post-harvest: 

o For stands  10 acres; maximum group selection opening size, 4 ac.; maximum percentage of 

stand area in group selection openings, 25 percent; minimum percentage of stand area in 

untreated skips, 25 percent. 

o For stands < 10 acres: Maximum group selection opening size, 2.5 ac, no maximum percent of 

stand in openings, and no minimum percent of stand in skips. 

o Snags (not downed wood) shall be created in sufficient numbers to meet targets established in 

Table B-32. 

o Following large scale disturbances and when regenerating group selection openings develop 

heterogeneous vegetation patterns to increase complexity of the early-successional ecosystem. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

977 | Page

 Regenerate a mixture of tree species appropriate to the site using variable spacing within 5 

years of disturbance or harvest. 

 Natural regeneration, artificial regeneration, or a combination of the two would be allowed. 

 50-70 percent of full stocking is considered acceptable. 

o Following large scale disturbances; 

 Maintain at least 10 percent of the stand un-stocked with trees in gaps  1⁄4-acre in size for at 

least two decades to accelerate development of heterogeneous fuel conditions and contribute 

to the complexity of the early-successional ecosystem. 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. 

o For disturbance events causing mortality of  60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous areas 

10 acres in size: 

 Salvage all dead wood volume in excess of down wood and snag requirements set forth in 

Table B-32. These targets are meant to be averages across the project area; not every acre is 

expected to meet these target levels. 

o For all other disturbance events: 

 Salvage timber only where needed to reduce hazards to public health and safety. 

Management Objectives for Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

(MITA) 

x Also see common to all alternatives 

x Manage habitat conditions around northern spotted owl sites to promote species recovery. 

x Provide complex early-successional ecosystems. 

x Develop late successional ecosystems for a portion of the rotation. 

x Provide a variety of forest structural stages distributed both temporally and spatially. 

Management Directions for MITA 

x Also see common to all alternatives

x Protect conifer forest stands: 

o Within the nest patch of a northern spotted owl known or historic. The nest patch is delineated as 

a 200-meter radius circle around a known or historic site. 

x Maintain or protect all NSO nesting-roosting habitat: 

o Within the 500-acre core use area circle around a known or historic nest site when < 250 posttreatment acres would support nesting-roosting habitat, regardless of pre-treatment conditions or 

cause. 

o Within the mean provincial home range circle around a known or historic nest site when < 40 

percent of the post-treatment circle would support nesting-roosting habitat, regardless of pretreatment conditions or cause. 

x Offer for timber for sale from regeneration harvest units with area totaling not less than 8 percent and 

not more than 10 percent of the area in this Land Use Allocation in each field office per decade. 

o Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands  60 years old for one or more of the following 

reasons: 

 To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

 To develop a balanced age class distribution: i.e. Equal number of acres in each 10 year age 

class throughout this LUA in each field office. 

 Conduct post-disturbance salvage and management of dead or dying stands due to insects or 

disease. 

 Insect and disease management. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

978 | Page

 To convert stands capable of supporting conifer species that are currently growing primarily 

hardwoods or shrubs to a mix of conifer and hardwood species suitable to the site, unless the 

hardwoods or shrubs would produce a higher net monetary return. 

 To produce complex early-successional ecosystems. 

o Regeneration harvest would be applied in stands < 60 years old for any one of the above reasons, 

or for the following reason: 

 In order to reset stand development in stands that are overly dense that would not respond 

well to commercial thinning. Overly dense stands are generally characterized as having 

average crown ratios in trees over 8” DBH of  20 percent or average height to diameter 

ratios of trees over 8” DBH  80. 

o Regeneration harvest units shall meet the following criteria: 

 Retain 5-15 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in individual regeneration harvest units. If 

Riparian Reserves make up  10 percent of the stand area, retain basal area towards the low 

end of the range; if Riparian Reserves make up <10 percent of the stand area, retain basal 

area towards the higher end of the range. 

 Create snags sufficient to meet snag targets in Table B-32. 

 Retention shall be left in a variety of spatial patterns, including clumps, aggregated groups, 

stringers, and individual trees. 

x Retention levels can be met with trees from any species or diameter class, and retention 

trees should represent the range of diameters and species present in the pre-harvest stand. 

 Regeneration harvest units shall be reforested with species mix appropriate to the site within 

5 years following regeneration harvest. 

x Offer timber for sale from commercial thinning harvest units. 

o Apply commercial thinning for one or more of the following reasons: 

 To produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Annual Sale Quantity. 

 To recover current or anticipated mortality, 

 To adjust stand composition or dominance, 

 To reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation; 

 To improve merchantability and value. 

 To increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

 To promote or enhance the development of structural complexity. 

o Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning at levels above that needed to occupy the 

site, but below densities that will result in loss of stand vigor and health. 

 Post-thinning stand average relative percent max SDI targets will be between 25 percent and 

35 percent. 

x Implement unthinned skips and group selection openings to provide increased structural complexity 

in the post-treatment stand. The total area in group selection openings shall not exceed 10 percent of 

the thinned portion of the stand. 

 Create snags sufficient to meet snag targets in Table B-32. 

x Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. 

o For disturbance events causing mortality of  60 percent of overstory trees on contiguous areas 

10 acres in size: 

 follow management direction for regeneration harvest units. Areas salvaged in this way also 

count towards regeneration harvest percent targets. 

o For all other disturbance events: 

 Remove all merchantable dead and down timber from disturbed area in excess of snag targets 

set forth in Table B-32, where removal is economically viable. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

979 | Page

Management Objectives for Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA) 

x See common to all alternatives

Management Direction for UTA 

x See also common to all alternatives 

x Snags (not downed wood) shall be created in sufficient numbers to meet targets established in Table 

B-32. 

Grazing 

Management Objective 

x Eliminate livestock grazing.

Management Direction 

x Terminate all livestock grazing authorizations. 

x Do not authorize additional livestock grazing by any means, including, but not limited to, leases, 

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

x Issue grazing decisions for the planning area to close preference permitting grazing. 

Invasive Species 

Management Objective 

x See also common to all

x Prevent the introduction and the spread of sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) infections on 

BLM – administered lands. 

Management Direction 

x See also common to all 

x Apply state-of-the art, integrated pest management prescriptions for treatment at all identified 

sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) infection sites. 

Late Successional Reserves 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all

Management Direction 

x See also common to all

x When treating conifer forest stands that are not nesting-roosting habitat, limit silvicultural treatments 

to those that: 

o Speed the development of, or improve the quality of northern spotted owl habitat in the stand, or 

in the adjacent stand, or both. 

o Do not preclude or delay by 20 years or more the development of northern spotted owl nestingroosting habitat in the stand and in adjacent stands. 

x After commercial harvest entries, create snags sufficient to meet targets shown in Table B-33. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

980 | Page

x Timber salvage is prohibited, except when necessary to protect public health and safety, or to keep 

roads and other infrastructure clear of debris. 

Rare Plants and Fungi 

Management Objectives 

x See also common to all 

x Provide for the conservation of Bureau Special Status plant and fungi species 

Management Direction 

x See also common to all 

x Manage Federal candidate and Bureau Sensitive species consistent with any existing conservation 

agreements or strategies including the protection and restoration of habitat; altering the type, timing, 

and intensity of actions; and other strategies designed to conserve populations of the species. 

x Protect known Bureau Special Status plant and fungi sites from adverse impacts where protection 

does not conflict with sustained-yield forest management in areas dedicated to timber production. 

Riparian Reserve 

Management Objectives (applicable throughout planning area 

except eastside Klamath Falls) 

x See common to all. 

Management Direction: applicable throughout planning area 

except eastside Klamath Falls) 

Table B-30. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature. 

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance* 

All streams One site-potential tree height distance from the edge of its 

active stream channel on each side of a stream 

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area 

between such an unstable area and the unstable area has the 

potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the 

stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the stream to include 

the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area. 

Lakes, natural ponds, and wetlands > 1 

acre 

One-hundred feet extending from the edge of the water feature 

Ponds and wetlands < 1 acre and 

constructed impoundments of any size The extent of riparian vegetation

Non-forest ecosystems: streams and 

wetlands 

Edge of the water body to the limit of the water influence area, 

as indicated by hydrophilic vegetation 

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as 

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area 

between such an unstable area and the unstable area has the 

potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the 

stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the stream to include 

the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area. 

* Reported distances are measured as slope distance. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

981 | Page

Table B-31. Zone-specific management direction. 

All Streams 

Inner Zone (0 to 120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except as described below under “all zones” for disease treatments and fuels 

treatments. 

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide stable wood to the stream. Maintain at least 

30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an average across the riparian reserve portion 

of the stand.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale.

Retain existing snags and coarse woody debris in thinning operations, except where needed to be removed 

for safety.

Dry forests:

Apply fuels reduction treatments as needed to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Retain at least 30 

percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre. 

All Zones (Edge of active stream channel to one site-potential tree height) 

Fell trees as needed to supply wood for in-stream restoration. 

Sudden Oak Death (SOD) eradication activities in watersheds (HUC 10) shall not exceed: 

1. Removal of >30 percent canopy cover over a contiguous 0.5 mile stream length or removal of > 50 

percent canopy cover over a contiguous 0.25 mile stream length for small perennial streams (active 

channel width < 27 feet) where a 4,600-foot separation of non-treatment between sequential 

contiguous treatments would be maintained, 

2. Removal of >50 percent canopy cover over a contiguous 0.5 mile stream length for medium-large 

perennial streams (active channel width > 27 feet) where a 4,600-foot separation of non-treatment 

between sequential contiguous treatments would be maintained, 

3. Limit of three miles of treatment for any 5-year period and 3 percent of the total Federal perennial 

stream miles (Aquatic Restoration Activities in States of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II) NWR2013-9664). 

Dry Forests:

Apply low or moderate-severity burns where needed to invigorate native tree deciduous species. 

Moderate severity burns will be limited to no more than 20 percent of area of Riparian Reserves 

subwatershed (HUC 12) each year (ARBO II) NWR-2013-9664). 

Apply non-commercial tree thinning as necessary to adjust fuel loads prior to a moderate-severity burn. 

Lakes, Ponds, and Wetlands > 1 Acre

Edge of the water body to 100 feet. 

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative D. 

Ponds And Wetlands < 1 acre (0 to 50 feet) and Constructed Water Impoundments128of any size 

No treatments, except for restoration, road access, or safety 

Non-forest Ecosystems, Streams and Wetlands 

 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

982 | Page

Edge of the water body to the limit of the water influence area, as indicated by hydrophilic vegetation. 

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative D. 

Unstable Areas that are above or adjacent to stream channels and are likely to deliver material 

such as sediment and logs to the stream if the unstable area fails. 

The extent of the unstable area. Where there is a stable area between such an unstable area and the 

unstable area has the potential to deliver material such as sediment and logs to the stream, extend the 

Riparian Reserve from the stream to include the intervening stable area as well as the unstable area. 

See management direction for all riparian zones for Alternative D. 

Wildlife 

Management Objectives 

x See common to all 

Management Direction 

x See also common to all 

Marbled Murrelet 

x Conduct intensive surveys for the marbled murrelet prior to implementation of projects that could 

degrade or remove potential habitat. Potential habitat for the marbled murrelet is defined as: 1) 

mature (with or without a structurally complex component) or structurally complex coniferous 

forests and 2) coniferous forests < 80 years old that have platform trees.129 Platforms can be 

created by a wide bare branch, moss, or lichen covering a branch, mistletoe, witches brooms, 

other deformities, or structures such as squirrel nests. 

x If future surveys indicate that habitat is occupied by marbled murrelets, then protect all 

contiguous habitat within a 0.5 mile radius of the occupied stand. Contiguous habitat is that 

which contains no gaps wider than 328 feet (100 m) in forest cover comprised of structurally 

complex, mature, or young stands that have platforms. 

x Protect existing, occupied marbled murrelet sites as of [ROD Date] as they are currently mapped 

(refer to map in the 2015 FEIS/ROD that depicts these sites). 

x In lieu of intensive surveys for marbled murrelets, the following options are available when 

conducting projects in stands < 80 years old: 

o Prohibit the removal or damage of platform trees. This includes the removal or damage of 

trees with platforms and the removal or damage of adjacent trees with branches that interlock 

the branches of any platform tree. 

 

129 Platform trees are trees that provide opportunities for marbled murrelet nesting. A platform tree has the 

following characteristics: 

• It occurs within 50 miles (81 km) of the coast; 

• It is a conifer tree;

• It has a DBH  19.1 inches (49 cm), height > 107 feet (33 m), has at least one platform  4 inches (10 cm) in 

diameter, nesting substrate (e.g. moss, epiphytes, duff) on that platform, and an access route through the canopy that 

a murrelet could use to approach and land on the platform; 

• It has potential structure  33 feet (10 m) above the ground; 

• And it has a tree branch or foliage, either on the tree with potential structure or on a surrounding tree that provides 

protective cover over the platform. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

983 | Page

o Prohibit timber harvest and associated ground disturbances during the marbled murrelet 

nesting period unless otherwise allowed by a biological opinion or letter of concurrence. 

o Maintain130 marbled murrelet habitat within a 1⁄2 site-potential tree-height un-thinned buffer 

around all platform trees. 

o Restrict activities that disrupt marbled murrelet nesting during the nesting period where marbled 

murrelets are currently nesting. 

North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Red Tree 

Vole 

x Survey proposed projects within the range of the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population 

Segment of the red tree vole that could degrade or remove habitat. Habitat that requires surveys 

prior to modification includes either (a) or (b) from each of the following two bullets: 

o (a) stands with QMD  16 inches in the in the Northern Mesic Zone or (b) stands with QMD 

 18 inches in the Mesic Zone; and

o (a) conifer-dominated stands that are mature or structurally complex or (b) conifer-dominated 

stands that have  60 percent canopy closure and have  2 superdominant conifer trees131 per 

acre. 

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

within the North Coast Distinct Population Segment prior to implementation: 

 Projects in stands < 80 years old; 

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

if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; 

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

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

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

removal of channel diversions; or 

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

hazardous fuels treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to survey 

requirements except for projects in stands < 80 years old. 

x If surveys indicate that habitat is occupied by red tree voles from the North Oregon Coast Distinct 

Population Segment, then a “habitat area” will be established for each cluster of nests that are not 

isolated from one another by more than 330 feet and includes at least one active nest. 

o Habitat areas will be at least 10 acres in size and will include 1.0 acre per nest if there are 

more than 10 red tree vole nests (e.g. 15 red tree vole nests would result in a habitat area 15 

acres in size). 

o Within habitat areas, do not remove or modify nest trees, the canopy structure of the stand, or 

remove the dominant, co-dominant, or intermediate crowns. 

o Habitat areas for the North Coast Distinct Population Segment of the red tree vole may be 

designated as non-high priority and released for other management objectives if they occur south 

of Highway 20. Habitat areas north of Highway 20 will not be designated as non-high priority as 

they are considered to be high priority for the conservation of the species. 

 

130 Maintain marbled murrelet habitat refers to a silvicultural activity that changes a conifer forest stand but 

maintains structural characteristics such that the stand continues to support marbled murrelet nesting opportunities. 

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

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

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

larger than the rest of the trees in the stand. 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

984 | Page

Snags and Down Woody Material 

x Retain existing snags and existing down woody material during silvicultural treatments of stands, 

except for safety or operational reasons. Retain snags felled for safety or operational reasons as 

down woody material. 

x Create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-32 and Table B-33 at the time of silvicultural 

treatment. If insufficient trees are available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class 

available. Snags and coarse woody debris retention standards would be met as an average at the scale of the 

salvage harvest unit, and is not intended to be attained on every acre.

x Retain snags and down woody material at levels described in Table B-34 following a standreplacing event. Snags and coarse woody debris retention standards would be met as an average 

at the scale of the salvage harvest unit, and is not intended to be attained on every acre. Quantities 

in excess of the levels described in Table B-34 could be salvaged. 

Table B-32. Snag creation levels within the Harvest Land Base (MITA, UTA, OHTA) under Alternative D. 

District/Field 

Office Province 

Create This Number of Snags/Acre 

at Time of Treatment in the Harvest Land Base 

> 20 Inches DBH > 10 Inches DBH Total Trees to Snag 

Coos Bay All 1 - 1 

Eugene OR Coast Range 1 - 1 

Eugene Western Cascades 1 - 1 

Klamath Falls All 1 - 1 

Medford All - - - 

Roseburg OR Coast Range 3 - 3 

Roseburg Western Cascades 3 3 6 

Roseburg Klamath - - - 

Salem OR Coast Range 1 - 1 

Salem Western Cascades 1 - 1 

Table B-33. Snag creation levels within the Reserve land use allocations (LSR no age limit, RR) under 

Alternative D. 

District/Field 

Office Province

Create This Number of Snags/Acre 

at Time of Treatment in the Reserve 

> 20 Inches DBH > 10 Inches DBH Total Trees to Snag 

Coos Bay All 5 5 10 

Eugene OR Coast Range 5 5 10 

Eugene Western Cascades 5 20 25 

Klamath Falls All 2 5 7 

Medford All 1 1 2 

Roseburg OR Coast Range 6 7 13 

Roseburg Western Cascades 6 25 31 

Roseburg Klamath 1 1 2 

Salem OR Coast Range 5 5 10 

Salem Western Cascades 5 20 25 
Appendix B – Management Objectives and Direction

985 | Page

Table B-34. Snag and down woody material retention levels within the OHTA land use allocation 

following stand-replacement events under Alternative D. 

District/Field 

Office Province

Target Number of Snags and Down Wood Cover to Have at 

the Time of Treatment in the OHTA 

> 20 Inches DBH > 10 Inches DBH Percent Cover 

Coos Bay All 8 19 6% 

Eugene OR Coast Range 8 19 6% 

Eugene Western Cascades 8 19 10% 

Klamath Falls All 4 13 3% 

Medford All 3 7 2% 

Roseburg OR Coast Range 8 19 6% 

Roseburg Western Cascades 8 19 10% 

Roseburg Klamath 3 7 2% 

Salem OR Coast Range 8 19 6% 

Salem Western Cascades 8 19 10% 

 
986 | Page

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

987 | Page

Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling 

Introduction 

The BLM contracted with the forestry consulting firm of Mason, Bruce & Girard of Portland, Oregon, to 

jointly develop and build the model described in this appendix. Personnel from both of these entities 

constituted the Modeling Team and they are listed at the end of this appendix. 

The BLM considered alternatives in this Draft RMP/EIS that encompassed a range of approaches for 

managing BLM-administered forestlands. The BLM did this by varying the land allocations and intensity 

with which the BLM would manage these forests. These different management approaches would result 

in a range of outcomes in terms of the forest structural stages and types of habitat over time and the 

sustain-yield timber harvest levels. The Modeling Team used models in this analysis to simulate the 

application of the land use allocations, management action, and forest development assumptions to 

characterize forest conditions 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 100+ years into the future. The Modeling Team also 

used models to determine the timber harvest level that the BLM would be able to sustain over time. The 

BLM used the outputs from modeling to provide a relative basis for comparing and evaluating these 

different land management strategies. 

The vegetation modeling in this analysis is composed of three primary vegetation models: 

x ORGANON version 9.1 – an individual tree growth model that the BLM used for the 

development of growth and yield projections for the major species groups on the BLMadministered lands. Oregon State University developed ORGANON 

(http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fr/research/ORGANON/). In this appendix, ORGANON refers to 

the generic model available in the public domain. 

x Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Dixon 2002, revised 2014) – an individual tree, distanceindependent growth model that the BLM used for projections of northern spotted owl habitat 

and marbled murrelet habitat variables. 

x Remsoft Spatial Planning System (Woodstock) (version 2012.12.0) – a spatially explicit strategic 

planning model that the BLM used to project the forest conditions over time by simulating the 

land allocations and management action of the alternatives. Woodstock is proprietary software 

created by Remsoft Corp. http://www.remsoft.com. 

All three of these models have been in use and under continued development for approximately 30 years. 

These models provide a framework to bring the data and assumptions together to simulate these 

management scenarios. 

This appendix provides an overview of the following key components used in formulating the models: 

x BLM Forest Inventory 

x Use of Inventory Data in Modeling 

x GIS – Defining the Land Base and Spatial Projections 

x Moist versus Dry Delineation 

x Forest Growth and Yield Modeling 

x Forest Structural Stage Definitions 

x Woodstock Modeling 

x Woodstock Products 

BLM Forest Inventory 

The Modeling Team used three inventories in the vegetation modeling for this analysis: 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

988 | Page

x GIS Vegetation mapping with stand level attributes 

x Timber Productivity Capability Classification (TPCC) 

x Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) – measured permanent plot data 

GIS Vegetation Mapping – Forest Operations Inventory and 

Micro*Storms 

The Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) is a GIS layer that delineates vegetation polygons across BLMadministered lands within the planning area. There are approximately 77,000 stands identified that 

average 32 acres in size. The BLM has set the minimum mapping feature size at five acres, but some finer 

scale non-forest vegetation and harvest features are identified. The BLM delineated polygons based on 

the vegetation attributes of cover condition, size class, density of trees, and age. 

The Micro*Storms database contains the attributes for the FOI polygons. The vegetation classification 

represents stand average characteristics, which include: 

x Cover condition – conifer, hardwood, mixed, or non-forest 

x Single or multi-canopy layer stands 

x Species – top five tree species with percent occupancy within a stand layer and listing of 

other species present 

x Stocking class 

x Size class – Diameter of the trees species by layer in 10-inch groupings 

x Diameter class 

x Birthdate of the layer 

x Ten-year age class of the managed stand layer 

The BLM records land management treatment history in Micro*Storms for the FOI polygons. These 

treatments include timber harvest, site preparation, planting, stand maintenance/protection, precommercial thinning, fertilization, pruning, and a variety of other treatments. 

The BLM updates data on stand characteristics on a regular basis as the BLM implements treatments and 

as conditions change. The FOI and its companion database, Micro*Storms, are operational datasets that 

are in daily use by the BLM offices for planning and tracking purposes. 

The FOI and Micro*Storms data, as used in this analysis, reflects the conditions of the BLM-administered 

lands as of January 2013. The FOI data is the spatial representation of the forest conditions, while the 

Micro*Storms database provides a complete listing of treatments, conditions, and surveys that have 

occurred on that stand. The Modeling Team used these data to develop logical groupings called ‘strata’ 

that were the building blocks for the growth and yield curves. The Modeling Team stratified the 

Micro*Storms data by existing stand condition, modeling group, site productivity, age, and species 

groups. 

Timber Productivity Capability Classification 

The Timber Productivity Capability Classification (TPCC) is a classification of BLM-administered lands 

based on the physical and biological capability of the site to support and produce commercial forest 

products on a sustained yield basis. The BLM classifies each TPCC unit based on four assessments: 

x Forest/Non-forest 

o Forest – capable of 10% tree stocking 

o Non forest 

x Commercial Forestlands 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

989 | Page

o Commercial forestlands – capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood per year of 

commercial species 

o Non-commercial forestlands – not capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood per year of 

commercial species 

o Suitable Woodland – Non-commercial species or low site 

x Fragile Conditions 

o Non-fragile – forest yield productivity is not expected to be reduced due to soil 

erosion, mass wasting, reduction in nutrient levels, reduction in moisture supplying 

capacity, and or the rise of ground water 

o Fragile – forest yield productivity may be expected to be reduced by soil erosion, mass 

wasting, reduction in nutrient levels, reduction in moisture supplying capacity, and or the 

rise of ground water table 

o Fragile sites are classified as: 

 Restricted – Special harvest and or restricted measures are required. 

 Non-suitable Woodland – Future production will be reduced even if special 

harvest and or restricted measures are applied due to the inherent site factors. 

These lands are not biologically and or environmentally capable of supporting a 

sustained yield of forest products. 

x Reforestation - Reforestation problem sites are those where environmental, physical, and 

biological factors have the potential to reduce the survival and or growth of commercial tree 

seedlings. These factors include light, temperature, moisture, frost, surface rock, animals, and 

disease. 

o Non Problem – Sites that can be stocked to meet or exceed target stocking levels, of 

commercial species, within five years of harvest, using standard practices. 

o Restricted – Commercial forestland where operational reforestation practices in addition 

to standard practices are necessary to meet or exceed the minimum stocking levels of 

commercial species within five years of harvest. 

o Suitable Woodland - Operational practices will not meet or exceed minimum stocking 

levels of commercial species within five years of harvest. These sites are biologically 

capable of producing a sustained yield of timber products. 

BLM Handbook 5251-1 (1986) provides the standards for the TPCC Classification. 

There are approximately 66,000 TPCC units mapped in GIS on the BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area. The minimum mapping feature is generally five acres, but the BLM identifies some finer 

scale non-forest features in the data. The BLM did the initial classification of all BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area in the late 1980s. The BLM updates the data as needed when new lands are acquired, 

or new information is obtained through field examination. 

The data, as used in this analysis, reflects the classification of the BLM-administered lands as of 

January 2013. For this analysis, the Modeling Team used TPCC data to identify what portions of the 

BLM-administered lands would contribute to the Allowable Sale Quantity under each alternative. The 

BLM does not include non-forest, suitable woodlands, and non-suitable woodland categories in the 

lands contributing to the Allowable Sale Quantity under the current plan. 

Current Vegetation Survey – Measured Plot Inventory 

The Current Vegetation Survey (Max et al. 1996) provides comprehensive information on vegetative 

resources on BLM-administered lands within western Oregon. The BLM did the initial data collection 

during the years 1997 to 2001. The BLM then did a complete re-measurement from 2001 to 2011. This 

analysis utilizes the re-measurement data. The CVS plot design consists of four 3.4-mile grids of field 

plots that are offset from one another to produce a single 1.7-mile grid across BLM-administered lands 

for 1,376 plots. The primary sampling unit is one hectare (approximately 2.5 acres) with five, fixed-radius 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

990 | Page

sets of nested subplots for measuring trees by size class: 

x to 2.9 inches DBH on the 11.8 foot radius subplot 

x to 12.9 inches DBH on a 24.0 foot radius subplot 

x 13.0 to 47.9 inches DBH on a 51.1 foot radius subplot 

x 48.0 inches DBH and larger on the 1/5 hectare (approximately 1⁄2 acres) nested subplots 

There is one subplot located at the plot center and four subplots each in a cardinal direction and 133.9 feet 

from the center of the plot (Figure C-1). In addition, the BLM determines potential natural vegetation at 

each subplot using plant indicator keys, and the BLM measures coarse woody debris along two transects. 

For specific information on the attributes that the BLM collects, refer to USDI BLM (2010). 

Figure C-1. CVS primary sample unit design. 

The location of the plot centers have differentially corrected GPS coordinates. Because the BLM located 

each subplot center at a precise distance from the plot center, the BLM calculated the coordinates for the 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

991 | Page

subplot centers included them in a GIS layer. The CVS inventory provides an independent, unbiased 

estimate of the forested BLM-administered land in the planning area. In the graphic below, the crosshair 

dot symbols are examples of CVS plot center locations on a 1.7-mile grid on top of the FOI units (Figure 

C-2). 

Figure C-2. CVS plot locations and FOI units. 

Use of the Inventory Data in the Modeling 

Introduction 

The Modeling Team divided the FOI and the Current Vegetation Survey data into 1,582 unique 

categories, called ‘strata’ and classified each stand (FOI unit) by the characteristics listed below. The 

CVS plots that overlay an FOI represent that FOI and all the FOI found in that stratum. The Modeling 

Team averaged the CVS tree lists for each stratum and developed a stand table from these average tree 

lists. The Modeling Team used four components to derive each of the stratum: modeling group, species 

group, ten-year age class, and site productivity class. 

1) Modeling Group 

The purpose of these groups is to identify broad classes of stands that are sufficiently similar for growth 

and yield modeling (Table C-1). The Modeling Team placed each of the existing stands in to 79 different 

categories, based on their ‘existing condition’ (Table C-2). The existing stand condition (ESC) describes 

the type of harvest, the tree density, and other silvicultural information. The Modeling Team than further 

collapsed the existing stand condition categories into sixteen different modeling groups that are shown in 

Table C-1. 

Table C-1. Modeling groups used to develop strata. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

992 | Page

2013 

Modeling 

Group 

Modeling Group - Definition and Description 

MG_A 

Pre-NFP regeneration harvest units with target or greater level of stocking. Also includes age class 30 

stands with past thinning (CT or DM), and un-managed, well-stocked stands, age class < 50 (< 70) 

without legacy. 

MG_B 

Pre-NFP regeneration harvest units with below target level of stocking. Also includes age class < 50 

(< 70) stands from ESC 52 (no past management) categorized as having as low density and without 

legacy trees. 

MG_C 

NFP regeneration harvest units with the full range of retention tree levels. Stand data merged across 

stock types (genetic vs. non-improved), stocking levels, and retention levels. Also includes age class < 

50 stands with no past management and with a legacy tree component, similar to NFP regeneration 

harvest structure. 

MG_D1 DM and CT stands in age classes 40-90. Stands treated age 80+, now age class > 100 (mostly Salem), 

merged with No Past Management stands (MG_E). 

MG_D2 DF species group only, DM and CT units (Roseburg and Medford), age class 40-90. Stands treated age 

80+, now age class > 100, merged with No Past Management (MG_E). 

MG_D3 Primarily Klamath Falls DM stands. Model all species groups together, and use age bands for low 

acreage age classes above 120 and below 50. 

MG_E1 

No past management, limited mortality salvage, or conifer non-suitable woodlands. Non-conifer 

(hardwood) stands were merged with (red alder) stand conversions units in NWO (MG_F) or with 

hardwood suitable woodlands in SWO (MG_G). 

MG_E2 Northwest Oregon stands with no past management, mature single story. 

MG_E3 Southwest Oregon stands with no past management, mature single story. 

MG_E4 Northwest Oregon stands with no past management, mature multi-story. 

MG_E5 Southwest Oregon stands with no past management, mature multi-story. 

MG_F NWO stand conversion opportunities or stands extracted from ESC 51 (no past management and 

essentially all red alder species group). 

MG_G 

Hardwood woodlands for all SWO species groups. Includes woodlands categorized as suitable, nonsuitable, and non-commercial forest land (NCFL). Also includes stands from ESC 51 (no past 

management) with hardwood species group or hardwood cover condition. The 6 FOIs from NWO may 

be best modeled using SWO growth curves. 

MG_H Conifer suitable woodlands. Includes stands from ESCs 68 and 70 (hardwood suitable woodlands) 

identified with a conifer species group designation. 

MG_J

NCFL conifer suitable woodlands. Conifer species groups only, including stands extracted from ESCs 

68 and 70 (hardwood suitable woodlands), and stands with a juniper species group stands from any 

ESC code. 

MG_X Non-forest. Also includes stands from other ESCs with inconsistent cover condition or species group 

data, which denotes a non-forest unit. 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

993 | Page

Table C-2. Existing stand condition coding. 

Category Description GIS 

Acres 

No category 8 

1 GFMA target stocking ( 80%) and 250-400 TPA density (unimproved TI) 361,885 

2 GFMA target stocking ( 80%) and 250-400 TPA density (unimproved TI) 

FERTILIZED 98,712 

3 GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) – 150-249 TPA density (unimproved TI) 118,539 

4 GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) – 150-249 TPA density (unimproved TI) 

FERTILIZED 25,021 

5 GFMA below minimum stocking (< 60%) – 50-149 TPA density (unimproved TI) 18,846 

6 GFMA overstocked/over-dense - > 400 TPA density (unimproved TI) 31,492 

7 GFMA target stocking ( 80%) and 250-400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 22,543 

8 GFMA target stocking ( 80%) and 250-400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 

FERTILIZED 3,005 

9 GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) – 150-250 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 8,368 

10 GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) – 150-250 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 

FERTILIZED 443 

11 GFMA below minimum stocking (< 60%) – 50-149 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 1,457 

12 GFMA overstocked/over-dense - > 400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 3,634 

13 6-8 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 2,594 

14 6-8 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 242 

15 6-8 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 662 

16 6-8 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard- need PCT (TI genetic stock) 845 

17 6-8 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 19,188 

18 6-8 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 6,497 

19 6-8 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 2,312 

20 6-8 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard- need PCT (unimproved stock) 2,451 

21 12-18 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 480 

22 12-18 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 358 

23 12-18 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 130 

24 12-18 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard- need PCT (TI genetic stock) 8 

25 12-18 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 1,091 

26 12-18 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 189 

27 12-18 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock 

TI) 108 

28 12-18 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard- need PCT (unimproved stock TI) 518 

30 Density Mgt. at age class 30 1,310 

31 Density Mgt. at age class 40 7,251 

32 Density Mgt. at age class 50 12,964 

33 Density Mgt. at age class 60 14,625 

34 Density Mgt. at age class 70 8,562 

35 Density Mgt. at age class 80 6,594 

36 Density Mgt. at age class 90 Plus 49,611 

37 CTed at age class 30 1,415 

38 CTed and fertilized at age class 30 132 

39 CTed at age class 40 11,323 

40 CTed and fertilized at age class 40 689 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

994 | Page

Category Description GIS 

Acres 

41 CTed at age class 50 33,402 

42 CTed and fertilized at age class 50 4,644 

43 CTed at age class 60 29,265 

44 CTed and fertilized at age class 60 3,000 

45 CTed at age class 70 21,726 

46 CTed and fertilized at age class 70 505 

47 CTed at age class 80 14,883 

48 CTed at age class 90 8,541 

49 CTed at age class 100 3,605 

50 CTed at age class 110 9,928 

51 Mortality Salvaged or Sanitation Cut 40,280 

52 56-500 years old, no past silvicultural treatment 974,320 

53 Brush field, hardwood, non-commercial conifer or backlog conversion opportunity 22,871 

55 Cut, needs site preparation 139 

57 Non-forest 126,922 

58 > 18/15 retention trees/acre - at GFMA target stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 149 

62 > 18/15 retention trees/acre - at GFMA target stocking and density (unimproved stock 

TI) 496 

63 > 18/15 retention trees/acre - at GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved 

stock TI) 31 

64 > 18/15retention trees/acre - below GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved 

stock TI) 78 

66 Hardwood-suitable woodland CFL 2,642 

67 Conifer-suitable woodland CFL 78,034 

68 Hardwood-non-suitable woodland CFL 3,628 

69 Conifer-non-suitable woodland CFL 45,148 

70 Hardwood-suitable woodland Non-CFL 34,426 

71 Conifer-suitable woodland Non-CFL 152,345 

72 GFMA target stocking ( 80%) and 250-400 TPA density (unimproved TI) PRUNED 8,887 

73 GFMA target stocking ( 80%) and 250-400 TPA density (unimproved TI) 

FERTILIZED PRUNED 3,333 

74 GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) – 150-249 TPA density (unimproved TI) PRUNED 3,353 

75 GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) – 150-249 TPA density (unimproved TI) 

FERTILIZED PRUNED 3,719 

76 GFMA target stocking ( 80%) and 250-400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) PRUNED 1,372 

77 GFMA target stocking ( 80%) and 250-400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 

FERTILIZED PRUNED 47 

78 GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) – 150-250 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 

PRUNED 946 

79 GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) – 150-250 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 

FERTILIZED PRUNED 96 

Totals 2,478,864 

2) Species Groups for RMP Modeling 

The Micro*Storms database has a listing of the top five species within each stand layer, with a ranking of 

relative abundance. The Modeling Team utilized this data to classify each FOI into five broad groups - 

Douglas-fir, true fir, mixed conifer, conifer/hardwood mix, and hardwood - attributed by north or south 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

995 | Page

within the planning area. The Modeling Team applied the northwest Oregon version of ORGANON 

(NWO) to the northern species groups, and the southwest Oregon version of ORGANON (SWO) to 

model the southern species groups. The Modeling Team modeled ponderosa pine and juniper species 

groups in southern Oregon only. 

Douglas-fir (DF) - Stands with single species DF and stands with minor quantities of other conifers 

or hardwoods. They would typically be “FCO” stands (forest conifer), and have either single or 

multiple sizes and ages indicated. 

Northern true fir (N_TF) - Noble or Silver fir are dominant, but other species are mixed in, such as 

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, or western red cedar. 

Northern mixed conifer (N_MX_CON) - Stands with single species of western hemlock, western 

red cedar, Sitka spruce, or mixed conifer stands where Douglas-fir is not dominant. They would 

typically be “FCO” stands (forest-conifer). 

Northern conifer/hardwood mix (N_CON_HWD) - These stands have both conifer and hardwood 

species listed, but they are dominated by neither. Conifers or hardwoods could be indicated in the 

dominant or secondary position. Hardwoods would include big leaf maple and red alder mixed 

with conifer species. Many FMX stands (forest - conifer and hardwoods) would be located here. 

Northern hardwood (N_HWD) - Maple/alder mixes and pure alder are here. Pure or nearly-pure 

alder stands, with limited maple fractions. FHD stand (forest-hardwoods) descriptions are here. 

Southern mixed conifer (S_MX_CON) - Stands containing incense cedar, sugar pine, ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir and white fir in varying fractions, but not including pure types without any 

secondary species indicated; may include some hardwood, but less than the southern 

conifer/hardwood mix.

Southern conifer/hardwood mix (S_CON_HWD) - Stands with mixed conifer species and a 

component of southern hardwoods such as oak, madrone, tanoak, and myrtle that may be in the 

majority or minority. FMX types (forest-conifer and hardwoods) are here. 

Southern hardwood (S_HWD) - Southern hardwood species are dominant with limited mixed 

conifer component. Hardwoods are the dominant species, possibly FHD types (forest - conifer 

and hardwoods). 

Southern true fir (S_TF) - This type includes Shasta red fir and white fir types. White fir types 

could have other secondary species such as Douglas-fir. 

Ponderosa pine (PP) - Ponderosa pine is dominant; may include Douglas-fir, juniper or other 

species, but not as the dominant species. 

Juniper (J) - This type is juniper dominant, but contains limited pine, occurs on dry, low site lands. 

Depending on the district and the ORGANON variant used, lodgepole pine and knobcone pine types 

would go into Northern Mixed Conifer or Southern Mixed Conifer. Jeffery pine would go into a low site 

Ponderosa pine type. Mountain hemlock would go into northern true fir. Port-Orford-cedar would go into 

Southern Mixed Conifer. 

3) Ten-Year Age Class 

Table C-3 displays forest stand ten-year age classes from Micro*Storms database as of January 1, 2013. 

These stand ages reflect the conditions of the forest at the beginning of the analysis period and represent 

the current condition of BLM forests. The Modeling Team did not assign stand ages to the Eastside 

Management lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office for vegetation modeling purposes. 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

996 | Page

Table C-3. BLM western Oregon acreage by age class distribution and sustained yield unit. 

10-Year Age Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem GIS Acres 

Non-forest 20,206 13,841 167,312 66,556 24,477 24,765 317,157 

 10 3,288 2,669 4,656 17,555 3,187 2,406 33,762 

20 24,281 18,455 1,159 37,409 35,366 20,426 137,097 

30 27,727 27,480 2,025 46,037 33,084 32,210 168,562 

40 39,740 32,952 451 22,672 38,470 36,446 170,731 

50 36,309 38,225 1,896 42,766 44,666 45,334 209,196 

60 25,366 32,545 3,301 23,975 20,410 44,157 149,754 

70 17,852 41,702 3,124 25,965 9,084 33,833 131,560 

80 9,007 22,302 3,693 21,373 7,276 24,002 87,654 

90 3,884 8,026 5,304 29,789 6,284 14,335 67,622 

100 4,395 5,057 5,182 32,715 5,758 13,233 66,340 

110 4,083 6,171 3,927 55,621 15,789 13,181 98,773 

120 9,318 8,004 1,519 33,784 6,335 21,855 80,814 

130 10,406 6,219 1,477 44,408 8,041 21,080 91,632 

140 6,967 1,597 2,905 48,694 10,584 9,358 80,105 

150 8,287 1,201 1,064 39,172 25,877 7,349 82,950 

160 8,138 2,083 1,297 35,847 1,723 1,867 50,956 

170 2,523 404 525 24,123 8,098 2,787 38,460 

180 2,190 433 235 42,019 788 454 46,119 

190 1,769 3,989 375 14,781 1,908 156 22,978 

200+ 58,499 37,707 2,657 101,414 116,433 29,923 346,634 

Totals 324,236 311,063 214,084 806,675 423,640 399,157 2,478,856 

4) Site Productivity Class 

The distribution of site class on each sustained yield unit came directly from the measured site index trees 

on the CVS subplots. The Modeling Team assigned five site classes from highly-productive (Site Class 1) 

to relatively-low productivity (Site Class 5). The Modeling Team used King (1966) Douglas-fir site index 

for the geographic area where the NWO version of ORGANON was applicable, and the Hann and 

Scrivani (1987) Douglas-fir site index for areas where the SWO version of ORGANON was appropriate. 

Table C-4 shows the distribution of productivity classes within each sustained yield unit. The Modeling 

Team assigned a site class to each FOI based on the following order of priority: 

1. measured tree data from either the CVS inventory associated with a FOI 

2. the Continuous Forest inventory (CFI) data associated with a FOI 

3. Ecosurvey (stand exam) data with site index averages associated with a FOI 

4. a soil-type based classification from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapping or 

imputation based on climate variables (Latta et al. 2009) 

The Modeling Team held the FOI unit-level productivity assignments constant for the Woodstock 

modeling of all alternatives and sub-alternatives. 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

997 | Page

Table C-4. Percentage of site class productivity within each sustained yield unit. 

Site Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem 

Site 1 20% 28% - - 7% 15% 

Site 2 42% 56% - 6% 23% 48% 

Site 3 25% 13% 22% 20% 32% 27% 

Site 4 10% 2% 46% 43% 25% 6% 

Site 5 1% - 32% 30% 11% 3% 

* Numbers have been rounded. 

Strata to Stand Table 

Of the 1,582 unique strata that include all FOI polygons, 601 strata had at least one overlaying CVS plot 

(Table C-5). These strata represent 83 percent of the forested BLM-administered acres. The Modeling 

Team modeled the remaining 981 strata, 17 percent of the forested BLM-administered acreage, using the 

‘most similar’ CVS tree list. By broadening FOI site class, species groups, or stand age classes, the 

Modeling Team developed a decision matrix to determine which tree list was most similar for 

unmatched strata. Each stratum has a stand table that the Modeling Team developed from at least one 

CVS subplot tree lists. Each stratum represented by more than one tree list had an average tree list 

developed to represent that stratum. The Modeling Team modeled all of the FOIs in a particular stratum 

using the same stand table. 

Table C-5. Strata representation with CVS subplots. 

CVS Subplot Coverage Strata Count Forested Acres 

Stratum with CVS subplots 601 1,775,011 

Stratum with no CVS subplots 981 353,671 

Totals 1,582 2,128,682 

Application of the Stratification in Growth and Yield Modeling 

The consulting firm Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. (MBG) projected the stand table for each stratum in the 

ORGANON growth and yield model utilizing a software program called YTGTools, which is MBG’s 

proprietary software. MBG used YTGTools to batch multiple ORGANON runs and convert the outputs 

into Woodstock-compatible yield tables. MBG grew each stand table for a 200-year planning horizon to 

simulate future development with and without future silvicultural treatments. 

ORGANON Comparison to Measured CVS Growth 

In an effort to understand how comparable the tree growth on BLM stands was with the ORGANON 

model, the first step was to test actual tree growth with the projected growth from ORGANON. The 

Modeling Team did this by comparing projected tree growth on 2,609 CVS subplots with the actual 

growth recorded on those subplots, between their first and second measurements. The Modeling Team 

compared two metrics: stand basal area and volume (Scribner Mbf) per acre. On average, the model 

predicted 95 percent of the basal area actual growth, and 102 percent of the actual Mbf per acre. The 

results of the basal area projection reflect the ability of the model to predict tree mortality and diameter 

growth. The volume growth projection reflects mortality rates and growth in both height and diameter. 

The Modeling Team did not make any adjustments to the ORGANON model, as the Modeling Team 

considered these differences to be minor, and the time frames used to make the estimates fairly short. 

Comparison of Stratified Inventory to Regional Permanent Plot Inventories 

The Modeling Team compared the net and gross total volume estimates from the stratified inventory data 

with the unbiased total inventory estimate from both the Forest Inventory and Analysis plots and the CVS 

plots within that are located on BLM-administered land within the planning area (Table C-6). The 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

998 | Page

stratified total and net volume estimate, as represented by the No Timber Harvest modeling run 

(explained later in this appendix), was within one 95 percent confidence interval of both estimates, from 

both regional inventories. 

Table C-6. Results from net inventory comparison (MMbf volume). 

Inventory Comparison CVS Plot Calculations FIA Plot Calculations No Timber Harvest Run 

Net volume 2013 76,766 79,100 73,961 

95% CI Upper 80,698 87,100 

95% CI Lower 72,833 71,100 

GIS – Defining the Land Base and Spatial Projections 

Introduction 

The Modeling Team used the Geographic Information System (GIS) data to develop a set of polygons 

with unique identifiers (RMPWO_ID), which cover the BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

The Modeling Team defined the attribute data for each these polygons as well as the land base for 

application of modeling rules for simulation of the alternatives and sub-alternatives. The Modeling Team 

used GIS data for mapping the Woodstock projections results of the forest conditions over time. This 

section provides an overview of the GIS process, and the data the Modeling Team used for analyzing the 

alternatives. The BLM recorded the details on the GIS processing and datasets with GIS metadata.

Defining BLM-administered lands 

The Land Lines Information theme (LLI) is the BLM corporate GIS layer for land status - O&C lands, 

public domain, and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands. The FOI is the spatial vegetation layer used for the 

Woodstock modeling. The FOI and Land Lines themes are not vertically integrated in GIS, which results 

in slivering in the areas of misalignment. For the analytical purposes, BLM-administered lands are 

defined by the area in which the FOI and LLI overlap. This FOI and LLI mask was subsequently used to 

minimize the slivers from all GIS layers used in the analysis. 

Intersection versus Majority Rules 

Where the subdivision of the FOI was important for simulating different modeling rules within each stand 

(e.g., Riparian Reserves and roads), the BLM intersected the data layers in GIS to create unique areas. 

Some data layers came from external sources that were captured at coarser scales than the FOI mapping 

and do not align well with BLM checkerboard ownership (e.g., northern spotted owl Critical Habitat 

Units). In these situations, the BLM performed a majority rules analysis, where 50 percent or more of the 

FOI unit would need to coincide with the data theme, such as critical habitat, to receive the designation. 

The BLM applied this majority rules process to themes where spatial subdivision of FOI polygons was 

unnecessary and stand level designation was sufficient for the analysis. 

Rasterizing and Unique ID Assignment 

To facilitate GIS processing, the BLM converted all vector GIS data layers to 10 by 10 meter raster cells 

(1 cell = 0.025 acres – UTM zone 10, NAD83) and partitioned the data into tiles, which were based on 

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle grids (approximately 35,000 acres, 6 miles east/west by 8.5 

miles north/south). Within each tile, the BLM intersected every unique combination of GIS data layers 

with the FOI. The BLM gave each resulting polygon a unique identifier (RMPWO_ID). The example 

below in Table C-7 illustrates one FOI unit (840369) being subdivided into four unique areas based on 

how Riparian Reserves and roads intersected the forest stand. This GIS subdivision of the forest stands 

allows the Woodstock model to simulate how each portion of the stand would develop. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

999 | Page

Table C-7. Example of one FOI unit subdivided into four unique areas. 

RMPWO_ID FOI # GIS 

Acres 

Riparian 

Reserve 

Road 

Buffer Description 

124000005 840369 28.84 N N Outside riparian reserve; outside of road buffer 

124000008 840369 0.99 N Y Outside riparian reserve; within road buffer 

124000004 840369 10.90 Y N Inside riparian reserve; outside of road buffer 

124000013 840369 0.49 Y Y Inside riparian reserve; within road buffer 

The unique ID (RMPWO_ID) carries through the Woodstock modeling projections for tracking each 

spatial entity. The Modeling Team stored the resultant information in 10 by 10 meter pixels. The 

Modeling Team combined those pixels with the same information to form polygons. The Modeling Team 

returned Woodstock classification of allocations or projections of forest conditions to GIS as attributes 

with the unique IDs, which were linked back to the original grid to produce spatial products. 

Data Vintage 

The Modeling Team captured a snapshot of the Forest Operations Inventory (FOI), Land Use Allocation 

(LUA), Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC), Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites (OMMS), 

and the LLI data for this analysis. The data represents the conditions as of the beginning of January 2013. 

The BLM updated other GIS datasets during the winter and spring of 2013, and used the best available 

information at the time of the analysis. For example, Table C-8 displays the GIS data themes that the 

Modeling Team used in the analysis for Alternative A. 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1000 | Page

Table C-8. GIS data themes used in the analysis for Alternative A. 

Source Vector Description 

pol_dob_a_v2_poly BLM district (in file but not used, see MStorms based) 

fst_foi_a_v3_poly FOI coincident with BLM ownership 

trn_highways_aoi_a_v1_arc , 

trn_roads_aoi_a_v1_arc Roads buffered 22.5' per side

hyd_waterbody_aoi_a_v1_poly , 

hyd_areas_aoi_a_v1_poly Surface water (no buffers)

fst_tpc_a_v2_poly No Timber Harvest-Harvest Land Base (N, X, Y) 

fst_foi_a_v3_poly Unique FOI ID 

Micro*Storms (flat file) Yield strata ID 

Micro*Storms (flat file) Model group by OI unit 

Micro*Storms (flat file) Species group by OI unit 

Micro*Storms (flat file) Site class by OI unit 

Micro*Storms (flat file) Ten-year age class by OI unit 

Micro*Storms (flat file) BLM district name by OI unit 

Micro*Storms (flat file) AgeInPeriods_TS (starting age) by OI unit 

Micro*Storms (flat file) WOPR structure stage by OI unit 

Micro*Storms (flat file) Township/Range/Section by OI unit 

Micro*Storms (flat file) ORGANON variant by OI unit 

lch_MoistDry_a_aoi_v2_poly Moist/Dry by OI unit 

fir_Predicted_FireSeverity_10m_a_v1_rst Predicted fire severity moderate/high, decade 1, 

weighted by OI unit 

fst_tpc_a_v2_poly Primary management 

fst_tpc_a_v2_poly Primary class 

hyd_wbd_hu10_a_v2_poly Watersheds HUC 10 

hyd_wbd_hu12_a_v2_poly Subwatershed HUC 12 

smg_ond_a_v2_poly Other national designations 

trn_pacificcresttrail_a_v1_arc Pacific Crest Trail (25 ft. buffer per side) 

lsc_provphys_a_v2_poly Physiographic provinces 

smg_wilderness_a_v2_poly Wilderness 

smg_wsrcorr_a_v2_poly Wild and scenic river corridors, designated 

pol_cob_a_v2_poly County name 

smg_wsa_a_v1_poly Wilderness Study Areas 

hyd_keywatersheds_a_v1_poly Key watersheds
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1001 | Page

Source Vector Description 

lup_riparian_reserveInner_alta_a_v1_poly, 

lup_riparian_reserveOuter_alta_a_v1_poly, 

(hyd_flowline_aoi_a_v1_arc , 

hyd_waterbody_aoi_a_v1_poly , 

hyd_areas_aoi_a_v1_poly , 

hyd_wetland_aoi_a_v1_poly, 

lup_treeheightdistance_wpr_a_v1_poly) 

Inner Riparian Reserves Alt. A, outer Riparian Reserves 

Alt. A 

rec_vrm_a_v1_poly Visual resource management No Action 

lup_lua_a_v2_poly Land Use Allocations, No Action 

smg_WildernessCharacteristics_a_aoi_v1_po

ly Wilderness Characteristics

smg_wsrcorr_a_v2_poly Wild and scenic river corridors, designated, type (wild, 

scenic, recreation) 

smg_wsrcorr_proposed_a_v2_poly Wild and scenic river corridors, Y/N, eligible ,and 

suitable 

pol_ownership_blm_aoi_a_v3_poly Land status (O&C, public domain, etc.) 

FLORA_CHUs Flora Critical Habitat areas 

FAUNA_CHUs Fauna Critical Habitat areas, non-owl/murrelet 

smg_acec_proposed_aa_a_v4_poly ACECs proposed (action alternatives) 

wld_mmz_5mi_a_v1_poly Marbled murrelet zones with 5 mi. bands 

GB_FLORA_SITES (RWOR39) Flora survey and manage species 2001 list, buffered 

GB_FLORA_SITES (RWOR39) Flora special status T&E species, buffered 

GB_FAUNA_SITES (RWOR36) Species group report units (buffered, terrestrial) new 

buffers per alternatives

GB_FAUNA_SITES (RWOR36) Fauna survey and manage species 2001 list, buffered 

GB_FAUNA_SITES (RWOR36) Fauna special status T&E species , buffered

Not included for Alt. A Predicted murrelet sites 

Not included for Alt. A Predicted red tree vole sites 

rec_recmgt_a_v1_poly Recreation Management Areas, Alt. A 

fst_swissneedlecast_a_v1_poly Swiss needle cast 

min_fragile_soils_a_v1_poly Fragile soils action alternatives 

lup_wopr_ueamgt_aoi_a_poly Uneven Age Management Areas 

wld_marbledmurrelet_chu_a_2011_v1_poly Marbled murrelet Critical Habitat 

atm_frost_prone_med_a_v1_poly Frost prone areas 

lup_Kfalls_EastsideLands_a_v1_poly Eastside Management Lands 

pol_rab_a_v3_poly Field Office name and code (final modifications done in 

database) 

lsc_NWFP_NSO_MRegions_aoi_a_v1_poly Northern spotted owl modeling groups 

wld_nsochu_a_2013_v1_poly Northern spotted owl Critical Habitat 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1002 | Page

See the modeling rules section for further description of the GIS data themes used in the modeling. 

Moist vs. Dry Delineation of BLM-administered Lands in the 

Planning Area 

Moist vs. Dry Forests 

The Modeling Team recognizes that forested lands fall within two broad categories - moist forests and dry 

forests - that are relevant to management decisions and analysis. The Modeling Team recognizes that the 

spectrum from moist to dry is more accurately described along a continuous gradient from moist to dry 

rather than a “one or the other” binary classification. However, the Modeling Team has made these 

discrete classifications to facilitate specifying management objectives and direction based on mapped land 

use allocations. Recognizing and managing both moist and dry forests within the range of the northern 

spotted owl is a major underpinning in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 

FWS 2011, pp. III-17 – III-41). 

Moist forests are typically highly productive, often with deep, nutrient-rich soils, abundant precipitation, 

and relatively cool, temperate climates. Historically, these forests have experienced relatively infrequent, 

high, or mixed severity fires. Moist forests are concentrated in the coastal/northern districts (Salem, 

Eugene, and Coos Bay, and the north half of the Roseburg District). Moist forests also occur in the 

southern/interior districts (the southern half of the Roseburg district, Medford, and Klamath Falls Field 

Office of the Lakeview District), but they are less abundant, often on northern aspects, in higher 

elevations, or in coastal influence zones. 

Dry forests are typically lower productivity forests, occurring in warmer/drier environments, and often on 

shallower, nutrient-poor soils when compared to moist forests. Historically, these forests have 

experienced frequent, low to mixed severity fires. Dry forests are concentrated in southern/interior 

districts (the southern half of the Roseburg District, Medford, and the Klamath Falls Field Office). Dry 

forests also occur in the coastal/northern districts, but they are less abundant, often on southern aspects, 

ridge tops, and low-elevation valley margins. 

The distinction between moist forests and dry forests represents a complicated relationship between 

climate, species, topography, soils, and disturbance history. For this reason, a map based on any one of 

these factors would likely create an incorrect representation of the spatial arrangement of these forests. 

Fortunately, the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service has collected and compiled data on Plant Association 

Groups (PAG), which are also the product of climate, species, topography, soils, and disturbance history. 

Therefore, the Modeling Team can use PAG to determine whether a forest stand is moist or dry (Franklin 

et al. 2013, pp. 12-23). Trained professionals in the field can readily make Plant Association Group 

determinations and large spatial mapping datasets are available for many parts of the planning area. 

The following plant association series and groups are generally considered moist (Franklin and Johnson 

2012): western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western redcedar (Thuja 

plicata), Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), sulbalpine firEngelmann spruce (Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmanni), moist grand fir (Abies grandis), and moist white 

fir (Abies concolor). 

The following plant association series and groups are generally considered dry (Franklin and Johnson 

2012): ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), Douglas-fir 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1003 | Page

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), dry grand fir (Abies grandis), and dry white fir 

(Abies concolor). 

These very general categories provided the Modeling Team with a starting point for categorization of 

forested lands in the decision area. The Modeling Team produced a set of PAG moist/dry categorizations 

that were distributed to U.S. Forest Service regional ecologists and BLM experts for review. Based on 

this evaluation and review, the Modeling Team labeled each PAG in the planning area as either moist or 

dry. 

The next challenge was to categorize forested stands in the decision area as either moist or dry. While 

PAG data is available for many regions, there is not a seamless coverage available for the entire decision 

area for this planning effort. However, the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP) had derived a 

single, seamless coverage of Potential Vegetation Type (PVT) for the entire decision area. This PVT map 

consists of a raster grid to a 30-meter pixel size derived from underlying PAG and necessary 

interpolation. The Modeling Team updated the southwest Oregon portion of the map to reflect the most 

up-to-date PAG information for the region. Then, the Modeling Team labeled each FOI unit (stand) in the 

database as either moist or dry based on the PVT map and a majority rules process. The Modeling Team 

labeled stands exactly split between moist and dry as dry, this was very rare. 

The Modeling Team sent these maps to BLM offices for review by experienced local experts. The BLM 

corrected mapping errors by location where the maps did not accurately reflect local knowledge of 

conditions on the ground. The accuracy of PVT for the Salem District was not satisfactory because they 

had very few dry forest acres. The Salem District BLM experts used a combination of biophysical setting 

data and local knowledge to manually select dry stands from their operational land base. 

This mapping effectively produced a seamless, spatial moist/dry classification scheme for the entire 

decision area (Table C-9). Table C-10 is a representation of the final categories that the BLM offices 

selected, prior to area corrections being applied. Roseburg N refers to the Roseburg District outside of the 

Klamath East or Klamath West modeling region, while Roseburg S refers to the Roseburg District inside 

of those modeling regions. The Modeling Team customized these calls based on local knowledge and 

spatial coverage for each district by local BLM ecological vegetation experts. Very Dry forests are a 

subset of dry forests that the Modeling Team modeled as uneven-aged management where they reside in 

the Harvest Land Base in Alternatives C and D. 

Table C-9. Moist vs. dry forested acres by district/field office. 

Class Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals 

Dry 2,300 1,010 43,043 715,509 170,588 6,851 939,300 

Moist 301,837 296,212 4,968 24,610 228,575 367,690 1,223,893 

Totals 304,137 297,222 48,011 740,119 399,163 374,541 2,163,193 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1004 | Page

Table C-10. Moist/dry potential vegetation type categorization by district/field office. 

Plant Vegetation Type 

(PVT)

Coos Bay 

(Moist/Dry) 

Eugene 

(Moist/Dry) 

Klamath 

Falls 

(Moist/Dry) 

Medford 

(Moist/Dry) 

Roseburg N 

(Moist/Dry) 

Roseburg S 

(Moist/Dry) 

Salem 

(Moist/Dry) 

Douglas-fir-Dry Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist 

Douglas-fir-Moist Moist Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Moist 

Douglas-fir-White oak Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist 

Douglas-fir-Xeric Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist 

Grand fir-Valley Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Grand fir-Warm/Dry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Grand fir-Cool/Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Mixed Conifer-Moist Moist Moist Dry Dry Moist Moist Moist 

Mixed Conifer-Dry Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Dry Moist 

Mixed Conifer-Cold/Dry Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Dry Moist 

Mixed Conifer-Dry (pumice 

soils) Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Dry Moist 

Mountain hemlock-Cold/Dry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Mountain hemlock-Cold/Dry 

(Coastal/W. Cascades) Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Mountain hemlockIntermediate Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Mountain hemlock-Wet Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Oregon white oak Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist 

Oregon white oak-ponderosa 

pine Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist 

Pacific silver fir-Intermediate Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Pacific silver fir-Warm Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Ponderosa pine-Dry Moist Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Moist 

Ponderosa pine-Xeric Moist Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Moist 

Shasta red fir-Dry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Shasta red fir-Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Sitka spruce Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Subalpine fir Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Subalpine fir-Cold/Dry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Subalpine parkland Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Tan oak-Douglas-fir-Dry Moist Moist Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist 

Tan oak-Douglas-fir-Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Dry Dry Moist 

Tan oak-Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Dry Dry Moist 

Western hemlock-Coastal Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Western hemlock-Cold Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Western hemlock-Hyperdry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Western hemlockIntermediate Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Western hemlock-Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Western hemlock-Moist 

(Coastal) Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Western hemlock-Wet Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1005 | Page

Plant Vegetation Type 

(PVT)

Coos Bay 

(Moist/Dry) 

Eugene 

(Moist/Dry) 

Klamath 

Falls 

(Moist/Dry) 

Medford 

(Moist/Dry) 

Roseburg N 

(Moist/Dry) 

Roseburg S 

(Moist/Dry) 

Salem 

(Moist/Dry) 

Western red cedar/Western 

hemlock-Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

White fir-Cool Moist Moist Very Dry Very Dry Moist Moist Moist 

White fir-Intermediate Moist Moist Dry Dry Dry Dry Moist 

White fir-Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

White fir-Warm Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Lodgepole pine Moist Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Moist 

Ultramafic Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Moist 

Other Non-forest Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist 

Jeffrey Pine Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry 

Lodgepole pine Cold Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry 

Not Modeled Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist 

Barren Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist 

Wetland Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Water or Ice Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Subalpine meadows-Green 

Fescue Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Bitterbrush-With Juinper - - Very Dry - 

Idaho fescue-Prairie 

junegrass - - Very Dry - 

Low Sage-Mesic, no juniper - - Very Dry - 

Low Sage-Mesic, with 

juniper - - Very Dry - 

Montane and canyon 

shrubland - - Very Dry Dry

Mountain big sagebrushWith juniper - - Very Dry - 

Mountain Mahogany - - Very Dry - 

Ponderosa Pine-Dry, with 

juniper - - Very Dry - 

Ponderosa pine-Lodgepole 

pine - - Very Dry - 

Salt desert shrub-lowland - - Very Dry - 

Western juniper woodland - - Very Dry - 

Wetland Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist 

Wyoming big sagebrush-No 

juniper - - Very Dry - 

Wyoming big sagebrushWith juniper - - Very Dry - 

Forest Growth and Yield Modeling 

Introduction 

This section describes the silvicultural systems, practices, modeling tools, and modeling assumptions for 

forest growth simulations at the stand level. The purpose of simulating forest stand growth and 

development is to permit analysis of the effects of different silvicultural systems and silvicultural 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1006 | Page

practices on timber yield, stand structural class, wildlife habitat, hydrologic function, carbon budgets, etc. 

The Modeling Team used the simulated growth and yield output tables described in this section in the 

Woodstock model to help answer the analytical questions for different resources identified in this RMP 

for each of the alternatives. 

Silvicultural Systems, Practices, and General Modeling 

Approaches 

Silvicultural Systems and Associated Regeneration Harvest 

Types 

A silvicultural system is a planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and re-establishing a stand 

to meet specific management objectives (i.e., a set of treatments that could be repeated in perpetuity). The 

system name is commonly based on the number of age classes created within a stand (Tappeiner et al. 

2007). The regeneration harvest method associated with a particular silvicultural system defined by age 

class has such a decisive influence on stand form and development that the harvest method name is also 

commonly applied to the silvicultural system (Smith 1962). For example, the terms uneven-aged and 

selection system are often used interchangeably to characterize the same silvicultural system. 

Within a land use allocation being managed with a particular silvicultural system, the planned series of 

treatments are fine-tuned to meet the specific conditions and growth potential of individual stands or 

modeling group. These more specific combination and sequence of treatments is called a silvicultural 

prescription or management regime. 

The Modeling Team used three recognized silvicultural systems in simulating forest stand development 

and timber harvest on lands identified as contributing to sustained-yield management. These are evenaged (clearcut and shelterwood), two-aged (variable-retention), and uneven-aged (selection). Two-aged 

and uneven-aged systems are described collectively as multi-aged (O’Hara 2014). The systems analyzed 

for this analysis exhibit a gradient of timber harvest intensity (Figure C-3) and stand structural 

complexity (Figure C-4). The system used depends on the land use allocations objectives of each 

alternative (see Tables C-11 and C-12). 

Figure C-3. Gradient of silvicultural systems and regeneration harvest methods. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1007 | Page

Figure C-4. Stand structural types produced by various silvicultural systems. Figure adapted from USDA 

FS NCRS (no date). 

Table C-11. Silvicultural systems/harvest method by land use allocation. 

Land Use Allocation LUA 

Abbrev. No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

General Forest Management 

Area GFMA Two-aged * * * * 

Adaptive Management Area1 AMA Two-aged * * * * 

Moderate Intensity Timber 

Area MITA * * Two-aged * Two-aged 

Connectivity/Diversity Block CONN Two-aged * * * * 

Low Intensity Timber Area LITA * * Two-aged * * 

Southern General Forest 

Management Area SGFMA Two-aged * * * * 

Uneven-aged Timber Area UTA * Unevenaged Uneven-aged Uneven-aged Uneven-aged 

Owl Habitat Timber Area OHTA * * * * Uneven-aged 

High Intensity Timber Area HITA * Even-aged * Even-aged * 

Late-Successional Reserve LSR Thinning Thinning3 Thinning/ 

Uneven-aged4

Thinning/ 

Uneven-aged4

Thinning/ 

Uneven-aged4

Adaptive Management 

Reserve2 AMR Thinning * * * * 

Riparian Reserve RR Thinning Thinning3 Thinning Thinning Thinning 1

 Adaptive Management Area is represented by the General Forest Management Area in subsequent tables 

2

 Adaptive Management Reserve is represented by the Late-Successional Reserves in subsequent tables 

3

 No commercial harvest, cut trees are left on-site 

4

 Varies by moist forest (Thinning) – dry forest (Uneven-aged) classifications 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1008 | Page

Table C-12. Silvicultural systems selected modeling assumptions.1

 

Land Use 

Allocation 

Abbreviati

on

Regeneration 

Harvest 

Method2

Target Stand 

Structure 

Type

Alternative 

Primary 

Regeneration 

Method and 

Simulation 

Timing3

Precommercial 

Thinning 

Residual 

Density 

(Trees/Acre) 

Genetic 

Improve

-ment4

Commercial 

Thinning Fertilize 

GFMA VRH Two-Aged No Action Plant - 15 200-260 X X X 

MITA VRH Two-Aged D Plant - 15 260 X X X 

MITA VRH Two-Aged B Plant - 30 260 

CONN VRH Two-Aged No Action Plant - 15 150-220 X 

LITA VRH Two-Aged B Natural - 30 220 X 

LITA VRH Two-Aged B Natural - 30 100 

LITA VRH Two-Aged B None 0 

SGFMA VRH Two-Aged No Action Plant - 15 260 X 

UTA Selection Uneven-aged A, B, C, D Plant - 15 260 X 

OHTA Selection Uneven-aged D Plant - 15 260 X 

HITA Clearcut Even-aged A, C Plant - 15 260 X X X 

LSR Variable by Alternative 

RR N/A Multi-aged All Natural 120 1

 Actions that are applicable outside of fire scenario areas 

2

 VRH = variable-retention harvest 

3 “Natural” indicates that no artificial regeneration (tree planting) is permitted; “Plant” indicates a planting cost applies. The 

number following the primary regeneration method is the number of years post-harvest that a tree list representing 15-years-old

trees is added to the growth simulation at a density reflecting post-pre-commercial thinning, or if less than 150 the assumed 

density reflecting stand density if below target density for that land use allocation. 

4

 Refer to use of genetically improved Douglas-fir seedlings for reforestation and use of growth modifiers in ORGANON 

simulations.

The even-aged system uses the clear-cutting or shelterwood harvest method to regenerate existing stands. 

Clear-cutting essentially removes all trees from an area in a single harvest operation (see Figure C-5). 

Shelterwood harvest initially retains a number of “shelter” trees to protect new tree regeneration by 

mitigation of detrimental on-site environmental conditions (e.g., heat or frost). Immediately post-harvest, 

a shelterwood has the appearance of a two-aged stand resulting from a variable-retention harvest (see 

Figure C-3). However, unlike the two-aged system, the shelter trees are only temporarily retained 

(approximately 10-20 years) and are harvested when they no longer required for protection of the new 

tree regeneration. 

Figure C-5. Clearcut stand immediately post-harvest. Figure adapted from USDA FS NCRS (no date). 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1009 | Page

The two-aged system uses a variable-retention harvest method to achieve the goal of establishing new tree 

regeneration (see Figures C-3 and C-4). At regeneration harvest, live trees are retained long-term 

(reserved from harvest) to facilitate the development of a two-aged stand structure. The retained trees may 

be left in a dispersed, aggregated, or mixed spatial pattern (see Figure C-6). For modeling purposes, the 

Modeling Team assumed dispersed retention for variable-retention harvests in the No Action alternative 

and Alternatives B and D. 

Figure C-6. Variable-retention (regeneration) harvest-idealized retention patterns. Figure adapted from 

USDA FS NCRS (no date). 

The uneven-aged system uses selection harvests to establish new regeneration. Trees are harvested singly 

and/or in groups with the objective of creating an uneven-aged multi-story (canopy) stand structure (See 

Figures C-3, C-4, and C-7). Classically defined uneven-aged management assumes that over time the 

entire area of the stand is harvested. A feature of the uneven-aged system in the action alternatives is the 

long-term retention or reservation from harvest of a portion of each stand similar to retention concept of 

the two-aged system. 

Uncut Stand 

Dispersed Retention 

Aggregate Retention 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1010 | Page

Figure C-7. Uneven-aged management/selection harvest – idealized harvest patterns. Figure adapted 

from USDA FS NCRS (no date). 

In addition to being used in simulating forest stand development and timber harvest on lands identified as 

contributing to sustained yield management, the Modeling Team modeled uneven-aged management in 

the “dry forest” portions of the Late-Successional Reserves in the action alternatives. 

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvests on portions of land use allocations managed for emphases 

other than timber. For example, Late-Successional Reserves would employ a harvest approach commonly 

referred to as variable-density thinning (Harringon et al. 2005). Variable-density thinning employs 

elements of commercial thinning and selection harvest of the uneven-aged system to promote stand 

heterogeneity through the development of a multi-story stand. Provision of conditions conducive to the 

initiation and growth of regeneration is an objective of variable-density thinning to encourage understory 

development to contribute to stand heterogeneity. Variable-density thinning in the context of the 

alternatives analyzed is not a silvicultural system as such, since silvicultural treatments are assumed to 

end by a specified stand age (i.e., there is no assumption of a repeatable cycle of treatments in perpetuity). 

The Modeling Team modeled variable-density thinning as a series of proportional commercial thinnings 

with simulated tree regeneration following the thinning harvests in Riparian Reserves in all alternatives, 

Late-Successional Reserve in the No Action alternative, and “moist forest” areas in the Late-Successional 

Reserve in the action alternatives. 

Silvicultural Practices and Modeling Assumptions 

For each modeling group, the Modeling Team may plan a variety of practices in addition to harvesting for 

specific periods in the life of the stand. These practices act to keep forest stands on desired developmental 

trajectories. The type and timing sequence of those practices vary by the current and the desired future 

condition of the stand or modeling stratum. 

The other major silvicultural practices besides regeneration harvesting that affect forest stand growth, 

value and structure are site preparation, regeneration (reforestation), stand maintenance and protection, 

pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, fertilization, and pruning. The Modeling Team derived 

estimates of the proportion of future treatment needs from historical experience in individual BLM offices 

and the specifics of the various alternatives. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1011 | Page

Of these practices, the Modeling Team simulated regeneration harvest, regeneration, pre-commercial 

thinning, commercial thinning, and fertilization implementation in the growth and yield projections. 

Site Preparation 

The BLM conducts site preparation to prepare newly harvested or inadequately stocked areas for tree 

planting, artificial seeding, or natural regeneration. Objectives of site preparation are to provide physical 

access to planting sites, fuels management, influence the plant community that redevelops on the site, and 

influence or control animal populations. The types of site preparation techniques are prescribed burning, 

mechanical, and manual methods. 

Regeneration (Reforestation) 

Following a regeneration harvest or wildfire, the BLM establishes tree regeneration by artificial and 

natural regeneration. Artificial regeneration includes tree planting and/or seeding. Natural regeneration is 

obtained from natural seed fall from adjacent forest stands of seed-bearing age or retention trees reserved 

at the time of timber harvest. Where available, the BLM may emphasize the planting of genetically 

improved seedlings for even-aged and two-aged systems with low levels of green-tree retention. Genetic 

improvements include increased growth (e.g., Douglas-fir and western hemlock) or disease resistance 

(e.g., sugar pine, western white pine, and Port-Orford-cedar). The BLM plants trees outside of the Harvest 

Land Base to supplement, or in lieu of natural regeneration to enhance development of complex stand 

structure. 

The Modeling Team based tree lists representing the tree regeneration component of future stands 

following a major stand disturbing event, such as a timber harvest or wildfire on an analysis done for the 

2008 RMP/EIS of the Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) plots in the then 5- to 20-year-old age classes 

(USDI BLM 2008). The Modeling Team stratified plots by species group and site class where possible. 

The Modeling Team assumed that future young reforested stand species composition would be similar to 

that of current young stands. 

The ORGANON model lacks a “regeneration component” to generate small seedlings (< 4.5 feet tall) that 

simulates a reforestation action. However, an “ingrowth” function in the model permits the insertion of a 

regeneration tree list into a simulation when trees are larger than the minimum. For modeling purposes, 

the Modeling Team developed tree lists of species mix and size range appropriate to the various modeling 

groups from the database described above for the 2008 RMP/EIS. The Modeling Team considers that 

these same lists are still appropriate for use in this analysis. The Modeling Team simulated a reforestation 

event by introducing one of these tree lists with the ORGANON ingrowth function, 15 to 35 years after a 

regeneration harvest or wildfire in the modeling sequence. The wide range in timing reflects varying 

assumptions of the alternatives on the level of residual live overstory present following harvest or 

wildfire, site productivity differences, lag time for natural regeneration, administrative delays in salvage 

harvest situations, and intensity of stand maintenance actions. 

Regeneration for the Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA) and the Moderate Intensity Timber Area (MITA) 

of Alternative B were special cases. Management direction for the LITA would allow only natural 

regeneration for reforestation purposes. Management direction for the MITA would require delayed 

reforestation to maintain open stand conditions ( 30 percent tree canopy cover) for thirty years after a 

regeneration harvest. The Modeling Team could not readily develop assumptions on reforestation success 

using natural regeneration from existing BLM data, so the Modeling Team used region-wide data instead. 

Reliance on natural regeneration following regeneration harvests on BLM-administered lands in western 

Oregon was common until about 1960. Around 1960, the BLM shifted to a paradigm of prompt 

reforestation by artificial seeding and tree planting. The BLM reforestation records from the earlier era of 

natural regeneration emphasis are spotty. However, pre-1960 regional studies and reports are available for 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1012 | Page

approximating potential levels of natural regeneration success. Data in the pre-1960 literature on postharvest natural regeneration (Isaac 1943, Lavender et al. 1956, USDA FS 1958) characterizes 

reforestation success in categories, which correspond closely to BLM stocking groupings of target (260 

trees per acre), minimum/understocked (100 trees per acre), and non-stocked (0 trees per acre). The 

Modeling Team assumed that reforestation outcomes in the LITA in Alternative B would approximate 

proportions of 60 percent of harvested acres would achieve target stocking, 30 percent 

minimum/understocked, and 10 percent non-stocked. After regeneration harvest, the Modeling Team 

apportioned acres harvested as stated above and simulated further stand development. The Modeling 

Team doubled the lag time before inserting a regeneration tree list into the ORGANON growth 

simulations for natural regeneration, compared to prompt planting. This doubled lag time represented an 

extended seed-in period. 

In the MITA in Alternative B, the Modeling Team assumed target stocking levels for all acres harvested 

but doubled the lag time before inserting a regeneration tree list in the growth simulations. 

Newer literature on natural regeneration following wildfire was considered for evaluating reforestation 

success, but was rejected for this analysis. The reason is that un-salvaged wildfire stands, by virtue of fire 

effects and the generally high number of residual dead standing trees, create different microclimate 

conditions for natural regeneration than a harvested area. 

Stand Maintenance and Protection 

The BLM conducts stand maintenance and protection treatments after planting or seeding to promote the 

survival and establishment of trees and other vegetation by reducing competition from undesired plant 

species. Maintenance and protection techniques include mulching, cutting, or pulling of unwanted 

vegetation species, placing plastic tubes/netting over seedlings to protect from animal damage, and animal 

trapping. 

The effects of past maintenance and protection treatments are reflected in the current condition of existing 

young forest stands. The Modeling Team assumed in the simulation of future regenerated stands that the 

same types and level of treatments would occur as in the current young existing stands that were used to 

derive the initial regeneration tree lists. Herbicides for stand maintenance were not available to the BLM 

during the time in which the current young stands developed, and the Modeling Team did not model 

herbicide use for stand maintenance in any of the action alternatives. Therefore, the initial conditions of 

the future tree lists derived from current stands attributes should exhibit the effects of non-herbicide stand 

maintenance treatment methods only. 

Pre-commercial Thinning 

The BLM conducts pre-commercial thinning to reduce the densities of tree and shrubs, manipulate 

species composition, and promote dominance and growth of selected species. The BLM usually 

implements treatments during the mid-range of the stand establishment structural stage. For modeling 

purposes, the Modeling Team assumed pre-commercial thinning would occur at the time a regeneration 

tree list is inserted into the ORGANON simulation. Pre-commercial thinning enhances the growth and 

vigor of the residual trees by reducing inter-tree and shrub competition. The average number of trees 

remaining following treatment can vary by land use allocation and modeling group. 

Commercial Thinning 

Commercial thinnings are intermediate harvests implemented to recover anticipated mortality; control 

stand density for maintenance of stand vigor, provide revenue, and to alter or maintain stands on 

developmental paths so that desired stand characteristics result in the future. The BLM schedules 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1013 | Page

commercial thinnings when stands reach a combination of relative density stem diameter and timber 

volume to permit an economical harvest entry. 

The Modeling Team used the same basic silvicultural prescriptions developed for the 2008 RMP/EIS for 

all silvicultural systems (USDI BLM 2008). The BLM formulated these prescriptions from iterative 

ORGANON simulations with four evaluation criteria: 

1. Stand relative density (Curtis 1982) 

2. Attainment of minimum average stand diameter 

3. Minimum harvest volumes 

4. Residual canopy cover (Late-Successional Reserves and Riparian Reserves only) 

The Modeling Team based relative density (RD) thresholds on published recommendations, including 

Curtis and Marshall (1986), Hayes et al. (1997), Chan et al. (2006), and professional judgment. The 

Modeling Team scheduled thinning when relative density met or exceeded a minimum of 45-55, 

depending on the land use allocation objectives. 

The Modeling Team based minimum diameter and volume thresholds for economically viable thinning 

sales on historical BLM timber sales experience. The Modeling Team assumed the minimum diameter to 

be 12 inches, measured at breast height, and minimum volume thresholds of 8,000 board feet per acre on 

the Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay, and Roseburg Districts, and 5,000 board feet per acre on the Medford 

District and the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Relative density rules can vary by land use allocation within alternatives. For example, the Modeling 

Team modeled commercial thinning prescriptions for land use allocations with higher timber production 

emphasis goals Northern General Forest Management Area (No Action alternative), High Intensity 

Timber Area (Alternatives A and C), and Moderate Intensity Timber Area (Alternatives B and D) to 

maintain relative densities between approximately 35 and 55. The Modeling Team designed the timing 

and degree of the final thinning so that relative density would recover to a minimum of 55 at the longterm rotation age. The Modeling Team modeled thinnings for late-successional habitat development 

objectives within a lower range of relative density thresholds - 25 to 50. 

Commercial thinnings promote the establishment of conifer regeneration in the understory of thinned 

stands (Bailey and Tappeiner 1998). The Modeling Team simulated the recruitment of this regeneration in 

the growth simulations to reflect expected stand dynamics following commercial thinning harvests. The 

ORGANON growth and yield model (Hann 2011) does not recognize trees with diameters less than 4.5 

feet at breast height. Therefore, the Modeling Team developed regeneration tree lists using existing CVS 

data and growth relationships from current published and unpublished studies. The Modeling Team added 

regeneration trees to ORGANON simulations 20 to 25 years after any commercial thinning. The time lag 

represents the estimated time for all trees in the regeneration tree list to reach a minimum height of at 

least 4.5 feet. 

Fertilization 

Stand growth in western Oregon is often limited by the supply of available nutrients, particularly 

nitrogen. The supply of soil nutrients can be augmented through fertilization (Miller et al. 1988). The 

Modeling Team modeled fertilization assuming the application of 200 pounds of fertilizer in the form of 

urea-based prill (46 percent available nitrogen). Occasionally, fertilizer may be applied in a liquid ureaammonia form or with a mixture of other nutrient elements in addition to nitrogen. The Modeling Team 

simulated fertilization in the Harvest Land Base after a thinning action in stands that would be managed 

with even-aged or two-aged with low green tree retention, contain 80 percent or more Douglas-fir by 

basal area, and have a total stand age less than or equal to 70 years old. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1014 | Page

Pruning 

The objectives for pruning are the improvement of wood quality, disease mitigation (e.g., white pine 

blister rust), and fuels management. Pruning for wood quality usually removes the live and dead limbs on 

selected trees up to height of about 18 feet. The BLM generally implements pruning treatments as a twophase process or “lifts” between stand ages of approximately 15-40 years-old. Timing varies by site 

productivity (i.e., treatments occur earlier on stands of higher site productivity). Removal of up to onethird to one-half of the live tree crown at each lift would not substantially affect diameter growth at breast 

height or height growth (Staebler 1963, Stein 1955, BCMOF 1995). Because the BLM would typically 

implement pruning treatments within this range and therefore would not have a substantial effect on tree 

growth, the Modeling Team did not simulate pruning in ORGANON. 

Stand Modeling Process 

The prediction of forest stand development requires the projection of growth of BLM’s existing forest 

stand types into the future, with and without further silvicultural treatments, and the simulation of stands, 

which represent future stands (i.e., new stands created following future timber harvest or natural 

disturbance). Depending on the management direction of the alternatives, both existing and future stands 

may be subject to different intensities of silvicultural treatments.The Modeling Team used two linked 

computer models, ORGANON and YTGTools, to project the growth and development of forest stands 

under various silvicultural systems. 

ORGANON Model Description 

ORGANON is an individual-tree, distance-independent model developed by Oregon State University 

from data collected in western Oregon forest stands (Hann 2011). The architecture of the model makes it 

applicable for simulations of traditional and non-traditional silviculture (Hann 1998). Three variants of 

ORGANON are available for use in western Oregon. The Modeling Team used the northwest Oregon 

variant (NWO-ORGANON) to project the growth of forest stands located on the Salem, Eugene, Coos 

Bay and Roseburg (partial) Districts. The basic data underpinning of this variant of the model is from 

predominantly conifer forest stands with ages ranging from about 10 to 120-years-old breast height age 

(Hann 2011). The Modeling Team used the southwest Oregon variant (SWO-ORGANON) to project 

forest stand growth on the Medford and Roseburg (partial) Districts, and the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

The original basic data underpinning this variant of the model is from mixed-conifer forest stands with 

ages of the dominant trees ranging from about 13 to 138-years-old breast height age (Ritchie and Hann 

1985). Subsequently, additional new data has extended the applicability of the model to stands with older 

trees, higher proportions of hardwoods, and more complex spatial structure (Hann and Hanus 2001). 

Simulations of stand growth of the 2008 RMP silvicultural prescriptions extend beyond the ORGANON 

model’s range of data for both variants. However, the timing of harvests and other silvicultural treatments 

generally occur within the range of the model’s validated height growth projection and volume prediction 

capabilities. Height growth is the primary driving function in ORGANON (Ritchie 1999). Hann (1998) 

found that the SWO-ORGANON height growth equations can be extended to up to 245 years without loss 

of accuracy or precision. 

The standard ORGANON configuration is not conducive to the efficient processing of large numbers of 

individual tree lists representing forest stands within a stratum. It is not configured to merge multiple 

simulation results to into average timber yield functions. In addition, the standard model does not produce 

specific stand structural characteristics that have utility for effects analysis on resources other than timber 

production, or for the incorporation of factors to simulate growth improvement of trees due to genetic 

improvement programs. To overcome these shortcomings, the Modeling Team linked ORGANON with 

the YTGTools computer program. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1015 | Page

YTGTools 

YTG Tools is a proprietary computer software program designed to create and analyze yield tables in 

conjunction with a growth and yield simulation model that flow into the Woodstock harvest scheduling 

model. MBG designed YTGTools to automate the process of simulating large amounts of management 

regime projections for many stand conditions and to facilitate analyzing and reporting attributes of the 

resulting yield tables. The Modeling Team used YTGTools in conjunction with a growth and yield model 

to project future timber yields and stand attributes under the various management regimes applied to 

different forest inventory strata (Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 2006). 

Existing Stands Modeling Description 

The land base consists of existing forest stands that are the result of past harvests and natural 

disturbances, of various ages, structures, past management histories and potential for forest management. 

The Modeling Team stratified tree lists from CVS inventory subplots into modeling groups as described 

previously in this appendix. Using ORGANON and YTGTools, the Modeling Team used these modeling 

groups for depicting current stand condition and simulating future development with and without future 

silvicultural treatments. The Modeling Team applied the same base silvicultural prescription to each 

subplot within a modeling group.

Future Stands Modeling Description 

The Modeling Team developed modeling groups and tree lists for forest stand types or silvicultural 

prescriptions for which little or no specific CVS data existed using tree lists developed for the 2008 

RMP/EIS (USDI BLM 2008). Stand projections of “future” stands formed the basis for initiating new

stands following regeneration harvests in all alternatives. The future stands category includes “existing” 

stand types created because of regeneration harvest prescriptions with green-tree retention under the 

current RMPs, which is due to the low number of CVS subplots representing this condition. The 

Modeling Team applied the same base silvicultural prescription to each subplot within a modeling group.

Special Case – Swiss Needle Cast Zone (Salem District) 

For all alternatives, the Modeling Team developed a special subset of yield tables for modeling future 

stands within geographic areas currently identified with a high incidence of Swiss needle cast disease on 

the Salem District. The Modeling Team based future tree list species composition in the Swiss needle cast 

zone on an assumption of higher proportions of disease-resistant species (e.g., cedar and hemlock) being 

used for the reforestation of future harvested areas. 

Special Case – Wildfire Modeling (All Districts) 

For all alternatives, the Modeling Team modeled future wildfire occurrence and severity (see Appendix D 

– Modeling Large Stochastic Wildfires and Fire Severity within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl). 

For growth and yield projections, the Modeling Team modeled two fire severity regimes: high and 

moderate. The Modeling Team did not model a low-severity regime, because the stand disturbance would 

not affect stand structural development enough to merit separate modeling. The Modeling Team assumed 

90 percent tree mortality in the high-severity fire regime and 50 percent tree mortality in the moderateseverity fire regime. The Modeling Team modeled salvage of live and dead trees following both highseverity and moderate-severity fires in those alternatives that would allow salvage, subject to management 

direction for green-tree, snag, and down wood retention. 

The Modeling Team determined through preliminary analysis that most modeled stands that would 

experience high-severity fire and salvage would strongly resembled two-aged regeneration harvest stands 

in terms of post-burn structural characteristics. In an effort to reduce the unwieldy number of yield tables 

in the Woodstock growth model, the Modeling Team used the existing two-aged overstory tree lists in 

modeling for land use allocations with green-tree retention requirements in conjunction with their 

corresponding regeneration tree list. The Modeling Team modeled salvaged stands in the High Intensity 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1016 | Page

Timber Area as clearcut harvests. The Modeling Team modeled stands that would experience moderateintensity fire but would not be salvaged as thinning harvests and assumed tree regeneration ingrowth 

similar to that described under the commercial thinning section. 

Types of Growth and Yield Tables 

The ORGANON simulations produced two types of tables or curves for further use by the Woodstock 

model: simple and composite tables. 

Simple Growth and Yield Tables 

Simple tables are produced from simulations representing a single sequence of silvicultural actions 

applied to an entire forest stand within a land use allocation. In other words, the entire area of the stand 

receives the same prescribed treatment at the same time. Simple tables were produced for all land use 

allocations with the exception of those where an uneven-aged management system was used. 

Composite Growth and Yield Tables 

Uneven-aged management treatments required the construction of composite growth and yield tables. 

Simulating uneven-aged management requires subdividing the stand into four or five separate 

components, depending on the land use allocation. The Modeling Team simulated growth in each of these 

stand components separately in ORGANON. The components have the same starting condition, but 

diverge over time due to the difference in the timing of harvest treatments applied to each one 

independently. The Modeling Team created two separate varieties of uneven-aged management. 

The first variety of uneven-aged management emphasizes the development of fire resilient stands 

structures over time. The Modeling Team modeled this variety in the Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA) 

land use allocation. For modeling purposes, the Modeling Team divided stands into four separate 

components. The Modeling Team modeled three stand components, each comprising 30 percent of the 

stand area, to be available for harvest at repeating intervals. The Modeling Team modeled a forth stand 

component, comprising 10 percent of the stand area, which would be reserved from future treatments. 

The second variety of uneven-aged management primarily emphasizes the development and maintenance 

of northern spotted owl habitat. The Modeling Team modeled this variety in the Owl Habitat-Timber 

Area (OHTA) and Late-Successional Reserve - dry land use allocations. For modeling purposes, the 

Modeling Team divided stands into five separate components. The Modeling Team modeled four stand 

components, each comprising 15 percent of the stand area, to be available for harvest at repeating 

intervals. The Modeling Team modeled a fifth stand component, comprising 40 percent of the stand area, 

which would be reserved from future treatments. 

 

The Modeling Team modeled the application of a combination of group selection (patch cut) harvests and 

thinning to various stand components at intervals of 40 to 50 years, depending on site productivity. 

The Modeling Team created composite uneven-aged stand tables by combining the source stand tables in 

the proportions appropriate for each individual component’s simulation. The Modeling Team created a 

single composite stand table with YTGTools that describes an “average” condition across the stand. For 

some table attributes, such as trees per acre and timber volume, the combined data equals the weighted 

average of the components. Other outputs, such as canopy layers and conifer canopy cover, are a function 

of some stand parameters, and the calculation for the combined table does not equal the weighted average 

of the components. 

Within both varieties of uneven-aged management, there are two kinds of silvicultural pathways. All 

eligible strata have a silvicultural prescription that begins with a group selection harvest if the initial 

relative density is too low to trigger a commercial thinning or the stand exceeds 80-90 years old. Strata 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1017 | Page

less than 80-90-years-old have a regime that starts with a commercial thinning if the initial relative 

density is high enough to trigger a thinning treatment and then is followed by group selection harvests. 

Table C-13 shows stand component allocations for each land use allocation. 

Table C-13. Uneven-aged management modeling strategies. 

Stand 

Component 

# 

Land Use Allocation 

Owl Habitat Timber Area (OHTA)1 Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA) 

% of Stand Option A Option B % of Stand Option A Option B 

1 40% Grow only Grow only 10% Grow only Grow only 

2 15% 1st GS CT then 1st GS 30% 1st GS CT then 1st GS 

3 15% 2nd GS CT then 2nd GS 30% 2nd GS CT then 2nd GS 

4 15% 3rd GS CT then 3rd GS 30% 3rd GS CT then 3rd GS 

5 15% 4th GS CT then 4th GS NA NA NA 

GS = Group selection (patch cut) harvest 

CT = Commercial thinning harvest 

1

 Also Late-Successional Reserve -dry 

Growth and Yield Adjustments 

The Modeling Team adjusted ORGANON projections of timber yields to account for the effects of 

genetic tree improvement and Swiss needle cast disease through direct inputs of growth modifiers to the 

ORGANON model. The Modeling Team accounted for other factors that could substantially affect 

recoverable commodity volumes as a percent reduction in volume. The Modeling Team applied reduction 

factors in the YTGTools program for timber defect and breakage, endemic insects and disease, soil 

compaction, future snag creation, future coarse woody debris creation, and green tree retention. 

Tree Improvement (Genetics) 

The BLM has selected Douglas-fir and western hemlock for genetically controlled characteristics such as 

high growth rates and tree form. The BLM, in cooperation with other landowners, has established field 

test sites using progeny from the selected trees. The BLM has established seed orchards to produce 

locally adapted seed from these selected trees for reforestation. The Modeling Team accounted for the 

increase in growth and yield from the planting of genetically improved Douglas-fir seedlings by the use of 

the regeneration tree lists and ORGANON growth modifiers of 7 percent for height growth and 8 percent 

for diameter growth. The Modeling Team used the tree lists to simulate tree planting following a 

regeneration harvest. After insertion of a tree list into a growth simulation, the growth modifiers act to 

increase the growth of Douglas-fir trees in the tree list (USDI BLM 2008). The Modeling Team applied 

these growth modifiers only to Douglas-fir trees within the General Forest Management Area (No Action 

alternative), High Intensity Timber Area (Alternatives A and C), and the Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

(Alternative D). 

Defect and Breakage 

A proportion of harvested trees can contain defects, which reduce their utility from a commodity 

standpoint. In addition, damage can occur during harvesting that reduces recoverable timber volume. The 

proportion of volume which is not recoverable for commodity use increases with stand age. The Modeling 

Team reduced ORGANON-generated timber volumes by district-specific factors derived from historical 

timber sale cruise and scale data. Table C-14 shows the district-specific deductions for defect and 

breakage applicable to all alternatives. 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1018 | Page

Table C-14. Defect and breakage deductions. 

Stand Age 

(Years) 

District/Field Office 

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem 

30 3% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4% 

40 3% 5% 1% 1% 5% 5% 

50 4% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 

60 4% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 

70 4% 6% 3% 3% 5% 6% 

80 5% 6% 4% 4% 5% 6% 

90 5% 7% 5% 5% 5% 7% 

100 6% 8% 6% 6% 6% 8% 

110 6% 9% 7% 7% 7% 9% 

120 7% 10% 8% 8% 8% 10% 

130 7% 11% 9% 9% 9% 11% 

140 7% 12% 9% 9% 9% 12% 

150 8% 13% 9% 9% 9% 13% 

160 9% 14% 10% 10% 10% 14% 

170 9% 15% 11% 11% 11% 15% 

180 10% 16% 12% 12% 12% 16% 

190 12% 17% 13% 13% 13% 17% 

>200 17% 23% 20% 20% 20% 23% 

Soil Compaction 

The Modeling Team calculated district-specific deductions for soil compaction based on assumptions of 

the proportion of harvest types and associated area lost to new road construction. The Modeling Team 

modeled the same percentage reductions in all alternatives. Table C-15 shows the assumed proportion of 

harvest types and soils deduction by district. 

Table C-15. District-specific deductions for soil compaction. 

District/Field Office Timber Harvest Yarding System Total Soils Deduction Cable and Helicopter Ground-Based 

Coos Bay 95% 5% 1% 

Eugene 94% 6% 2% 

Klamath Falls 6% 94% 9% 

Medford 81% 19% 4% 

Roseburg 82% 18% 3% 

Salem 69% 31% 4% 

Snag Retention 

The Modeling Team modeled the yield impact of retaining varying amount of green trees for the creation 

of future snags by applying a percent volume reduction to meet the minimum snag requirements at the 

time of harvest. Retention requirements vary by alternative, land use allocation, and district. Table C-16

shows the deductions applied to the action alternatives. The Modeling Team based the reduction per 

retained tree on analysis for the 2008 RMP/EIS for the action alternatives (USDI BLM 2008). The 

Modeling Team assumed a reduction for snags in the No Action alternative of one and one-half percent of 

the regeneration harvest volume for all districts. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1019 | Page

Table C-16. Snag retention yield deductions applied to the action alternatives. Alternative Land Use Allocation Coos Bay Eugene Klamath 

Falls Medford Roseburg Salem 

Alt. A Uneven-aged Timber Area 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

High Intensity Timber Area - - - - - - 

Late-Successional Reserve 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

Riparian Reserve 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

Alt. B 

Moderate Intensity Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2% 

Low Intensity Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2% 

Uneven-aged Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2% 

Late-Successional Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11% 

Riparian Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11% 

Alt. C Uneven-aged Timber Area 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

High Intensity Timber Area - - - - - - 

Late-Successional Reserve 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

Riparian Reserve 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

Alt. D 

Moderate Intensity Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2% 

Uneven-aged Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2% 

Owl Habitat Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2% 

Late-Successional Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11% 

Riparian Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11% 

Coarse Woody Debris Retention 

The Modeling Team modeled the yield impact of retaining varying amounts for future down woody 

debris as a percent volume reduction at the time of harvest. Retention requirements vary by alternative, 

land use allocation, and district. Table C-17 shows the deductions applied to the action alternatives. The 

Modeling Team based reduction per retained tree on analysis for the 2008 RMP/EIS for the action 

alternatives (USDI BLM 2008). The Modeling Team assumed a coarse woody debris deduction for the 

No Action alternative as a flat 300 cubic feet per acre for the Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford Districts, and 

the Klamath Falls Field Office and 600 cubic feet per acre for the Salem and Eugene Districts. 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1020 | Page

Table C-17. Coarse woody debris yield deductions applied to the action alternatives. Alternative Land Use Allocation Coos Bay Eugene Klamath 

Falls Medford Roseburg Salem 

Alt. A Uneven-aged Timber Area 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 

High Intensity Timber Area - - - - - - 

Late-Successional Reserve 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 

Riparian Reserve 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 

Alt. B 

Moderate Intensity Timber Area - - - - - - 

Low Intensity Timber Area - - - - - - 

Uneven-aged Timber Area - - - - - - 

Late-Successional Reserve - - - - - - 

Riparian Reserve - - - - - - 

Alt. C Uneven-aged Timber Area 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 

High Intensity Timber Area - - - - - - 

Late-Successional Reserve 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 

Riparian Reserve 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 

Alt. D 

Moderate Intensity Timber Area - - - - - - 

Uneven-aged Timber Area - - - - - - 

Owl Habitat Timber Area - - - - - - 

Late-Successional Reserve - - - - - - 

Riparian Reserve - - - - - - 

Stocking Irregularity 

A stand may contain non-stocked openings of a size sufficient to affect timber yield. These openings fall 

into two categories: openings permanently incapable of growing commercial tree species and openings 

temporarily unoccupied by desirable trees.Portions of stands may contain permanent areas of nonproductive rock or other areas incapable of growing commercial tree species. The Modeling Team 

partially accounts for these openings through reductions in the Harvest Land Base as a result of the 

Timber Productivity Capability Classification. Temporarily non-stocked areas occur due to variation in 

reforestation success from a variety of non-permanent factors, such as vegetative competition or logging 

slash. 

The ORGANON model accounts for stocking variation by assuming that the degree of local competition 

experienced by a tree is reflected in its crown size. Trees growing next to openings have longer crowns 

and poor growth reflected as stem taper which reduces the volume of a tree next to the opening, compared 

to a similar size tree with shorter crown in an area with more uniform tree distribution. As long as the 

crown characteristics of sample trees are measured, then any long-term spatial variation within the stand 

will be modeled appropriately (FORsight 2006). Since existing CVS data used for existing stands and the 

development of future stands modeling groups contain the necessary crown measurement, the Modeling 

Team applied no external adjustment for stocking irregularity to ORGANON yields. 

Green-tree Retention 

Green-tree retention is the long-term reservation of live trees within the context of a regeneration harvest 

to provide for various ecological functions. Green-tree retention has two effects from a stand growth and 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1021 | Page

yield standpoint. First, otherwise harvestable volume is foregone for commodity use at the time of 

harvest. Second, retention trees compete for growing space with the newly regenerated trees (Di Lucca et 

al. 2004). The Modeling Team modeled the first effect of retained trees on foregone harvest volume as a 

percent volume reduction applied to volume outputs. These yield reductions were the same ones 

calculated for the No Action alternative for the 2008 RMP/EIS: the retention of 7 to 16 conifers over 20 

inches in diameter at an average harvest age of 100 years-old. The Modeling Team modeled the second 

effect within ORGANON through retention of overstory trees when a stand is regeneration harvested. The 

retained trees slow the growth of the new understory regeneration trees relative to the amount of retained 

overstory trees. The Modeling Team used modeling group-specific overstory tree lists to suppress 

regeneration growth and provide structural complexity. 

The Modeling Team used the same overstory tree lists for the General Forest Management Area and in 

the No Action and the Moderate Intensity Timber Area in Alternatives B and D, and the 

Connectivity/Diversity Blocks in the No Action alternative and the Low Intensity Timber Area in 

Alternative B. Table C-18 shows the deductions applied at the time of a regeneration harvest by land use 

allocation by alternative for trees reserved from harvest. 

Table C-18. Green-tree retention deductions applied at the time of a regeneration harvest.

Land Use Allocation No Action 

(%) 

Alt. A 

(%) 

Alt. B 

(%) 

Alt. C 

(%) 

Alt. D 

(%) 

General Forest Management Area 11% * * * * 

Moderate Intensity Timber Area * * 11% * 11% 

Connectivity/Diversity Block 18% * * * * 

Low Intensity Timber Area * * 18% * * 

Southern General Forest Management Area 24% * * * * 

Uneven-aged Timber Area1 * 11% 11% 11% 11% 

Owl Habitat Timber Area1 * * * * 11% 

High Intensity Timber Area1 * 0% * 0% * 

Late-Successional Reserve2 * 11% 11% 11% 11% 

Riparian Reserve * * * * * 1

 The Modeling Team applied green-tree deductions in Uneven-aged Timber Area and Owl Habitat Timber Area to reflect edge 

effect competition on regeneration in group selection and retention of some green trees in the larger group selection areas. 

2

 Applies to uneven-aged management in Late-Successional Reserves - dry only. 

Disease 

Portions of the Salem District are located in an area with a moderate to high occurrence of Swiss needle 

cast (SNC) disease. This disease infects Douglas-fir trees only and reduces growth rates. It does not affect 

the growth of other tree species. The Modeling Team used a growth modifier approach similar to that 

used for modeling the growth of genetically improved trees in ORGANON to reflect the estimated growth 

reductions for Douglas-fir in the Swiss needle cast zone. For the 2008 RMP/EIS, the BLM calculated a 

mean foliage retention value modifier of 2.41 for the Swiss needle cast zone. The Modeling Team 

considers this modifier to be adequate for modeling the impacts of Swiss Needle Cast disease for this 

analysis. See the 2008 RMP/EIS (USDI BLM 2008) for more details. 

The Modeling Team assumed that the effects of endemic levels of insects and disease other than Swiss 

needle cast on timber yields are reflected in the defect and breakage allowance described previously and 

the additional overstory mortality factor described below. In addition to those factors, the Modeling Team 

assumed a further reduction by adjusting timber yields down by a percent volume reduction. These factors 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1022 | Page

generally vary from about 1 to 3 percent, increasing with stand age and are based are based on literature 

and professional judgment. 

Constraint on Maximum Stand Density Index 

Maximum values of basal area observed in preliminary simulations of various strata commonly exceeded 

values reported in empiric yield tables for well-stocked stands at later periods in the simulations. The 

probable cause is that the ORGANON model may be underestimating tree mortality from causes other 

than inter-tree competition, such as insects, disease, windthrow, and stem breakage (Tappeiner et al.

1997). This type of mortality is often irregular or episodic in nature, and it is inherently difficult to predict 

the exact time in which it will occur (Franklin et al. 1987). Mortality from inter-tree competition becomes 

less significant as stands age, and irregular mortality caused by other factors becomes more substantial 

(Franklin et al. 2002) 

Through sensitivity analysis, the Modeling Team determined that by setting the maximum stand density 

index (SDI) to 500 in ORGANON, the maximum basal area values were generally constrained below 400 

square feet per acre. Simulation results with an SDI maximum of 500 were more in accordance with 

published normal and empiric yield tables at older ages (Chambers and Wilson 1978, Chambers 1980, 

McArdle et al. 1961, Schumacher 1930, Dunning and Reineke 1933). 

Forest Structural Stage Classification 

For this analysis, the Modeling Team classified forested land within the decision area in a five-stage 

structural classification: 

x Early-successional 

x Stand-establishment 

x Young 

x Mature 

x Structurally-complex 

The Modeling Team further sub-divided these five structural classes by additional structural divisions and 

by the moist/dry designation as described below. 

Classification: 

1. Early-successional – Moist 

Forests that are  30 years old, with <30% canopy cover.

1.1 (ES-WSL) With structural legacies 

 6 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height

1.2 (ES-WOSL) Without structural legacies 

< 6 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height

 Early-successional – Dry 

Forests that are  50 years old, with < 30% canopy cover.

1.1 (ES-WSL) With structural legacies 

 6 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1023 | Page

1.2 (ES-WOSL) Without structural legacies 

< 6 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height 

2. Stand establishment – Moist 

Forests that are  30 years old, with  30% canopy cover.

2.1 (SE-WSL) With structural legacies 

 6 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height

2.2 (SE-WOSL) Without structural legacies 

< 6 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height 

 Stand establishment – Dry 

Forests that are  50 years old, with  30% canopy cover.

2.1 (SE-WSL) With structural legacies 

 6 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height

2.2 (SE-WOSL) Without structural legacies 

< 6 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height

3. Young – Moist 

 Forests that are over 30 years old 

 Young – High Density 

 Relative density (Curtis RD)132  25 

3.1 (YHD-WSL) With structural legacies 

< 24 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height and the coefficient of variation of tree 

diameters over 10 inches133  0.35 

3.2 (YHD-WOSL) Without structural legacies 

< 24 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height and the coefficient of variation of tree 

diameters over 10 inches < 0.35 

 Young – Low Density 

 Relative density (Curtis RD) < 25 

3.3 (YLD-WSL) With structural legacies 

<2 4 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height and the coefficient of variation of tree 

diameters over 10 inches  0.35 

3.4 (YLD-WOSL) Without structural legacies 

 

132 Curtis Relative Density = stand basal area/square root of the quadratic mean diameter 

133 The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10 inches = standard deviation of the DBH/mean 

diameter breast height. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1024 | Page

< 24 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height and the coefficient of variation of tree 

diameters over 10 inches < 0.35 

Young – Dry 

Forests that are over 50 years old 

 Young – High Density 

Relative density (Curtis RD)  25 

3.1 (YHD-WSL) With structural legacies 

< 12 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height and the coefficient of variation of tree 

diameters over 10 inches  0.35 

3.2 (YHD-WOSL) Without structural legacies 

< 12 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height and the coefficient of variation of tree 

diameters over 10 inches <0.35 

Young – Low Density 

Relative density (Curtis RD) < 25 

3.3 (YLD-WSL) With structural legacies 

< 12 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height and the coefficient of variation of tree 

diameters over 10 inches  0.35 

3.4 (YLD-WOSL) Without structural legacies 

< 12 trees per acre  20 inches diameter breast height and the coefficient of variation of tree 

diameters over 10 inches < 0.35 

4. Mature – Moist 

Forests that are over 30 years,  24 trees per acre,  20 inches diameter breast height.

4.1 (M-Single) Single-layered canopy 

The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10 inches < 0.35 

4.2 (M-Multi) Multi-layered canopy 

The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10 inches  0.35 and < 4.7 trees per acre 

 40 inches diameter breast height. 

Mature – Dry 

Forests that are over 50 years, 12 trees per acre,  20 inches diameter breast height.

4.1 (M-Single) Single-layered canopy 

The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10 inches < 0.34 

4.2 (M-Multi) Multi-layered canopy 

The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10 inches  0.34 and < 2.1 trees per acre 

 40 inches diameter breast height.

5. Structurally-complex 

5.1 (SC-Dev)Developed Structurally-complex – Moist 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1025 | Page

Forests that are over 30 years old,  24 trees per acre that are  20 inches diameter at breast 

height, and  4.7 trees per acres  40 inches diameter breast height. The coefficient of 

variation of tree diameters over 10 inches  0.35. 

Developed Structurally-complex – Dry 

Forests that are over 50 years old,  12 trees per acre that are  20 inches diameter at breast 

height, and  2.1 trees per acres  40 inches diameter breast height. The coefficient of 

variation of tree diameters over 10 inches  0.34. 

5.2 (SC-OF) Existing Old Forest 

Stands currently  200 years old, but < 400 years old. 

5.3 (SC-VOF) Existing Very Old Forest 

Stands currently  400 years old 

Woodstock Modeling 

The Woodstock Model 

The Woodstock model is at the heart of the Remsoft Spatial Planning System. Woodstock is a planning 

system used for decision support analyses and planning projects. It uses inventory and growth and yield 

data, and business rules to project forest growth and development over time, subject to management 

objectives and resource allocation constraints. 

The Woodstock model is a linear programming model that produces optimized results using complex 

decision matrixes. Linear programming models are inherently different from a simulation or scenariobased model such as the OPTIONS model that the BLM used for the 2008 RMP/EIS (USDI BLM 2008). 

In a simulation model, the user decides what prescriptions to implement, and determines what order to 

implement them. In a linear programming (LP) model, the user decides what kind of outcome is desired, 

and the model determines the best means of accomplishing that objective. 

Because there are many constraints that influence the management of BLM-administered land within the 

planning areas, for this project, the Woodstock model functioned as an optimization model within a 

tightly controlled set of limitations. The Modeling Team used the optimization function primarily within 

the Harvest Land Base, to maximize the amount of volume produced through the 200-year modeling 

period. 

The Woodstock system uses spatial data (ESRI geodatabases) to provide inputs to the model and to 

display maps of management schedules and forest conditions. It has been in use for over 30 years and is 

regularly updated and improved by the Remsoft Corporation. Remsoft software is currently being used 

for forest management planning by all ten Canadian Provinces, six U.S. states, as well as the U.S. Army. 

The Washington Department of Natural Resources recently used Remsoft Spatial Planning to revise their 

management plans to create better northern spotted owl habitat in the long term and generate more 

revenue in the short-term without a significant decrease in the long-term sustainable harvest. 

Woodstock Model Overview 

Each Woodstock model has an objective function - the mathematical expression of what the model will 

optimize. The Modeling Team chose the objective function to maximize the sum of allowable sale 

quantity timber volume production over the full 200-year planning horizon. Within the constraints that the 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1026 | Page

Modeling Team provided in the GIS-based modeling rules and the landscape-level modeling rules, the 

Woodstock model produced a solution with the highest possible level of timber volume production. 

While this objective function works well for the goals and objectives of the Harvest Land Base, it is not 

appropriate for the reserve thinning in either the Riparian Reserve or the Late-Successional Reserve. In 

both of these land-use allocations, the Modeling Team applied specific constraints for both acres and 

volume, to provide a realistic level of harvest, given the management direction of the alternative and the 

extensive experience the BLM has with reserve thinning. These specific constraints varied by alternative, 

and are presented later in this appendix. 

The Woodstock model determines the timing and type of management activities needed to optimize the 

constrained objective function within a BLM sustained yield unit. Land management units are created in a 

GIS process that combines multiple layers of resource information and objectives into a single resultant 

layer. Examples of these resource layers include FOI units, administrative boundaries, Riparian Reserves, 

Late-Successional Reserves, Visual Resource Management areas, etc. 

The Modeling Team built strata-based Woodstock models that respond to the modeling instructions. The 

Modeling Team developed Woodstock models for each BLM office and each alternative. For each 

alternative, the Modeling Team developed a model for a single ‘test’ district first. Once the Modeling 

Team checked and confirmed the test model outputs, the Modeling Team applied its essential structure to 

new Woodstock models for the other BLM offices. Using this methodology, the Modeling Team was able 

to adaptively develop modeling guidelines that represented the management direction in alternatives. 

The BLM and MBG conducted extensive quality control and quality assurance on each Woodstock 

model. In total, the Modeling Team developed 43 final Woodstock models for the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis, No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, C, and D, and Sub-alternative B and Subalternative C. All of these Woodstock models had at least two iterations. 

In the final step in the modeling process, the Modeling Team took the results from the strata-based 

models and allocated them back into the spatially explicit GIS polygons that represent the decision area. 

The Modeling Team used the Spatial Woodstock software for this final task. The Modeling Team then 

combined the results from Spatial Woodstock into Microsoft Access databases and pivot tables that the 

interdisciplinary team used for their analyses. 

The Modeling Team used a 200-year planning horizon for the modeling runs. The Modeling Team chose 

this time length because it represents a long-term view for sustained yield calculations. The dataset behind 

the ORGANON growth and yield curves provides reasonable modeling results for this period. 

Management Activities and Rules 

Management Activities 

Within the Woodstock model, forest management activities can occur on a stand level or landscape level. 

These management activities occur by either defining constraints or targets. Constraints are used to 

control the flow of outputs on a period by period basis. For example, even-flow of timber volume would 

force the model to keep a constant volume level over the planning horizon. Targets are specific goals that 

the model is trying to reach: for example, a specified number of Riparian Reserve acres to be harvested in 

a specific period. The Modeling Team defined each one of these different sets of instructions used within 

the model. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1027 | Page

Stand-level silviculture treatments include planting, pre-commercial thinning, pruning, and fertilization. 

Stand-level harvesting activities include commercial thinning, two-age harvest, selection harvest, salvage 

harvest, and clearcut harvest. Each one of these activities had specific controls within the ORGANON 

model or modifers within the Woodstock model. The Modeling Team limited the number of potential 

pathways that any strata could have, as well as ‘hardwired’ certain treatments for certain strata. This was 

to limit the complexity of options that could be considered, in order to efficiently utilize the model 

resources and have the models run more quickly. For example, the BLM always included pre-commercial 

thinning in some strata and limited most thinning to stands less than 80 years old in the moist forest. The 

part of this appendix on Growth and Yield Modeling provides more detail on this topic. 

Landscape-level constraints applied to all of the polygons within a particular region. For example, in the 

No Action alternative, the Modeling Team placed a constraint on each fifth-field watershed to not harvest 

any older forest until at least 15% of the watershed was composed of older forest to reflect management 

direction in the 1995 RMPs. 

The model would not apply specific silvicultural treatments unless all eligibility criteria were met for that 

treatment. 

GIS-based Modeling Rules 

This section will describe, by topic area, the modeling rules and GIS data as applied by the Modeling 

Team to simulate the alternatives within the Woodstock model. The Woodstock model uses attributes 

associated with the GIS spatial data to identify where the modeling rules are applied. 

The Modeling Team applied the following modeling rules to all alternatives: 

x Sustained Yield Units - The Modeling Team divided the decision area into sustained yield units 

for the purpose of defining the area in which the model would determine the allowable sale 

quantity. The Sustained Yield Units are the BLM-administered lands within the district 

boundaries for the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Medford Districts, and the western 

portion of the Klamath Falls Field Office (all land west of Highway 97) within the Lakeview 

District. The eastern portion of the Klamath Falls Field Office does not contain any O&C lands, 

and is not a designated sustained yield unit. The Modeling Team used the district attribute in the 

FOI data as the basis for the sustained yield units in the Woodstock modeling. The Modeling 

Team used land use allocation data to segregate the Klamath Falls Field Office into the Klamath 

Falls Sustained Yield Unit and the Eastside Management Lands. The Modeling Team did provide 

an estimate of the sustainable harvest level for the Eastside Management Lands as part of this 

analysis. 

x Minimum Commercial Thinning Volumes - The Modeling Team derived the minimum 

commercial thinning volumes from historical BLM data for economically viable timber sales. 

The definition of minimum commercial thinning volumes for a harvest removal varied by 

ORGANON variant: 

o Northwest ORGANON variant: Salem, Eugene, north Roseburg, north Coos Bay – 8 Mbf 

gross volume 

o Southwest ORGANON variant: Medford, K-Falls, southern Roseburg and southern Coos 

Bay – 5 Mbf gross volume 

x Structural Stage Calculations – the Forest Structural Stage Classification section earlier in this 

appendix describes the structural stage calculations for moist and dry forests. 

x Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) – The Modeling Team used specific SNC yield tables and harvest 

yield tables in the Swiss Needle Cast zone, which are described in Forest Growth and Yield 

section earlier in this appendix. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1028 | Page

x Timing of Reporting Actions – The model reported all actions in the period that they would 

occur. For example, if a thinning would occurs in period 2, the harvest acres and volumes would 

be reported for period 2 after harvest. 

x Wildfire Modeling - Appendix D – Modeling Large Stochastic Wildfires and Fire Severity 

within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl describes how the BLM modeled wildfire. The 

location and intensity of the modeled wildfire did not vary among alternatives, but the specific 

silvicultural prescriptions modeled in each alternative did change in the wildfire areas. The Forest 

Growth and Yield section earlier in this appendix provides more information on wildfire 

modeling. 

x Riparian Reserve Thinning - For all of the action alternatives, the BLM divided the Riparian 

Reserves into inner zones and outer zones. The Modeling Team did not model timber harvest in 

the inner zone, and did model harvest in the outer zone in both moist and dry forests consistent 

with alternative-specific management direction. The Modeling Team modeled harvest in Riparian 

Reserves as commercial thinning and included stands from 30-80 years old. The number of acres 

harvested and the volume removed varied by district and alternative. In Alternative A, the harvest 

in the outer zone of moist Riparian Reserves did not produce any non-ASQ volume, consistent 

with Alternative A management direction. 

Modeling Directions Specific to the No Action Alternative 

Connectivity/Diversity Blocks 

The Modeling Team aggregated Connectivity/Diversity blocks based on BLM field office boundaries. 

The Modeling Team did not model regeneration harvest unless at least 25 percent of the forest acres in the 

block were in stands age 80 years or older. For each block, a maximum of 1/15 of the acres could be in 

age zero (regenerated) in any one decade of the projection to simulate the area control requirement. 

15 Percent Standard and Guideline 

Within each fifth-field watershed, the Modeling Team did not model regeneration harvest until at least 15 

percent of the forested area was in stands 80 years and older. In those watersheds that were in deficit, the 

Modeling Team earmarked the oldest stands for recruitment to meet the 15 percent target. Until the 

watershed reached the 15 percent level, the Modeling Team modeled only commercial thinning. 

Minimum Harvest Age 

The Modeling Team did not model regeneration harvest in stands below the minimum harvest ages 

described in Table C-19. The northern districts include the Salem, Eugene, and Coos Bay Districts, and 

the southern districts include the Roseburg and Medford Districts and the Klamath Falls Field Office. The 

Modeling Team set these minimum ages by site productivity class 1 through 5, as shown in the following 

table. 

Table C-19. Minimum harvest age by site productivity class for the No Action alternative. 

Location Site Prod. 5 Site Prod. 4 Site Prod. 3 Site Prod. 2 Site Prod. 1 

Northern Districts 110 100 90 90 80 

Southern Districts 150 120 110 110 100 

Coos Bay – Projection of Future Marbled Murrelet Sites 

The Modeling Team modeled all existing stands 120 years and older within approximately 4 townships of 

the coast as no harvest to simulate future occupied marbled murrelet sites. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1029 | Page

Bald Eagle Management Sites (BEMA) 

The Modeling Team modeled Bald Eagle Management Areas as available for commercial thinning only 

in stands less than 80 years old. 

Salem Adaptive Management Area (AMA) 

The Modeling Team modeled the Salem Adaptive Management Area with commercial thinning in stands 

less than 110 years old and no regeneration harvest. 

Reserve Northern Spotted Owl Pair Areas 

The Modeling Team modeled no harvest in the northern spotted owl habitat classified as suitable and next 

best dispersal categories within the reserve pair areas in the Salem District. The Modeling Team modeled 

no regeneration harvest in the northern spotted owl habitat classified as non-suitable dispersal, and nonhabitat within the reserve pair areas in the Salem District. 

Salvage Harvesting 

The Modeling Team modeled salvage harvest in the Harvest Land Base after high, moderate or multiple, 

high severity burns. The harvest occurred in the same decade as the burn and contributed to the ASQ. 

Modeling Directions Specific to Alternative A 

Riparian Reserve 

The Modeling Team modeled harvest in the outer zone differently in the moist and the dry forest. In the 

moist forest, harvest in the outer zone did not contribute to either ASQ or non-ASQ timber volume. In the 

dry forest, harvest did contribute to non-ASQ timber volume. The Modeling Team modeled thinning up 

to age 80 in both the moist and dry forest. The Modeling Team assumed that fifteen percent of the outer 

zone acreage would be eligible for thinning, and assumed a maximum volume harvested of 10 Mbf/acre. 

Late-Successional Reserve 

The Late-Successional Reserve consists of five different components: large block reserves-moist, large 

block reserves-dry; older forest reserves, occupied marbled murrelet sites, and existing red-tree vole sites 

in the North Coast DPS. The Modeling Team modeled harvest only in the large block reserves, with 

different harvest treatments in the moist and the dry forests. In the dry forests, the harvest counted 

towards non-ASQ volume. The Modeling Team assumed no age limit on harvest in the dry forest. In the 

moist forest, the harvest did not count towards non-ASQ volume (assuming that cut trees would not be 

removed). The Modeling Team assumed that non-commercial thinning would occur up to age 80 in the 

moist forest.The Modeling Team assumed that older forest reserves, the occupied marbled murrelet sites, 

and the existing red tree vole sites would not have any harvest. 

Table C-20 shows the volume and acre constraints in the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian 

Reserve for Alternative A. The constraints were different for northern and southern districts within the 

Late-Successional Reserve and different for moist and dry forests. The target percentage of eligible 

treatment acres was met over the entire modeling period (20 decades) with the following exception: for 

Late-Successional Reserve - dry, the target was met in the first five modeling periods (decades) in the 

Medford District and Klamath Falls Field Office, and in the first four modeling periods in the Roseburg 

District. 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1030 | Page

Table C-20. Reserve harvesting constraints for Alternative A. 

Land Use Allocation (Region) Maximum Average Mbf/Acre % of Eligible Acres Treated 

Riparian Reserve 

Northern District1 10 15 

Southern District2 10 15 

Late-Successional Reserve 

Northern District1 Moist 10 15 

Northern District1 Dry N/A N/A 

Southern District2 Moist 10 15 

Southern District2,3 Dry 15 50 1

 Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay 

2

 Roseburg, Medford, Klamath Falls 

3

 Dry LSR has 2 constraints. The first is that the maximum volume for the first 5 decades was 15 Mbf, after 5 decades it can be 

higher. The second is that on Roseburg 50% of the eligible acres was treated during the first 4 decades, in Medford/Klamath Falls 

50% of the eligible acres were treated in the first 5 decades. 

Harvest Land Base 

The Harvest Land Base consists of two components, the Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA) and the High 

Intensity Timber Area (HITA). All harvest in the Harvest Land Base would contribute to the ASQ. The 

Modeling Team modeled that all acres in UTA would be harvested within the first eight modeling periods 

(decades). 

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvest on the Harvest Land Base using a combination of nondeclining and even flow constraints. The Modeling Team modeled the HITA using an even-flow 

constraint, in which timber harvest from this allocation does not vary from decade to decade. The 

Modeling Team modeled the UTA using an even-flow constraint where it composed 10 percent or less of 

the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area. Where the UTA composed greater than 10 percent of 

the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area, the Modeling Team used only a non-declining flow 

constraint. Non-declining flow constraints allow timber harvest to increase but not decrease from decade 

to decade. Where the Modeling Team used a non-declining flow constraint, the Modeling Team forced 

the timber harvest to also meet an even-flow constraint for the first four decades. 

The Modeling Team applied a minimum regeneration harvest age of 50 years in the HITA. 

In the HITA, the Modeling Team set a target of applying regeneration harvest on 8 to 17 percent of acres 

in the HITA per decade. Because of this goal, the average rotation ages trended between 60-120 years. 

The Modeling Team modeled salvage harvesting occurred in the Harvest Land Base after high, moderate, 

or multiple, high-severity burns. The harvest occurred in the same decade as the burn and contributed to 

the ASQ. 

Modeling Direction Specific to Alternative B 

Scenarios 

The Modeling Team modeled Alternative B and Sub-alternative B as two scenarios because of their 

overall similar design. Scenario 1 corresponds to Sub-alternative B, in which all known and historic 

northern spotted owl sites are included in the Late-Successional Reserve. Scenario 2 corresponds to 

Alternative B, in which some known and historic northern spotted owl sites are included in the Harvest 

Land Base. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1031 | Page

Riparian Reserve 

The Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the outer zone would be eligible for thinning in both the 

moist and dry forest, and assumed a maximum volume harvested of 20 Mbf/acre in the northern districts 

and 15 Mbf/acre in the southern districts. 

Late-Successional Reserve 

The Modeling Team modeled no harvest activities in the older forest Reserve, occupied marbled murrelet 

sites, occupied red tree vole sites, or within known or historic northern spotted owl sites. In the large 

block reserves, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the Late-Successional Reserve - moist that 

is less than or equal to 80 years old would be available for thinning, and that 50 percent of the LateSuccessional Reserve –dry would be available for uneven-aged management regardless of age. The 

Modeling Team assumed a maximum volume harvested of harvested of 20 Mbf/acre in the northern 

districts and 15 Mbf/acre in the southern districts. 

The Modeling Team modeled the Late-Successional Reserve - dry with two specific constraints. The 

Modeling Team assumed a maximum volume harvest of 15 Mbf for the first 5 decades, after which it 

could increase. Second, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the Roseburg 

District would treated during the first four decades, and that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the 

Medford District and Klamath Falls Field Office would be treated in the first five decades. 

Harvest Land Base 

The Harvest Land Base consists of three components: the Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA), the 

Moderate Intensity Timber Area (MITA), and the Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA), each with different 

silvicultural prescriptions. The Modeling Team modeled regeneration harvest to occur on 8 to 17 percent 

of the area in the MITA in each decade. The Modeling Team modeled regeneration harvest to occur on 6 

to 10 percent of the area in the LITA in each decade. 

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvest on the Harvest Land Base using a combination of nondeclining and even flow constraints. The Modeling Team modeled the LITA and MITA using an evenflow constraint, in which timber harvest from this allocation does not vary from decade to decade. The 

Modeling Team modeled the UTA using an even-flow constraint where it composed 10 percent or less of 

the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area. Where the UTA composed greater than 10 percent of 

the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area, the Modeling Team used only a non-declining flow 

constraint. Non-declining flow constraints allow timber harvest to increase but not decrease from decade 

to decade. Where the Modeling Team used a non-declining flow constraint, the Modeling Team forced 

the timber harvest to also meet an even-flow constraint for the first four decades. 

The Modeling Team used the minimum harvest age constraints in the model shown in Table C-21. These 

constraints allowed the BLM to transition a relatively young land base to long rotations without 

excessively reducing the acreage available for short-term harvesting. 

Table C-21. Minimum harvest age by ten-year Woodstock period. 

Area (Intensity Type) Periods 1 through 7 Periods 8 through 20 

Northern Districts1

Moderate Intensity Timber Area 50 90 

Low Intensity Timber Area 50 110 

Southern Districts2

Moderate Intensity Timber Area 50 120 

Low Intensity Timber Area 50 140 

1 Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay 

2

 Roseburg, Medford, Klamath Falls 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1032 | Page

The Modeling Team modeled salvage harvesting occurred in the Harvest Land Base after high, moderate, 

or multiple, high-severity burns. The harvest occurred in the same decade as the burn and contributed to 

the ASQ. 

Modeling Direction Specific to Alternative C 

Riparian Reserve 

The Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the outer zone would be eligible for thinning in both the 

moist and dry forest, and assumed a maximum volume harvested of 20 Mbf/acre in the northern districts 

and 15 Mbf/acre in the southern districts. 

Late-Successional Reserve 

The Modeling Team modeled no harvest activities in the older forest Reserve, occupied marbled murrelet 

sites, occupied red tree vole sites. In the large block reserves, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 

percent of the Late-Successional Reserve - moist that is less than or equal to 80 years old would be 

available for thinning, and that 50 percent of the Late-Successional Reserve –dry would be available for 

uneven-aged management regardless of age. The Modeling Team assumed a maximum volume harvested 

of harvested of 20 Mbf/acre in the northern districts and 15 Mbf/acre in the southern districts. 

The Modeling Team modeled the Late-Successional Reserve - dry with two specific constraints. The 

Modeling Team assumed a maximum volume harvest of 15 Mbf for the first 5 decades, after which it 

could increase. Second, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the Roseburg 

District would treated during the first four decades, and that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the 

Medford District and Klamath Falls Field Office would be treated in the first five decades. 

Harvest Land Base 

The Harvest Land Base consists of two components, the Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA) and the High 

Intensity Timber Area (HITA). All harvest in the Harvest Land Base would contribute to the ASQ. The 

Modeling Team modeled that all acres in UTA would be harvested within the first eight modeling periods 

(decades). 

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvest on the Harvest Land Base using a combination of nondeclining and even flow constraints. The Modeling Team modeled the HITA using an even-flow 

constraint, in which timber harvest from this allocation does not vary from decade to decade. The 

Modeling Team modeled the UTA using an even-flow constraint where it composed 10 percent or less of 

the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area. Where the UTA composed greater than 10 percent of 

the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area, the Modeling Team used only a non-declining flow 

constraint. Non-declining flow constraints allow timber harvest to increase but not decrease from decade 

to decade. Where the Modeling Team used a non-declining flow constraint, the Modeling Team forced 

the timber harvest to also meet an even-flow constraint for the first four decades. 

The Modeling Team applied a minimum regeneration harvest age of 50 years in the HITA. 

In the HITA, the Modeling Team set a target of applying regeneration harvest on 8 to 17 percent of acres 

in the HITA per decade. Because of this goal, the average rotation ages trended between 60-120 years. 

The Modeling Team modeled salvage harvesting occurred in the Harvest Land Base after high, moderate, 

or multiple, high-severity burns. The harvest occurred in the same decade as the burn and contributed to 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1033 | Page

the ASQ. The Modeling Team also modeled salvage harvesting in the Late-Successional Reserve after 

high severity fire events. 

Modeling Direction Specific to Alternative D 

Riparian Reserve 

The Modeling Team assumed that fifteen percent of the outer zone acreage would be eligible for thinning, 

and assumed a maximum volume harvested of 10 Mbf/acre. 

Late-Successional Reserve 

The Modeling Team assumed no harvest in the Late-Successional Reserve. 

Harvest Land Base 

The Harvest Land Base consists of six components: predicted marbled murrelet sites, predicted red tree 

vole sites, the home ranges of known and historic northern spotted owl sites, the Owl Habitat Timber 

Area (OHTA), the Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA), and the Moderate Intensity timber area (MITA). 

The Modeling Team assumed no harvest in the predicted marbled murrelet sites or the predicted red tree 

vole sites, as these sites would become Late-Successional Reserve when the BLM would identify new 

sites. 

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvest on the Harvest Land Base using a combination of nondeclining and even flow constraints. The Modeling Team modeled the MITA using an even-flow 

constraint, in which timber harvest from this allocation does not vary from decade to decade. The 

Modeling Team modeled the OHTA, UTA, and the home ranges of known and historic northern spotted 

owl sites using the discounted non-declining flow constraint. 

The Modeling Team used the minimum harvest age constraints for the MITA as shown for the MITA in 

Alternative B in Table C-21. 

GIS Data – Modeled Harvest and Contribution to ASQ 

Table C-22 provides a summary of how the Modeling Team modeled each category of GIS data and 

which categories contribute to the Allowable Sale Quantity. A data code of X = non-forest; N=forested, 

modeled without any harvest; P= forested, modeled with non-ASQ harvest; Y=forested, modeled with 

ASQ harvest; S= forested, modeled with no harvest; L=forested, modeled with harvest does not 

contribute to either ASQ or non-ASQ harvest, N/A = not applicable. 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1034 | Page

Table C-22. Modeled harvest and contribution to ASQ. 

GIS Modeling Data Category No 

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Roads X X X X X 

Water X X X X X 

TPCC Non Forest X X X X X 

TPCC Non Suitable Woodlands N N N N N 

TPCC Suitable Woodlands – Low site and Non 

Commercial Species N N N N N 

TPCC Suitable Woodlands - Reforestation N N N N N 

Recreation Sites – existing N N N N N 

Recreation Sites- proposed N/A N N N N 

Visual Resource Management Class 1 N N N N N 

Visual Management class 2 N N N N N 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern – existing N N N N N 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern – proposed Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P 

Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites N N N N N 

Simulated Future Murrelet Sites S S S S S 

Known Owl Activity Centers N N N N N 

Reserve Pair Areas (Salem only) N N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Survey and Manage Species N N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Special Status Species N/A N N N N 

Species Management Areas N N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Riparian Reserves P P P P P 

LUA – Congressionally Reserved N N N N N 

LUA- Administratively Reserved N N N N N 

LUA- Late-Successional Reserve P P P P N 

LUA – Adaptive Management Areas Y N/A N/A N/A N/A 

LUA – Adaptive Management Reserve P N/A N/A N/A N/A 

LUA – Harvest Land Base N/A Y Y Y Y 

LUA – General Forest Management Areas Y N/A N/A N/A N/A 

LUA – Connectivity Diversity Blocks Y N/A N/A N/A N/A 

LUA_Southern General Forest Management Area Y N/A N/A N/A N/A 

LUA_-District Defined Reserved N N N N N 

Burned Areas N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P 

LUA-Eastside Management Lands X X X X X 

Fauna Critical Habitat N/A N N N N 

Flora Critical Habitat N/A N N N N 

Existing Red Tree Vole Sites N/A N N N N 

Predicted Red Tree Vole Sites N/A N N N N 

Pacific Crest Trail N/A N N N N 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, Designated Corridors N N N N N 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, eligible and suitable N N N N N 

Wilderness N N N N N 

Wilderness Study Areas N N N N N 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics N/A N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1035 | Page

Reference Analysis and Sub-alternative Modeling Rules 

No Timber Harvest 

The Modeling Team tested and calibrated the data and the model, by running the first model for 150 years 

without any management. This run provided the Modeling Team with a baseline of comparison to the 

action alternatives. The Modeling Team conducted the No Timber Harvest reference analysis run both 

with and without wildfire. The Modeling Team modeled a full range of outputs, including stand structure, 

stand metrics, wildlife modeling metrics, and growth and yield. BLM inventory specialists reviewed the 

results to determine that attributes from GIS and strata were properly applied to the modeling and that 

stand metrics and projections were reasonable. In all, the Modeling Team completed five iterations of the 

No Timber Harvest reference analysis. As a result of these reviews, the Modeling Team made several 

revisions to the modeling process: 

x Cap maximum stand density index (SDI) at 500 to prevent unrealistically high growth and 

volume projections 

x Calculate canopy cover using ORGANON equations in addition to FVS 

x Revise stand structural classifications to ‘hardwire’ reversion to early seral stages after 

regeneration harvests or fire, despite significant legacy retention 

x Re-set stand age to zero after high severity fire 

x Track stands that are currently over 200 years old as a separate structural class, “old”, and 

currently over 400 years as “very old134 

Sub-alternative B 

The Modeling Team developed Sub-alternative B to provide a comparison for the effects of precluding 

harvest in the home ranges of the known and historic northern spotted owl sites. The BLM provided one 

input database to MBG that had the variables for both Alternative B and Sub-alternative B. This database 

had two sets of land-use allocations, two sets of harvest modeling codes (HMC), and two sets of harvest 

modeling pieces (HMP). 

Sub-alternative C 

The Modeling Team developed Sub-alternative C to provide a comparison to alternative C of precluding 

harvest in stands 80 years and older. The BLM provided one input database to MBG, used for both 

modeling runs. 

Establishing Harvest Levels 

The Modeling Team based harvest volume projections on the lands available for harvest, under the 

assumptions of each alternative, within each sustained yield unit. Due to the assumed timber management 

limitations, harvest from moist forest reserves (Late-Successional Reserve and or Riparian Reserve) 

would diminish as stands grow past the conditions suitable for thinning and would not produce a 

sustainable harvest over time. The Modeling Team assumes that timber volume from selection harvesting 

in Late-Successional Reserve – dry would continue perpetually where the BLM would use timber harvest 

to maintain fire-resilient conditions. 

 

134 Throughout the modeling process, no new stands were allowed to grow into the “old” and “very old” classes. The 

purpose of this modification is for transparency of fate of all stands currently over 200 years of age. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1036 | Page

The Modeling Team modeled the sustain-yield harvest level from the land base supporting the ASQ 

separately from the harvest volume from the reserves. Segregating the land base and modeling of harvest 

volume in this manner eliminated the interaction of these two types of allocations. 

Within the Harvest Land Base, the Modeling Team applied two different harvest flow strategies. These 

include a non-declining, even-flow strategy and a non-declining discounted flow strategy. The Modeling 

Team always applied the non-declining even-flow strategies to the HITA, LITA, and MITA. The 

Modeling Team also applied this same non-declining, even-flow strategy to the UTA and OHTA where 

they comprise 10 percent or less of the Harvest Land Base within a sustained yield unit. 

Where the UTA or OHTA comprise more than 10 percent of the Harvest Land Base in a sustained yield 

unit, the Modeling Team applied a non-declining discounted flow strategy, because it provided 

x a relatively even-distribution of both selection harvest and even-aged harvest across the Harvest 

Land Base through time, 

x a predictable, even-flow harvest in the even-aged components of the Harvest Land Base, and 

x a relatively high level of ASQ in the selection harvest in the Harvest Land Base. 

The selection prescriptions in UTA and OHTA increased the amount of harvest volume that would be 

removed through time with successive entries. Without being able to adjust harvest level in the course of 

the 200-year modeling horizon, it would not be possible to implement the management direction for the 

UTA and OHTA. 

 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1037 | Page

Figure C-8. Even-flow (top) and non-declining discounted flow (bottom). 

Woodstock Products 

The final product from all Woodstock modeling runs was a Microsoft Access relational database, 

covering the entire project area, and containing all of the output variables for each individual polygon 

(RMPWO_ID) (Table C-23). The model generated outputs for time steps: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 20 

(2013, 2023, 2033, 2043, 2053, 2063, 2113, and 2213). 

 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Net ASQ (Mbf Year) 

10-Year Modeled Periods 

Usual Even Flow 

Even Age (Y2) Un-Even Age (Y1)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Net ASQ (Mbf Year) 

10-Year Modeled Periods 

Non-Declining Discounted Flow 

Even Age (Y2) Un-Even Age (Y1)
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1038 | Page

Table C-23. Woodstock modeling output variables. 

Table Field Name Description Wildlife 

District District name (Woodstock Theme 9) 

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon ID # 

GIS_ACRES Area in acres 

Platforms1_yr2013 Murrelet platforms(1) per acre in period 0 - after treatment 

Platforms2_yr2013 Murrelet platforms(2) per acre in period 0 - after treatment 

QMDCON_yr2013 Quadratic mean diameter of all live conifers in centimeters in 

period 0 - after treatment 

StructBLM_yr2013 Structural stage code in period 0 - after treatment 

StructBLM_CurrentAge_yr2013 Current age of stand used for structural stage code in period 0 

StructBLM_StartingAge_yr2013 Starting age of stand used for structural stage code in period 0 

StructBLM_TPA20_yr2013 TPA of trees  20 inch DBH used for structural stage code in 

period 0 - after treatment 

StructBLM_TPA40_yr2013 TPA of trees  40 inch DBH used for structural stage code in 

period 0 - after treatment 

StructBLM_CV_yr2013 CV of the DBHs of all trees used for structural stage code in 

period 0 - after treatment 

StructBLM_RD_yr2013 Curtis RD used for structural stage code in period 0 - after 

treatment 

StructBLM_Height_yr2013 Average height of reported trees greater or equal to 7 inch DBH, 

SS code - after treatment 

StructBLM_CanopyCover_yr2013 ORGANON Canopy cover from all trees used for SS code in 

period 0 - after treatment 

DDivBLM_yr2013 Diameter Diversity Index in period 0 - after treatment 

TPHaLgCon_yr2013 Trees per hectare of large conifers ( 30") in period 0 - after 

treatment 

TFir_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in subalpine fir species list in period 0 

- after treatment 

Pine_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in pine species list in period 0 - after 

treatment 

Oak_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in oak species list in period 0 - after 

treatment 

EvgHdw_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in evergreen hardwoods species list in 

period 0 - after treatment 

Redwd_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in redwood (always 0) in period 0 - 

after treatment 

CCovCon_FVS_PCT_yr2013 FVS canopy cover of all live conifers in percent in period 0 - 

after treatment 

CCovCon_ORG_PCT_yr2013 ORGANON canopy cover of all live conifers in percent in 

period 0 - after treatment 

CCovHdw_FVS_PCT_yr2013 FVS canopy cover of all live hardwoods in percent in period 0 - 

after treatment 

CCovHdw_ORG_PCT_yr2013 ORGANON canopy cover of all live hardwoods in percent in 

period 0 - after treatment 

VegCl_1011_yr2013 GNN Vegetation Class code in period 0 - after treatment 

TCanopyLyr_yr2013 Number of tree canopy layers present in period 0 - after 

treatment 

StndDomHt_yr2013 Average height of dominant and co-dominant trees in meters in 

period 0 - after treatment 

Ha

rve

st 

District District name (Woodstock Theme 9) 

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon ID # 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1039 | Page

Table Field Name Description 

GIS_ACRES Area in acres 

CurrPeriod_yr2013 Current period in 2013 = 0 

GrossToNet_yr2013 Adjustment factor for gross to net inventory volume in period 0 

TenYrAge_yr2013 FOI 10-year age in years in period 0 

TotNetInv_yr2013 Net inventory volume per acre (Mbf/Ac.) commercial species 

16' scale in period 0 

TotNetInv_Extended_yr2013 Net inventory total volume (Mbf) commercial species 16' scale 

(TotNetInv_yr2013 u GIS_ACRES) in period 0 

BlmTotGross_yr2013 Gross inventory volume per acre (Mbf/Ac.) all species 16' scale 

in period 0 - after treatment 

BlmTotGross_Extended_yr2013 Gross inventory total volume (Mbf) all species 16' scale 

(BlmTotGross_yr2013 u GIS_ACRES) in period 0 

ASQ_yr2013 Gross inventory volume per acre (Mbf/Ac.) commercial species 

16' scale in period 0 - after treatment 

TPA_yr2013 Trees per acre in period 0 - before treatment 

BA_yr2013 Basal area in square feet per acre in period 0 - before treatment 

QMD_yr2013 Quadratic mean diameter in inches, all species in period 0 - 

before treatment 

thin_acres Acres of thinning in period 0 

clearcut_acres Acres of clearcut in period 0 (NRTA only) 

selection_acres Acres of selection (uneven-aged) harvest in period 0 (LSUMA 

prescription, UEMA, OHTA) 

salvage_acres Acres of salvage harvest in period 0 (GFMA, HLB in action 

alternatives, LSR in Alt. C) 

thin_vol Volume of thinning in period 0 (Alt. A only) 

clearcut_vol Volume of clearcut harvest in period 0 (NRTA) 

selection_vol Volume from selection (uneven-age) harvest in period 0 (net 

volume, 16' scale) 

salvage_vol Volume of salvage harvest in period 0 (net volume, 16' scale) 

restoration_acres Acres of restoration harvest in period 0 (Alt. A only) 

restoration_vol Volume from restoration harvest (gross, does not count towards 

ASQ) Alt. A only 

2-age_acres ^^ Acres of 2-age harvest in period 0 (GFMA, CONN, SGFMA, 

LRTA and MRTA) 

2-age_vol ^^ Volume from 2-age harvest in period 0 (net volume, 16' scale) 

Grade_1_vol Volume harvested in size/grade class 1 in period 0 (net volume, 

16' scale) 

Grade_2_vol Volume harvested in size/grade class 2 in period 0 (net volume, 

16' scale) 

Grade_3_vol Volume harvested in size/grade class 3 in period 0 (net volume, 

16' scale) 

Grade_4_vol Volume harvested in size/grade class 4 in period 0 (net volume, 

16' scale) 

ASQ_harv_vol Total volume harvested that counts towards ASQ (net volume, 

16' scale) 

nonASQ_harv_vol Total volume harvested that doesn't count towards ASQ (net 

volume, 16' scale) 

Baseli

ne 

District District name (Woodstock Theme 9) 

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon ID # 

GIS_ACRES Area in acres 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1040 | Page

Table Field Name Description 

SUBJ_FOI FOI Stand ID # 

YieldStrataID Timber stratification Yield Strata ID # (Woodstock Theme 1) 

Modeling_Group Timber stratification Modeling Group (Woodstock Theme 2) 

Species_Group Timber stratification Species Group (Woodstock Theme 3) 

Site_Class Timber stratification Site Class (Woodstock Theme 4) 

Age_Group Timber stratification Age Group (Woodstock Theme 5) 

LandUseAllocation_init Land Use Allocation (Woodstock Theme 6) 

Regine_GrowOnly Management regime; GrowOnly or Fire (Woodstock Theme 7) 

HarvestLandBaseCodes Harvest Land Base code; Y, N, or X (Woodstock Theme 8) 

Rotation Current rotation; EX or RE (Woodstock Theme 10) 

StartingTenYearAge FOI Ten Year Age in years in 2013 (Woodstock Theme 11) 

StartingAge_inPeriods Timber stratification age in periods in 2013 (Woodstock Theme 

12) 

Swiss_Needle_Cast Swiss needle cast presence; Y or N (Woodstock Theme 13) 

Burn_Regime Burn regime timing and severity in periods (Woodstock Theme 

14) 

Wet_Or_Dry_Site Wet or dry site; W or D (Woodstock Theme 15) 

Economic 

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon ID # 

GIS_ACRES Area in acres 

oG_RevCC$ Gross Revenue from CC ($) 

oG_RevSL$ Gross Revenue from 2-Age ($) 

oG_Rev2A$ Gross Revenue from Selection ($) 

oG_RevThn$ Gross Revenue from Thins ($) 

oG_RevTot$ Total Gross Revenue ($) 

oLog_CC$ Clearcut Logging Cost ($) 

oLog_2A$ 2-Age Logging Cost ($) 

oLog_SL$ Selection Logging Cost ($) 

oLog_Thn$ Thin Logging Cost ($) 

oLog_Tot$ Total Logging Costs ($) 

oUnd_Brn$ Underburn/Broadcast Burn Cost ($) 

oHnd_Brn$ Handpile/Burn Cost ($) 

oLnd_Brn$ Landing Pile/Burn Cost ($) 

oMchn_Brn$ Machine Pile/Burn Cost ($) 

oSlsh_Sct$ Slashing/Lop/Scatter Cost ($) 

oMstctn$ Mastication Cost ($) 

oPlant$ Planting Cost ($) 

oManClear$ Manual Clearing Cost ($) 

oManCut$ Manual Cutting Cost ($) 

oMulch$ Mulching Cost ($) 

oTubing$ Leader Protection Cost ($) 

oShading$ Shading Cost ($) 

oTrapping$ Trapping Cost ($) 

oScalp$ Scalping Cost ($) 

oHerb$ Herbicide Cost ($) 

oBlstCtrl$ Blister Rust Control Cost ($) 

oPCT$ Pre-commercial Thin Cost ($) 

oFert$ Fertilization Cost ($) 

oPrune$ Pruning Cost ($) 

oConversn$ Stand Conversion Cost ($) 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1041 | Page

Table Field Name Description 

oTotCosts$ Total Costs ($) 

oNetRev$ Net Revenue ($) 

Silviculture 

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon ID # 

GIS_ACRES Area in acres 

oUnd_Brn_Ac Underburn/Broadcast Burn Acres 

oHnd_Brn_Ac Handpile/Burn Acres 

oLnd_Brn_Ac Landing Pile/Burn Acres 

oMchn_Brn_Ac Machine Pile/Burn Acres 

oSlsh_Sct_Ac Slashing/Lop/Scatter Acres 

oMstctn_Ac Mastication Acres 

oPlant_Ac Planting Acres 

oManClear_Ac Manual Clearing Acres 

oManCut_Ac Manual Cutting Acres 

oMulch_Ac Mulching Acres 

oTubing_Ac Leader Protection Acres 

oShading_Ac Shading Acres 

oTrapping_Ac Trapping Acres 

oScalp_Ac Scalping Acres 

oHerb_Ac Herbicide Acres 

oBlstCtrl_Ac Blister Rust Control Acres 

oPCT_Ac Pre-commercial Thin Acres 

oFert_Ac Fertilization Acres 

oPrune_Ac Pruning Acres 

oConversn_Ac Stand Conversion Acres 

Vegetation Modeling Team and Interdisciplinary Team Members 

Modeling Team 

Carolina Hooper Forester/Vegetation Modeling Coordinator 

RMPWO Core Team 

BLM Oregon State Office 

Mark Rasmussen Forester/Manager 

 Principal, Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 

Kendrick Greer Woodstock Modeler 

 Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 

Henk Stander Forester / Woodstock Modeler 

 Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 

Douglas Larmour Programmer 

 Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 

Zach Dewees Forester 

 Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 

Brandon Vickery Forester 

 Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 

Abe Wheeler IDT member: Forest Management and Silviculture 

BLM Roseburg District 

Craig Kintop IDT member: Forest Management and Silviculture 

BLM Roseburg District 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1042 | Page

Inventory Specialists 

Hugh Snook Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

 BLM Salem District 

Joe Graham Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

 BLM Eugene District 

Chris Schumacher Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

 BLM Coos Bay District 

Terry Fairbanks Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

 BLM Medford District 

Kevin Carson Forester (retired) 

 BLM Roseburg District 

Robert Pierle Forester (retired) 

 BLM Eugene District 

Madelyn Campbell Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

 BLM Lakeview District 

Dan Couch Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

 BLM Roseburg District 

GIS Team 

Arthur Miller Lead GIS Specialist 

 BLM Oregon State Office 

Craig Ducey GIS Specialist/NSO Modeling 

 BLM Oregon State Office 

Gerald (Jay) Stevens GIS Specialist 

 BLM Oregon State Office 

References 

Bailey, J. D., and J. C. Tappeiner. 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40 to 100 years-old Douglas-fir stands 

in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 108(1998): 99-113. 

BCMOF. 1995. Pruning guidebook. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Code. 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/pruning/pruntoc.htm. 

Chambers, C. J., and F. M. Wilson. 1978. Empirical growth and yield tables for the western hemlock zone. DNR Report No. 22R. 

State of Washington, Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Chambers, C. J. 1980. Empirical growth and yield tables for the Douglas-fir zone. DNR Report No. 41. State of Washington, 

Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Chan, S., D. Larson, K. Maas-Hebner, W. Emmingham, S. Johnston, and D. Mikowski. 2006. Overstory and understory 

development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands. Can. J. For. Res. 36(10): 2696-2711. 

Curtis, R. O. 1982. A simple index of stand density for Douglas-fir. Forest Science 28(1): 92-94. 

Curtis, R. O., and David D. Marshall. 1986. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir. Report No. 8 — The 

LOGS Study: 20-Year Results. Research Paper PNW-RP-356. USDA Forest Service. Portland, Oregon. 

Di Lucca, M. C., J. W. Goudie, and S. C. Stearns-Smith. 2004. Variable retention yield adjustment factors for TIPSY. Extension 

Note No. 69. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Science Program. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 

Dixon, G. E. 2002, revised July 2014. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA FS, Forest 

Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO. 244 pp. 

Dunning, D., and L. H. Reineke. 1933. Preliminary yield tables for second-growth stands in the California pine region. Technical 

Resource Bulletin No. 354. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 23 p. 

FORsight. 2006. How to handle non-uniform stand density (clumpiness) in ORGANON. The FORsight Resource 3(3): 1-2. 

FORsight Resources LLC, Vancouver, WA. 

Franklin, J. F., and K. N. Johnson. 2012. A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 

110(8): 429-439. 

Franklin, J. F., K. N. Johnson, D.J. Churchill, K. Hagmann, D. Johnson, and J. Johnston. 2013. Restoration of dry forests in 

eastern Oregon: a field guide. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. 202 pp. 

Franklin, J. F., H. H. Shugart, and M. E. Harmon. 1987. Tree death as an ecological process. BioScience (1987): 550-556. 
Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

1043 | Page

Franklin, J. F., T. A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A. B. Carey, D. A. Thornburgh, D. R. Berg, D. B. Lindenmayer, M. E. Harmon, W. S. 

Keeton, D. E. Shaw, K. Bible, and J. Chen. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with 

silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155(1): 399-423. 

Hann, D. W. 1998. Extending southwest Oregon’s dominant height growth equation to older ages. Research Contribution 18. 16 

pp. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7733/rc18.pdf?sequence=1. 

Hann, D. W. 2011. ORGANON user’s manual: Edition 9.1. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

OR. 147 pp. 

Hann, D. W., and M. L. Hanus. 2001. Enhanced mortality equations for trees in the mixed conifer zone of southwest Oregon. 

Research Contribution 34. Oregon State University, Forest Research Lab., Corvallis, Oregon. 34 pp. 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7871/RC34.pdf?sequence=1. 

Hann, D. W., and J. A. Scrivani. 1987. Dominant-height growth and site-index equations for Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine in 

southwest Oregon. Research Bulletin 59. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 13 pp. 

Harrington, C. A., S. D. Roberts, and L. C. Brodie. 2005. Tree and understory response to variable-density thinning in western 

Washington. In: Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR635. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Hayes, J. P., S. S. Chan, W. H. Emmingham, J. C. Tappeiner, L. D. Kellogg, and J. F. Bailey. 1997. Wildlife responses to 

thinning in young forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 95: 28-33. 

Isaac, L. 1943. Reproductive habits of Douglas-fir. Charles Lathrop Pack Foundation, Washington, D.C. 107 pp. 

King, J. E. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Weyerhaeuser For. Pap. 8. Centralia, WA. 

Weyerhaeuser Company, Weyerhaeuser Forestry Research Center. 49 pp. 

Latta, G., H. Temesgen, and T. M. Barrett. 2009. Mapping and imputing potential productivity of Pacific Northwest forests using

climate variables. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39(6): 1197-1207. 

Lavender, D., M. Bergman, and L. Calvin. 1956. Natural regeneration on staggered settings. Research Bulletin 10. Oregon 

Department of Forestry. Salem, OR. 36 pp. 

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 2006. YTGTools Yield Table Generator User Manual. 48 pp. 

Max, T. A., H. T. Schreuder, J. W. Hazard, D. D. Oswald, J. Teply, and J. Alegria. 1996. The Pacific Northwest region vegetation 

and inventory monitoring system. Research Paper PNW-RP-493. 19 pp. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR. 

McArdle, R. E., W. H. Meyer, and D. Bruce. 1961. The yield of Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service 

Technical Bulletin 201 (rev.). 74 pp. 

Miller, R. E., G. W. Glendenen, and D. Bruce. 1988. Volume growth and response to thinning and fertilizing of Douglas-fir 

stands in southwestern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-221. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 38 pp. 

O’Hara, K. 2014. Multiaged silviculture. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 213 pp.

Remsoft Spatial Planning System. Version 2012.12.0. http://www.remsoft.com. 

Ritchie, M. W., and D. W. Hann. 1985. Equations for predicting basal area increment in Douglas-fir and grand fir. Research 

Bulletin 51. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 9 pp. 

Ritchie, M. W. 1999. A compendium of forest growth and yield simulators for the Pacific Coast states. General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-174. USDA FS, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 59 pp. 

Schumacher, F. X. 1930. Yield, stand and volume tables for Douglas-fir in California. Bulletin No. 491. Agricultural Experiment

Station, Berkeley, CA. 

Smith, D. M. 1962. The practice of silviculture. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 578 pp. 

Staebler, G. R. 1963. Growth along the stems of full-crowned Douglas-fir trees after pruning to specified heights. Journal of 

Forestry 61(2): 124-127. 

Stein, W. I. 1955. Pruning to different heights in young Douglas-fir. Journal of Forestry 53(5): 352-355. 

Tappeiner, J. C., D. Huffman, D. Marshall, T. A. Spies, and J. D. Bailey. 1997. Density, ages, and growth rates in old growth and 

young forests in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27(5): 638-648. 

Tappeiner, J. C., D. A. Maguire, and T. B. Harrington. 2007. Silviculture and ecology in western US forests. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, OR. 440 pp. 

USDA FS. 1958. Timber resources for America’s future. Forest Resource Report No. 14. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 

713 pp. 

USDA FS NCRS. No date. Forest management 101: A handbook to forest management in the North Central Region. USDA FS, 

North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. 49 pp. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fmg/nfmg/docs/fm101_silv.pdf (last accessed 

03/03/2015). 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon. Appendix R - Vegetation Management. BLM Districts, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

---. 2010. Inventory and monitoring system. Current Vegetation Survey. Field Procedures version 4.5 final 07/12/2010. 

USDI FWS. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Region 1. Portland, OR. 258 

pp. 
1044 | Page
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1045 | Page

Raymond Davis, Louisa Evers, Yanu Gallimore, Jena DeJuilio and C. Belongie 

Introduction 

Wildfire is a natural process within the identified range for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina), especially in the southern and eastern portions of the range. While the bird has adapted to 

wildfire and its effects in an intact landscape, human development and land use have reduced and 

fragmented habitat and populations in large portions of the region (Davis and Lint 2005, Davis et al. 

2011). One result has been to increase the potential for adverse effects of large, high severity wildfires on 

remnant northern spotted owl habitats and populations. Over the past two decades, large wildfires have 

accounted for the majority of northern spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat losses on federally 

managed forests (Davis et al. 2011). In addition, fire suppression, inadequate levels of natural or 

prescribed fire, and climate change are believed to have created conditions considered more favorable for 

frequent, higher severity, and larger wildfires (Westerling et al. 2006, Littell et al. 2009, Dillion et al. 

2011a, Miller et al. 2012). 

In 2008, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) attempted to revise six resource management plans in 

western Oregon, although the decisions were subsequently withdrawn. A scientific review of that effort 

noted that one significant weakness was the failure to account for the potential effects of high severity 

wildfire on habitat for the northern spotted owl, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Specifically, the review stated that the models overestimated amounts of owl habitat and did not assume 

that any would be lost to high severity wildfire during the projected modeling timeline (Drake et al. 

2008). To address that weakness under the current planning effort, BLM assembled a team of northern 

spotted owl experts, fire ecologists, silviculturists, and modelers to develop an approach to model the 

occurrence of future wildfires and analyze their potential effects on northern spotted owl habitat and 

populations. 

This effort is also intended to support a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service request that BLM evaluate 

whether the resulting plan would provide sufficient habitat to assure persistence of the northern spotted 

owl for the next 50 years. Estimating the quantity of habitat affected by fire over the next five decades is 

needed to better inform the development of land management strategies for the BLM-managed lands in 

western Oregon. This report describes the methods used to determine potential burned area and fire 

severity and the results of that analysis. Subsequent modeling will evaluate the potential results on habitat 

availability for the northern spotted owl. Since this analysis was conducted to directly support the analysis 

of environmental effects in conjunction with an environmental impact statement, model parameters are 

constrained by the “reasonably foreseeable” criteria in BLM’s planning regulations.

Study Area 

The range of the northern spotted owl used in this analysis extends from the Canadian border through 

northern California and from the west coast to the eastern foothills of the Cascade and Klamath Mountain 

ranges. The BLM planning area for western Oregon comprises 19,647,000 acres, or approximately 34 

percent, of the lands within this range and is located within the core of that range (Figure D-1), divided 

among six Districts (Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford and Lakeview). The majority of 

BLM-managed lands consist of so-called checkerboard (alternating square mile sections) largely 

intermingled with privately owned industrial and non-industrial forests, along with state-owned lands, and 

a limited amount of National Forest System lands and tribal lands. Large contiguous blocks of BLMmanaged lands are rare within the range of the northern spotted owl. The largest concentration of BLMAppendix D – Modeling Large Stochastic Wildfires and Fire 

Severity within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl 
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1046 | Page

managed lands in western Oregon occurs on Medford and Roseburg Districts in southwestern Oregon 

(Figure D-1). 

Figure D-1. Analysis area. We used the entire range of the northern spotted owl for the analysis area to 

maintain consistency with the previous fire analyses conducted within the range of the northern spotted 

owl. 

Forest types within the study area range from dry mixed evergreen forests in California and southwestern 

Oregon to temperate rainforests along the coast and in much of western Washington. The climate ranges 

from maritime in western Washington, northwestern Oregon, and the coast to Mediterranean in 

southwestern Oregon and northern California. Soils are highly variable in texture, depth, and other 

characteristics and are largely derived from volcanic parent materials with ultramafic soils common in 

southwestern Oregon. 

Methods 

We used the entire range of the northern spotted owl for our analytical framework to provide sufficient 

data to capture the potential range of annual area burned and fire severity proportions to more accurately 

reflect impacts to northern spotted owl habitat unaffected by arbitrary divisions along biologically 

irrelevant lines, such as state, ownership, and administrative boundaries. The modeling regions used in 

this analysis were similar to those used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the revised 

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and designation of critical habitat (USDI FWS 2011 and 2012). 
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1047 | Page

The median northern spotted owl territory size ranges from 1,300 to 11,800 acres, depending on 

geographic location (Appendix B in Davis et al. 2011), thus it takes a rather large wildfire to have a 

substantial effect on one owl territory (Davis and Lint 2005). We used the large wildfire suitability model 

(LWSM) developed as part of the 15-year monitoring report for the Northwest Forest Plan (Chap. 4, in 

Davis et al. 2011). This model was developed using large wildfires ( 1,000 acres) from 1970 through 

2002, and validated against large wildfires that occurred from 2003 through 2009. The LWSM represents 

a relative probability surface for large wildfire occurrence within the range of the northern spotted owl 

that has continued to predict the locations of nearly all large wildfires that have occurred since 2009. 

Using the regional wildfire history from 1970 through 2013 (4.4 decades), we modeled large wildfires 

five decades into the future using a three-step process to determine; 1) number and location, 2) size 

distribution, and 3) severity.

Step 1 - Estimating Number and Location of Future Large 

Wildfires 

Large wildfire occurrence records from 1970 through 2013 showed a marked increased occurrence of 

large wildfires in the last decade of this time record (Figure D-2). Whether this is a trend that will 

continue to increase is uncertain, so for purposes of this analysis we used the decadal average of 100 to 

generate 500 potential large wildfires over the next 5 decades. To do this, we used the “Generate Random 

Points” tool in Geospatial Modeling Environment (GME version 0.7.2.1) software (Beyer 2012) to 

produce five sets of randomly placed points (n=100) for each decade using the LWSM as a relative 

probability surface for point placement. Points could occur anywhere, but were more likely to occur 

where the probability of a large wildfire (a.k.a. wildfire suitability) was higher (Figure D-3). 

Figure D-2. Annual and decadal number of large wildfires (>1,000 acres) in the analysis area for 1970-

2013. The numbers above the dark bars are decadal totals. While the decadal totals suggest the number of 

large wildfires is increasing, the short period of record and the influence of the phase and annual sign of 

the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are confounding factors in identifying a definite trend. 

39 

95 

83 

183 

0

40

80

120

160

200

1970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012

Number of Fires 

 1,000 Acres

Year 

Annual Decade Total
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1048 | Page

Figure D-3. Comparison of three decades of observed large wildfire history from MTBS fire occurrence 

data (left) with the first three decades of randomly generated fire locations (right). 
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1049 | Page

Reburning has been observed within the Northwest Forest Plan area on several occasions, for example, 

the Biscuit Fire in 2002 reburned nearly all of the 1987 Silver Fire, and a portion of this area burned again 

in 2013. Portions of the 1933 Tillamook Fire area reburned as much as five times before 1960. To account 

for reburns we calibrated the model by comparing the area burned by projected large wildfires to the 

actual area burned by past large wildfires. Initially, the model projected much more reburning than has 

been observed. To correct for this over-prediction, we added a decadal constraint parameter on reburning 

by preventing the placement of random points within 5 km of fire “perimeter” locations from the prior 

decade. In subsequent decades, and consistent with historical observations, random points could occur 

within or adjacent to previous modeled fire perimeters. Subsequent model runs produced similar levels of 

acres burned and proportion of area reburned as the observed record. 

Step 2 - Estimating Size of Future Large Wildfires 

The majority of large wildfires within the study area burned less than 15,000 acres and only 1 percent of 

them exceeded 100,000 acres in size (Figure D-4). Using this information, we created eight fire size bins. 

We then calculated the median fire size for each bin and determined the appropriate radius to create a 

circular fire perimeter of the median size (Table D-1). Because we were concerned more with the overall 

potential loss of habitat than with accurately representing fire shapes, we simply represented wildfires as 

circles associated with the median sizes. We then used the LWSM value for each random point to 

determine fire size. The higher the underlying LWSM score, the more likely a random point would “burn” 

more acres, although smaller fires could also occur in the higher probability areas. 

Figure D-4. Historical (1970-2013) large wildfire size distribution within the range of the northern 

spotted owl. Most fires burn less than 2,500 acres while very few fires burn more than 100,000 acres. 

Table D-1. Parameters used to assign random points a wildfire size by buffering the point location. 

Number of 

Random Points 

Buffer Radius 

(Miles) 

Simulated Wildfire Size 

(Acres) 

41 0.79 1,250 

20 1.37 3,750 

15 1.93 7,500 

9 2.55 12,500 

7 3.15 20,000 

5 4.32 37,500 

2 6.11 75,000 

1 7.05 100,000 

41% 

20% 

15% 

9% 7% 5% 2% 1%

0%

15%

30%

45%

1-2.5 2.5-5 5-10 10-15 15-25 25-50 50-100 >100

Percentage of All Fires

Fire Size (u1,000 Acres) 
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1050 | Page

By decade, beginning with random points with the lowest wildfire suitability score, we assigned the 

smallest radius to each point based on Table D-1 until the last random point with the highest wildfire 

suitability score was assigned the largest radius. Each point was then buffered by their assigned radii to 

form the hypothetical fire perimeters. These individual or overlapping circles represented that decade’s 

“footprint” of large wildfires. We repeated this process for each decade.

Step 3 - Estimating Fire Severity of Future Large Wildfires 

Once we determined potential future wildfire locations and sizes, we estimated fire severities within their 

perimeters. We relied on data from the Severe Fire Potential Map (Dillon et al. 2011a and 2011b, Dillon 

et al. 2012) portion of the Fire Severity Mapping Tools (FIRESEV) project (Keane et al. 2013) to assign 

fire severities within each decadal wildfire footprint. FIRESEV data reflect spatial predictions of the 

conditional likelihood of high severity fire. These projections were based on empirical models relating 

topographic, vegetation, and fire weather variables to wildfire severity observed on wildfires from 1984 to 

2007, as mapped by the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) program (Eidenshink et al. 2007). 

The model’s spatial predictions were based on 90th percentile fuel moisture conditions for dryness, 

although actual fuel moistures often varied over the spatial and temporal extent of any given large fire 

(Dillon et al. 2011a and 2011b, Miller et al. 2012). 

Since FIRESEV only estimated the probability for high severity fire, we classified this probability into 

three quantile classes. We assumed that lower severity fires would occur in areas modeled as having a 

lower probability for high severity fire and that high severity fires would most likely occur in areas 

modeled as high probability. These three quantile classes served as our low, moderate, and high severity 

map classification for assignment of fire severity to the fire footprints created in step 2. To test this 

assumption, we compared relative proportions of observed wildfire severity (based on MTBS severity 

mapping from 1986–2011) to the classified FIRESEV model from the five decadal maps. We found 

similar proportions between observed and modeled wildfire severities indicating that the assumption was 

a valid one and would produce proportions of area burned by low to high severity that were similar to the 

observed record (Figure D-5). 

Figure D-5. Comparison of annual proportion of area burned by mapped fire severity from MTBS data 

from 1986 to 2011 with modeled severity based on a three quantile classification of the FIRESEV map 

for the five decadal models. Labels show modeled estimates of proportion of area burned by severity 

class. 

57.6% 

21.6% 20.8% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low-Unburned Moderate High

Area (%) 

Fire Severity Class 

1986-2011 Modeled
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1051 | Page

Finally, we also examined the MTBS data for any obvious temporal trends in wildfire severity, but did 

not detect a strong signal (Figure D-6). Over the course of 25 years, there appears to be a slight increase 

in the percentage of area burned by low and moderate severity wildfire, and a slight decrease in the 

percent of area burned in high severity wildfire, although these trends are not statistically significant. We 

also noted that the variability in the amount of area burned in the different severity classes has declined 

since about 2002, but are not certain why this apparent smoothing has occurred. Given the nonsignificance of the observed trends and the uncertainty over whether these slight trends will continue into 

the future, we did not attempt to model any fire severity trends in our framework. 

Figure D-6. Trends in area burned by fire severity class. Interannual variability in the amount of area 

burned in the different severity classes was much greater prior to 2003. The cause(s) for declining 

variability are not known. Linear trend analysis indicates non-significant trends towards decreasing 

amount of high severity fire and increasing amount of low and moderate severity fire, with much of the 

change coming after variability declined. 

Results 

We produced five decadal maps of potential large wildfire “footprints” over the entire range of the 

northern spotted owl along with potential wildfire severities. Given an average of 100 large wildfires per 

decade, our model estimated that approximately 4.4 million acres would burn within the range of the 

northern spotted owl over the next 50 years with 10 percent of the area burning twice and 0.2 percent 

burning three times. On BLM-managed lands only, the model estimated that approximately 192,000 acres 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Total Area Burned (%) 

Year 

Low Severity

Moderate Severity

High Severity

2 Periods Moving Average (Low)

2 Periods Moving Average (Moderate)

2 Periods Moving Average (High)
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1052 | Page

would burn with 10 percent burning twice and no areas burning three times. In comparison, 

approximately 4.4 million acres have burned within the range of the northern spotted owl over the past 44 

years (1970-2013) with 16 percent of the area burning twice and 1.6 percent burning three times. In that 

same time span, approximately 153,500 acres burned on BLM-managed lands with 16 percent burning 

twice. Both spatially (Figure D-7) and from the burned area comparisons above, the model produced a 

plausible scenario based on recent observed wildfire history for potential future large wildfires both 

rangewide and on BLM lands in western Oregon over the next five decades. 

Figure D-7. Comparison of actual area burned (black shading) by large wildfires between 1970 to 2013 

(left) with modeled large wildfires over five decades (right). 

Discussion 

For the given analysis period (5 decades), our model projected relatively minor changes in potential 

burned area within the range of the northern spotted owl generally and on Oregon BLM-managed lands 

within that range. While the observed decadal trends suggest an increasing trend in the number of large 

fires over time (Figure D-2), it is not clear that this trend will continue to increase. The observed large 

wildfire history records contain a small number of anomalous years that may distort the data. Particular 

stand-out years are 1987, 2002, and 2009. The 1987 fire season was particularly severe in southwest 

Oregon and northwest California, while 2002 was particularly severe in southwest Oregon and 2009 

particularly severe in northwest California. All three years were characterized by an unusually high 

number of wildfire starts and an unusually high number of acres burned. Miller et al. (2012) did find an 
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1053 | Page

trend of increasing numbers of large fires in the Klamath Mountains of northwestern California, but this 

same trend is not apparent in the analysis area as a whole (Littell et al. 2009, supplemental information). 

We note that this decade is no quite half over and there have already been a recorded 67 large wildfires as 

of 2013. It is possible that future decades might incur more than the 100 large wildfires per decade used in 

this analysis; however, selection of a higher number would be speculative and the decision was made to 

base the analysis on what has been observed in recent decades. 

While several studies have indicated that high severity fires are increasing across the western United 

States (Westerling et al. 2006, Dillon et al. 2011a, Miller et al. 2012), no such trends were apparent in the 

observed record within the range of the northern spotted owl (Figure D-6). The observed trends in 

increasing fire severity in various studies appear to be scale-dependent in that these trends were typically 

for the western United States as a whole. Much of the observed change is either occurring in other areas 

besides that are encompassed by the range of the northern spotted owl or becomes apparent only when 

analyzing a larger area that provides a much larger sample size. In such cases, many small changes that 

are difficult to detect at finer scales can add up to larger, detectable changes for the aggregate area, 

reflective of how the aggregate number of small emissions of greenhouse gases cumulatively are affecting 

global climate. In part, trends in the amount of area burned as high severity is a function of total area 

burned – the more area burned, the greater the amount of high severity fire (Dillon et al. 2011a, Miller et 

al. 2012). In the absence of any clear trends, the 50-year projection could fall within a reasonable range of 

what should be expected. 

Given the uncertainty surrounding trends in frequency, size, and severity, our model results may be 

proven, with time, to either underestimate or overestimate potential fire sizes and severity because of 

several confounding factors we did not include in the model, such as extreme weather events and 

interactions with insect outbreaks, management affects to vegetation composition and structure, and 

climate change. Forest management in particular has potential to alter the outcomes of wildfires ((Pollet 

and Omi 2002, Prichard et al. 2010, Kennedy and Johnson 2014, Wimberly and Liu (in press), StevensRumann et al. 2013), although it is less clear if forest management can effectively alter the size 

distribution of large fires (Cochrane et al. 2012). Historically, extremely large wildfires have occurred 

outside of the areas modeled as highly suitable for large wildfires, consistently associated with either 

extreme weather events, such as the severe drought and east wind event that preceded the initial 

Tillamook Burn in 1933, or with heavy, continuous, dry fuels, such as following an insect outbreak 

(McClure 2005, Morris 1935). The large wildfires that do occur in areas of low suitability west of the 

Cascade crest tend to be infrequent, but extremely large and severe and typically associated severe 

drought and high winds (Agee 1993, Littell et al. 2009, Davis et al. 2011). The above management affects 

to vegetation, stochastic disturbance, extreme environmental variables, and fire occurrence datasets 

reflective of long fire return interval timelines were not included in our modeling. 

It was far less clear how to incorporate projected climate changes into our model. We can estimate how 

the large wildfire suitability area may change as climate changes (Figure D-8) since LWSMs include 

climate parameters. But to what extent these changes may influence the frequency of large wildfires is 

uncertain. Additionally, large wildfires, particularly in moist forests, in the Pacific Northwest are at least 

modestly associated with the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and not associated with the 

phase of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (Hessl et al. 2004, Gedalof et al. 2005). Interannual 

variability within a given PDO phase appears to have a stronger influence than the interdecadal 

variability, as well (Gedalof et al. 2005). Hessl et al. (2004) also found about a 5-year lag between PDO 

and regional fire years in eastern Washington. The period of record used for this large wildfire analysis 

does include the latter stages of a cool phase PDO that ended in about 1977 and a warm phase that began 

in 1977 and appears to have ended around 2005 with considerable interannual variability between circa 

1998 and 2005 (Gedalof et al. 2005, http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/). Given that we have 

apparently entered a cool phase PDO, we should expect to see a reduction in the number of fires and acres 
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1054 | Page

burned for one or two decades unless the current climate forcing from greenhouse gas emissions “overrides” the PDO signal. The apparent increase in number of fires and acres burned may be more a 

reflection of the combined influences of increasing fuel loadings due to land use changes, the PDO phase, 

and the sign of PDO in a given year than of a trend useful for predicting future losses of northern spotted 

owl habitat from wildfire. 

Figure D-8. Comparison of a large wildfire suitability model based on the current climate normal (left) 

with same model based on projected climate normal changes in temperature and precipitation by 2060 

(right) (from Yang et al. in prep.). 

Most climate change projections that discuss wildfire indicate that fires are expected to get larger and 

more severe. Several studies have found that as the climate warms in forested ecosystems, burned area 

increases (Westerling et al. 2006, Halofsky et al. 2011, Loudermilk et al. 2013) with large increases 

projected by mid-century within the range of the northern spotted owl (McKenzie et al. 2004, Spracklen 

et al. 2009, Littell et al. 2009 and 2010, Rogers et al. 2011). Many of these same studies indicate an 

increase in overall fire severity as well. However, projections in burned area do not tell us how to adjust 

the potential number of fires, the relative distribution of the size classes, or the proportion burned in the 

different severity classes over time. If these projections are accurate, our model results could 

underestimate the potential to adversely affect northern spotted owl habitat, particularly towards the end 

of the analysis period. 
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1055 | Page

Lastly, there is the problem that climate change is not linear. Natural variability in the climate system is 

still an important factor. Thus, overall changes in burned area until mid-century would also not be linear. 

We expect to continue to experience considerable variability in fire season severity (number of fires, acres 

burned, and extent of high severity fire). Despite our inability to include these confounding factors, our 

model successfully predicted the locations of many of the large wildfires that occurred in 2013 and which 

were ultimately included in the final analysis. 

Conclusions 

Over the next 50 years, large wildfires will continue to affect suitable northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting habitat on BLM-managed lands. Wildfires do not always remove nesting/roosting 

habitats; often low to moderate severity wildfire alters habitat such that it may still be suitable for nesting 

and roosting. Some spotted owl studies show that low to moderate severity wildfire may actually benefit 

the owl, perhaps due to changes in prey species habitat (Bond et al. 2002, Ganey et al. 2014). However, 

extensive high severity wildfire usually removes nesting/roosting habitats, decreasing survival and 

occupancy rates related to loss and fragmentation of suitable nesting and roosting habitat (Clark et al. 

2011 and 2013, Tempel et al. in press). 

Although the relationship between large wildfire frequency and severity on owl demography is not fully 

understood, habitat loss was the primary reason for the bird’s decline and subsequent listing as 

“threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (USDI FWS 1990). The map products produced from this 

modeling effort will be input into the vegetation modeling process being used to inform the BLM on 

habitat changes due disturbance and recruitment over the next five decades. The results of that modeling 

in turn will be used in their northern spotted owl population modeling effort. The results of all these 

modeling efforts will be used to make more informed management decisions on lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in western Oregon. 

References 

Agee, J. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 493 pp. 

Beyer, H. L. 2012. Geospatial modelling environment (version 0.7.2.1) (software). http://www.spatialecology.com/gme. 

Bond, M. L., R. J. Gutiérrez, A. B. Franklin, W. S. LaHaye, C. A. May, and M. E. Seamans. 2002. Short-term effects of 

wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 1022-

1028. 

Clark, D. A., R. G. Anthony, and L. S. Andrews. 2011. Survival rates of northern spotted owls in post-fire landscapes of 

southwest Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 45(1): 38-47. 

Clark, D. A., R. G. Anthony, and L. S. Andrews. 2013. Relationship between wildfire, salvage logging, and occupancy of nesting 

territories by northern spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 77(4): 672-688. 

Cochrane, M. A., C. J. Moran, M. C. Wimberly, A. D. Baer, M. A. Finney, K. L. Beckendorf, J. Eidenshink, and Z. Zhu. 2012. 

Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(4): 357-367. 

Davis, R., and J. Lint. 2005. Habitat status and trend. In: Lint, J., tech. coord. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–

2003): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-648. USDA FS, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. pp. 21-82. 

Davis, R. J., K. M. Dugger, S. Mohoric, L. Evers, and W. C. Aney. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 15 years (1994–2008): 

status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitats. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-850. USDA FS, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 147 pp.

Dillion, G. K., Z. A. Holden, P. Morgan, M. A. Crimmins, E. K. Heyerdahl, and C. H. Luce. 2011a. Both topography and climate 

affected forest and woodland burn severity in two regions of the western US, 1984 to 2006. Ecosphere 2(12): article 30. 

Dillon, G., P. Morgan, and Z. Holden. 2011b. Mapping the potential for high severity wildfire in the western United States. Fire 

Management Today 71(2): 25-28. 

Dillon, G. K., J. M. Herynk, Z. A. Holden, P. Morgan, and R. P. Silverstein. 2012. FIRESEV severe fire potential, forest and 

woodland settings, 90th percentile 1,000-hour fuel moisture index. Raster digital data. http://www.frames.gov/firesev. 

Drake, D., J. Hagar, C. Jordan, G. Lettman, C. Sheridan, T. Spies, and F. Swanson. 2008. Western Oregon Plan Revision Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement: Science Team Review. Unpublished report. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/files/Science_Team_Review_DEIS.pdf. 

Eidenshink, J., B. Schwind, K. Brewer, Z. L. Zhu, B. Quayle, and B. and S. Howard. 2007. A project for monitoring trends in 

burn severity. Fire Ecology 3: 3-21. 
Appendix D – Modeling Wildfires and Fire Severity

1056 | Page

Ganey, J. L., S. C. Kyle, T. A. Rawlinson, D. L. Apprill, and J. P. Ward. 2014. Relative abundance of small mammals in nest 

core areas and burned wintering areas of Mexican spotted owls in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico. The Wilson 

Journal of Ornithology 126(1): 47–52. 

Gedalof, Z., D. L. Peterson, and N. J. Mantua. 2005. Atmospheric, climatic, and ecological controls on extreme wildfire years in 

the northwestern United States. Ecological Applications 15(1): 154-174. 

Halofsky, J. E., D. C. Donato, D. E. Hibbs, J. L. Campbell, M. Donaghy Cannon, J. B. Fontaine, J. R. Thompson, R. G. Anthony, 

B. T. Bormann, L. J. Kayes, B. E. Law, D. L. Peterson, and T. A. Spies. 2011. Mixed-severity fire regimes: lessons and 

hypotheses from the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. Ecosphere 2(4): Article 40. 

Hessl, A. E., D. McKenzie, and R. Schellhaas. 2004. Fire and climatic variability in the inland Pacific Northwest. Ecological 

Applications 14(2): 425-442. 

Keane, R. E., P. M. Morgan, G. K. Dillon, P. G. Sikkink, E. C. Karau, S. A. Drury, and Z. A. Holden. 2013. A fire severity 

mapping system for real-time fire management applications and long-term planning: the FIRESEV project. Final Report: 

JFSP-09-1-07-4. http://www.firescience.gov/index.cfm. 18 pp. 

Kennedy, M. C., and M. C. Johnson. 2014. Fuel treatment prescriptions alter spatial patterns of fire severity around the wildlandurban interface during the Wallow Fire, Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 318: 122-132. 

Littell, J. S., D. McKenzie, D. L. Peterson, and A. L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. 

ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19(4): 1003-1021. 

Littell, J. S., E. E. Oneil, D. McKenzie, J.A. Hicke, J.A. Lutz, R.A. Norheim, and M.M. Elsner. 2010. Forest ecosystems, 

disturbance, and climate change in Washington State, USA. Climatic Change 102(1-2): 129-158. 

Loudermilk, E. L., R. M. Scheller, P. J. Weisberg, J. Yang, T. E. Dilts, S. L. Karam, and C. Skinner. 2013. Carbon dynamics in 

the future forest: the importance of long-term successional legacy and climate-fire interactions. Global Change Biology 

19(11): 3502-3515. 

McClure, R. 2005. Washington’s “awful conflagration”— The Yacolt Fire of 1902. Fire Management Today 65(1): 24–27. 

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire and conservation. Conservation Biology 

18(4): 890-902. 

Miller, J. D., C. N. Skinner, H. D. Safford, E. E. Knapp, and C. M. Ramirez. 2012. Trends and causes of severity, size and 

number of fires in northwestern California, USA. Ecological Applications 22(1): 184-203. 

Morris, W. G. 1935. The details of the Tillamook fire from its origin to the salvage of the killed trees. Unpublished report. On file 

with: National Archives Records Admin., Pacific Alaska Region, 6125 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-7999. 26 p. 

Pollet, J., and P. Omi. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(1): 1-10. 

Prichard, S. J., D. L. Peterson, and K. Jacobson. 2010. Fuel treatments reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer 

forest, Washington, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40(8): 1615-1626. 

Rogers, B. M., R. P. Neilson, R. Drapek, J. M. Lenihan, J. R. Wells, D. Bachelet, and B. E. Law. 2011. Impacts of climate 

change on fire regimes and carbon stocks of the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 

116(G3). 

Spracklen, D. V., L. J. Mickley, J. A. Logan. 2009. Impacts of climate change from 2000 to 2050 on wildfire activity and 

carbonaceous aerosol concentrations in the Western United States. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 

114(D20). 

Stevens-Rumann, C., K. Shive, P. Fulé, and C. H. Sieg. 2013. Pre-wildfire fuel reduction treatments result in more resilient forest 

structure a decade after wildfire. Int. J. Wildland Fire 22(8): 1108-1117. 

Tempel, D., R. J. Gutiérrez, S. Whitmore, M. Reetz, R. Stoelting, W. Berigan, M. E. Seamans, and M. Z. Peery. In press. Effects

of forest management on California spotted owls: implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecological 

Applications 24(8): 2089-2106. 

USDI FWS. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl.

Federal Register 55: 26114–26194. 

---. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). USFWS Region 1, Portland, OR. 

258 pp. http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf. 

---. 2012. Modeling and analysis procedures used to identify and evaluate potential critical habitat networks for the northern 

spotted owl, submitted to the Federal Register November 21, 2012. USFWS Region 1, Portland, OR. 48 pp. Unpublished 

manuscript available at 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/data/northernspottedowl/Documents/MODEL_SUPP_Dunk2012AppC.pdf. 

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. 

forest fire activity. Science 313: 940-943. 

Wimberly, M. C., and Z. Liu. 2013 (in press). Interactions of climate, fire, and management in future forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

 
Appendix E – Air Quality Detailed Analysis Methods

1057 | Page

Appendix E – Air Quality Detailed Analysis Methods 

Estimating Emissions from Wildfires 

Wildfire emissions are much more difficult to estimate since there are no records of how much material 

any given fire consumes. Due to differences in the type of available data, BLM used two different 

methods for estimating particulate emissions from past wildfires and future wildfires. 

Past Wildfires 

The BLM downloaded records of all wildfires for Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem 

Districts and the Klamath Falls Field Office from the FAMWEB site (http://fam.nwcg.gov/famweb/weatherfirecd/), imported them into FireFamily Plus 4.1, extracted all wildfires 100+ acres in size 

and exported this information to an Excel Spreadsheet. Using a variety of methods, the BLM deleted as 

many fires as could be identified as burning on the Klamath Falls Field Office. The BLM combined the 

data for Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem into one group and the data for Medford and Roseburg into one 

group. Over the 34-year period of record (1980-2013), 7,763 acres burned in the Coos Bay-Eugene-Salem 

group, 277,605 acres in the Medford-Roseburg group, and 29,447 acres in Klamath Falls Field Office. 

The BLM downloaded assessments of burn severity for individual large fires that originated on BLMadministered lands between 1984 and 2012, the latest year available, from the Monitoring Trends in Burn 

Severity website (http://mtbs.gov/data/individualfiredata.html). The BLM averaged acres burned in the 

difference categories of unburned to low, low, moderate, high, increased greenness, and mask, and 

calculated the proportion for each category. Mask areas consist of features such as clouds, water and rock 

as well as missing lines of image data. The BLM combined high, increased greenness, and mask into a 

single category; and unburned to low and low into a single category. The resulting proportions of area 

burned were 59.1 percent low severity, 21.8 percent mixed severity, and 19.0 percent high severity. 

Because the documented fire severity record is sparse, the BLM used these same severity proportions 

across the planning area. 

Since preburn fuel loadings are not known, BLM used the Fuels Characteristic Class System (FCCS) 

module in Fuel & Fire Tools (FERA and UW 2014) to select representative fuelbeds (Table E-1). Since 

the BLM did not know the relative proportion of each fuelbed included in each analysis group, it 

weighted all fuelbeds equally. In order to assess emissions from the different burn severities, BLM 

multiplied the total number of acres burned in each group by the proportional amount in the low, mixed, 

and high severity classes and created separate units in Fuel & Fire Tools. For example, the group 

comprised of Coos Bay, Eugene and Salem Districts had three units labeled low, mixed, and high with 

assigned acres equaling the proportion estimated for each severity class (Table E-2). Each unit consisted 

of the set of fuelbeds selected through FCCS. The Consume module in Fuel & Fire Tools used this 

information to calculate greenhouse gas emissions for CO2 and CH4. Since the Consume module only 

uses 1000-hour and duff fuel moisture to drive the consumption algorithms, the BLM’s could not fully 

meet the intent of adjusting the amount of live fuel consumed. 

 
Appendix E – Air Quality Detailed Analysis Methods

1058 | Page

Table E-1. Fuels Characteristic Classification System fuelbeds used in each analysis group to estimate 

particulate emissions from wildfire. 

District/ 

Field Office Fuelbed Number Fuelbed Name Coos Bay 

– Eugene 

– Salem 

2 Western hemlock – western redcedar – Douglas-fir 

5 Douglas-fir – white fir 

8 Western hemlock – Douglas-fir – western redcedar/vine maple 

9 Douglas-fir – western hemlock – western redcedar/vine maple 

10 Western hemlock – Douglas-fir – Sitka spruce 

11 Douglas-fir – western hemlock – Sitka spruce 

18 Douglas-fir/oceanspray 

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir 

52 Douglas-fir – Pacific ponderosa pine/oceanspray 

208 Grand fir – Douglas-fir 

322 Sitka spruce – western hemlock 

Klamath Falls 

20 Western juniper/curl-leaf mountain mahogany 

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir 

25 Pinyon – Utah juniper 

53 Pacific ponderosa pine 

55 Western juniper/sagebrush 

58 Western juniper/sagebrush 

67 Interior ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir 

210 Pinyon – Utah juniper 

Medford 

– Roseburg 

2 Western hemlock – western redcedar – Douglas-fir 

4 Douglas-fir/ceanothus 

5 Douglas-fir – white fir 

6 Oregon white oak – Douglas-fir 

7 Douglas-fir – sugar pine – tanoak 

15 Jeffrey pine – red fir – white fir/greenleaf - snowbrush 

16 Jeffrey pine – ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir – California black oak 

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir 

37 Ponderosa pine – Jeffrey pine 

38 Douglas-fir – madrone – tanoak 

39 Sugar pine – Douglas-fir – oak 

208 Grand fir – Douglas-fir 

215 Douglas-fir – madrone – tanoak 

239 Douglas-fir – sugar pine – tanoak 

 
Appendix E – Air Quality Detailed Analysis Methods

1059 | Page

Table E-2. Acres, fuel moistures, and targeted consumption rates for live woody fuels in each severity 

class for past wildfires. 

Low Severity Mixed Severity High Severity 

Consume Inputs 

1000-hour Fuel Moisture 20% 10% 6% 

Duff Moisture 200% 100% 10% 

Shrub Black - 50% 100% 

Crown Black - 50% 100% 

District/Field Office Acres In Each Severity Class 

Coos Bay – Eugene – Salem 1,475 1,692 4,588 

Klamath Falls 5,595 6,419 17,403 

Medford – Roseburg 52,745 60,518 164,065 

Large fires that originate on BLM-administered lands typically burn onto other lands. However, the future 

wildfire acres burned applied only to BLM-administered lands. In order to provide an appropriate 

comparison, BLM had to adjust the emissions from past fires downward. BLM calculated the average 

number of acres burned using the data for fires that originated on BLM-administered lands and compared 

that to the average number of acres burned just on BLM-administered lands as reported in Davis et al. 

(2014, p. 7), resulting in a reduction of 62 percent. 

Future Wildfires 

The Woodstock harvest model included wildfire under all alternatives, including No Action, with the 

number of polygons affected and the type of fire held constant across all alternatives. The BLM modeled 

only high and mixed severity fire. To estimate particulate emissions from future wildfires, the BLM used 

the estimated acres burned in mixed and high severity fires each period from the Woodstock model. 

Using the same set of FCCS fuelbeds from Table E-1 and the same fuel moistures and targeted 

consumption rates from Table E-2, the BLM used Consume to estimate the per acre emissions for 

particulate matter. Since low severity fire was not included in Woodstock under the assumption that there 

was no impact to volume, BLM assumed no change in the proportional relationship between low, mixed, 

and high severity fire and used the acres burned in mixed and high severity combined to estimate the 

acres burned in low severity fire. The BLM summarized the results on an average annual basis for each 

decade analyzed. 

Estimating Emissions from Fuels Treatment 

Past Fuels Treatments 

Particulate emissions from past prescribed burning were based on estimated tons of biomass consumed as 

reported to ODF under the state’s smoke management plan 

(http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/fire/smp/smkmgtannualrpts.aspx). ODF’s reports include prescribed 

burns on BLM-administered lands in the Other Federal category, which includes U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and consolidates prescribed burns for both Lake and Klamath 

Counties into a single number. The BLM conducts most of prescribed burning in the Other Federal 

category, as indicated by the harvest records. The BLM calculated the particulates emitted from burning 

wood by multiplying the tons consumed with standardized emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5 (Hardy et 

al. 2001, p. 100). 
Appendix E – Air Quality Detailed Analysis Methods

1060 | Page

Future Fuels Treatments 

The BLM used two different methods to estimate emissions from future prescribed burning. For pile 

burning (hand piles, machine piles, and landing piles), the BLM used a standard description for each type 

of pile (size, shape, and composition) and a standard estimate of the number of piles per acre to estimate 

emissions per acre using the pile utility in Consume. The BLM then multiplied these estimates by the 

number of acres treated by piling. The Woodstock model provided estimates of the acres treated by each 

type of piling method for harvest treatments and historical averages used for the hazardous fuels program. 

For broadcast and under burning, BLM selected a single representative fuel bed for each district that 

would result in the approximate number of tons consumed that had been estimated by past burning, as 

reported by the team’s fuels specialist.

References 

Davis, R., L. Evers, Y. Gallimore, J. DeJuilio, and C. Belongie. 2014. Modeling large stochastic wildfires and fire severity within 

the range of the northern spotted owl. Unpublished report. 

Fire and Environmental Research Applications Team (FERA), and University of Washington (UW). 2014. Fuel & Fire Tools. 

USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, WA. 

Hardy, C. C., R. D. Ottmar, J. L. Peterson, J. E. Core, and P. Seamon, editors. 2001. Smoke managament guide for prescribed 

and wildland fire 2001 edition. National Wildfire Coordination Group, Boise, ID. 

 
Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

1061 | Page

Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

This appendix provides detailed information about Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

This section contains detailed information about Areas of Critical Environmental Concern .Table F-1

shows Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by alternative, includes relevant and important value 

categories, acreages and planning status. Table F-2 provides information about the special management 

direction that would be applied if the area becomes designated. Table F-3 contains more specific 

information about the relevant and important values for each Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 









































Appendix G – Climate Change

1103 | Page

Carbon Storage Modeling 

Analysis of Carbon Storage 

The analysis of carbon storage estimated the amount of carbon stored in the forest and in harvested wood 

products as well as carbon stored in non-forest portions of the planning area. The analysis divided carbon 

into four pools: 

x Live trees 

x Above-ground carbon other than live trees 

x Soil to 1 m depth (3.3 ft.) 

x Harvested wood 

The BLM summed the carbon in these four pools to estimate the total carbon stored by alternative. The 

BLM assumed carbon stored in soil and in non-forest portions of the planning area was constant through 

time, largely due to the lack of information about how these pools change over time. 

Carbon Storage in Live Trees 

The BLM estimated carbon storage in live trees for each alternative, including a “grow only scenario” 

using the following process: 

1. Obtain estimates of standing tree volumes for each period from the Woodstock model. See 

Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling for more detail on how the BLM estimated volume over 

time. 

2. Convert live tree volume in thousand board feet (Mbf) to cubic feet using the following 

formula: ݂ݐଷ ൌ ሺܯܾ݂ ൊ ͸ǤͲሻ ൈ ͳͲͲͲ. 

3. Estimate the composite density of wood (lb./ft.3

) based on specific gravity at 12 percent 

moisture content for several species, but primarily Douglas-fir (Forest Products Laboratory 

2010) 

4. Convert cubic foot volume to pounds using the following formula: 

ݏ݊݀ݑ݋݌ Ǥͷ ͵͵ൈ ଷݐ݂ ൌ ݏ݊݀ݑ݋݌

ଷݐ݂

5. Multiply pounds of wood by 0.5 to estimate pounds of carbon (Smith et al. 2006). 

6. Estimate megagrams of carbon (Mg C) for whole trees (branches, roots, and bark) using the 

following formula: 

ܯ݃ܥ ൌ ሺ݈ܾܥ ൈ ͳǤ ͅͷሻ ൊ ʹʹͲͲ

The BLM based initial tree volumes on the total gross volume, or the estimated volume per acre 

multiplied by the number of acres. This estimate avoided the need to convert from acres to hectares for 

live tree carbon storage. 

Carbon Storage in Forest Vegetation Other than Live Trees 

Forest vegetation other than live trees includes snags, understory vegetation, downed wood, and the forest 

floor (litter and duff). The BLM downloaded tables of carbon stock estimates using the Carbon On Line 

Appendix G – Climate Change 
Appendix G – Climate Change

1104 | Page

Tool version 3.0 (COLE 3.0), available at http://www.ncasi2.org/GCOLE3/gcole.shtml. The BLM 

generated reports using the county or counties that comprise most of the individual district or Klamath 

Falls Field Office. The BLM applied a filter consisting of federal lands within the county. Although the 

BLM could have filtered for just BLM-administered lands, the data used to generate the estimates did not 

include enough plots on BLM-administered lands for statistically sound estimates. The analysis used table 

1 of the report, which consists estimates of carbon stocks by age class for years 0 through 100, subtracting 

out the estimates for soil and live trees. Since many stands are older than age 100, we needed to estimate 

understory carbon beyond year 100. Using the COLE table 1, we plotted the understory carbon stock 

estimates for every decade between year 10 and year 100 in an Excel spreadsheet and then used the 

trendline tool to create a regression equation for each district and Klamath Falls Field Office. We then 

used the resulting equation to estimate understory carbon stocks for every decade between year 110 and 

210, assuming that after year 210, understory carbon reaches equilibrium between input and decay. 

Above-ground Carbon Storage in Un-modeled Forest 

A portion of each district consisted of polygons that included an initial stand age, but the BLM did not 

model subsequent growth and did not include these lands in the harvest land base. Generally, these sites 

consist of administratively reserved areas, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research 

Natural Areas, Congressional reserves such as designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, areas that support trees 

but which the BLM determined not suitable for sustained yield timber production. For these areas, BLM 

used the estimates from COLE that included live trees. Using the same process as with the vegetation 

other than live trees (see above), BLM extrapolated carbon from age 110 to 210, assuming that after age 

210, above ground biomass reached a dynamic equilibrium between the carrying capacity for live 

biomass and the accumulation and decay of dead biomass. 

Carbon Storage in Soil 

Little is actually known about carbon storage in soils due to the difficulties and expense in studying this 

carbon pool (Johnson and Curtis 2001). The scientific community knows even less about how soil carbon 

changes over time following natural disturbances and management, although some studies have attempted 

to understand soil carbon dynamics better. Decreases in soil carbon have generally been low and of 

relatively short duration (Smith et al. 2006, McKinley et al. 2011). For that reason, we assumed no 

changes in soil carbon over time. We used the soil column from table 1 of each COLE 3.0 output and 

multiplied that value by the number of hectares analyzed on each district to estimate the Mg C stored in 

soils. 

Carbon Storage in Harvested Wood 

Carbon stored in harvested wood depends on the volume of wood harvested, the resulting wood product, 

and the amount of carbon in that wood emitted through harvesting, processing, waste, disposal, and 

decomposition. Earles et al. (2012) developed decay equations for harvested wood based on the above 

factors for various parts of the world. Although we were unable to obtain copies of the actual equations, 

we developed a regression function based on the graphs for the U.S. Pacific Northwest provided in the 

supplemental information for the study: 

ͲǤͶͻ ͅͻ ൅ ሻݐݏ݁ݒݎ݄݅݊ܿ݁ܽݏݏݎ݁ܽݕ ൈʹ͸ ሺെͲǤͲͲ ൌ ݁݉ܽ݅݊݅݊݃ݎܥݐܿ݁݊ݎܲ݁

This regression accounts for the life expectancy of different wood products such as paper, fiberboard, and 

lumber. 
Appendix G – Climate Change

1105 | Page

For the existing condition, BLM used annual harvest records from the Oregon Department of Forestry 

(http://www.oregon.gov/odf/Pages/state_forests/frp/RP_Home.aspx#Annual_Timber_Harvest_Report) to 

estimate the volume harvested over time from BLM-administered lands within the planning area. We 

converted the volume in thousands of board feet (Mbf) to carbon using the conversion factor of 0.443 Mg 

C per Mbf (Smith et al. 2006, p. 35). Total carbon remaining equaled the percent carbon remaining 

multiplied by the total carbon initially in the harvested wood. 

To estimate the effects of the alternatives, BLM multiplied the estimated volume harvested per decade by 

the same conversion factor to carbon and the same regression function as for the existing condition. The 

BLM added these results to the estimated carbon stored in previously harvested wood products as of 

2013. 

Carbon in Polygons with No Data 

A certain portion of each district consisted of polygons for which there was no vegetation information. 

For the purposes of this analysis, BLM assumed vegetation was present but that the predominant 

vegetation was not forest. To estimate aboveground carbon, we used biomass information based on the 

Fuels Characteristic Class System (FCCS) version 3.0 for savanna, shrubland and grassland types 

considered representative of typical non-forest plant communities for each district or group of districts. 

Since the BLM did not know the relative abundance of the non-forest plant communities, it used a simple 

average of the estimated aboveground carbon for the selected FCCS fuelbeds. The BLM multiplied the 

result by the estimated number of hectares in non-forest community types to estimate aboveground carbon 

stored in each district and assumed these carbon stocks did not change over time. 

Effects of Wildfire on Carbon Storage 

The Woodstock model included occurrence of high and mixed severity fire on each district in each decade 

based on historical occurrence levels. Following high severity wildfire, the model reset stand age to zero 

in the decade in which the fire occurred. To mimic the effects of burning on aboveground carbon in a high 

severity fire, BLM estimated the remaining carbon to equal 25 percent of the carbon at age zero in the 

COLE tables. The BLM based this reduction on a combination of experience in assessing post-fire effects 

following fires considered high severity and the standard definition of high severity used by LANDFIRE 

(high severity equals greater than 75 percent mortality of the dominant plant life form). Thereafter, the 

BLM based carbon on stand age. 

The BLM did not reset stand age following a mixed severity fire. The BLM assumed 50 percent of the 

carbon associated with the stand age at the time of the fire was lost, based on the standard definition of 

mixed severity used by LANDFIRE (mixed severity equals 25 to 75 percent mortality of the dominant 

plant life form). The BLM assumed subsequent ages to contain only 75 percent of the carbon that would 

have been present in the absence of fire. While full recovery to carbon likely does occur, at some point, 

there is no scientific basis for determining when full recovery occurs. Further, recovery rates differ widely 

across the planning area. 

Sources of Uncertainty in Carbon Estimates 

There are a large number of sources of uncertainty in estimating the amount of carbon stored on the 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area. These include the quality of the inventory data used, 

estimation methodology selected, and reliability of the data. Inventory data for live trees is generally the 

highest quality and most accurate, but the amount of time since the inventory and subsequent disturbance 

types and severities affect the accuracy of that data. Further, BLM does not have a vegetation database 

such that no direct information was available concerning species, extent, and biomass for litter and duff, 

dead wood, herbaceous vegetation, shrubs, and non-commercial tree species. 
Appendix G – Climate Change

1106 | Page

There are several methodologies available for estimating the amount of carbon in a given unit of land and 

in harvested wood products; the likelihood of obtaining the same answer using different methodologies is 

low. Estimating soil carbon is particularly problematic due to the lack of data and different authors have 

generated estimates to differing depths in the soil profile. The BLM did not locate any studies that 

estimated time to full recovery of carbon to the equivalent of an unburned stand of the same age and 

general species composition following a mixed severity wildfire. 

Since many of the sources used to estimate carbon do not include measures of uncertainty, variance, or 

error, the level of uncertainty is not known, but likely large and could well exceed 50 percent. As such, 

the potential error in the estimate for any one alternative likely exceeds the amount of variance between 

the alternatives. 

References 

Earles, J. M., S. Yeh, and K. E. Skog. 2012. Timing of carbon emissions from global forest clearance. Nature Climate Change 

2(9): 682-685. 

Forest Products Laboratory. 2010. Wood handbook – wood as an engineering material. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190. 

USDA FS, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI. 508 pp. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr190.pdf. 

Johnson, D. W., and P. S. Curtis. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. Forest Ecology and

Management 140(2): 227-238. 

McKinley, D. C., M. G. Ryan, R. A. Birdsey, C. P. Giardina, M. E. Harmon, L. S. Heath, R. A. Houghton, R. B. Jackson, J. F. 

Morrison, B. C. Murray, D. E. Pataki, and K. E. Skog. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage 

in the united states. Ecological Applications 21(6): 1902-1924. 

Smith, J. E., L. S. Heath, K. E. Skog, and R. A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon 

with standard estimates for forest types of the united states. General Technical Report NE-343. USDA FS, Northeastern 

Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 216 pp. http://www.actrees.org/files/Research/ne_gtr343.pdf.

 
Appendix G – Climate Change

1107 | Page

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation 

Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

For this planning effort, the BLM estimated greenhouse gas emissions from four sources: 

x Enteric fermentation from permitted grazing on BLM-administered lands 

x Timber harvest operations 

x Prescribed burning 

x Wildfires 

The BLM summed emissions for each alternative, although emissions from grazing, the hazardous fuels 

program, and wildfires did not vary by alternative. 

Greenhouse gases emitted by activities on BLM-administered lands include carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Both CH4 and N2O emissions have a greater global warming 

potential than CO2 so the BLM multiplied the estimates by 25 and 298, respectively, to estimate carbon 

dioxide equivalents (CO2e). All greenhouse gas emissions are converted to the standard megagrams of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (Mg CO2e) used for reporting greenhouse gas emissions nationally and 

globally. 

Enteric Fermentation (Grazing) 

The BLM based grazing emissions on the number of permitted animal unit months on BLM-administered 

lands in the planning area. Although the actual number of cow-calf pairs are less than the permitted 

number for the past several years, this analysis used the permitted number. The formula used to estimate 

was derived from IPCC guidelines (Eggleston et al. 2006, Chapter 10): 

൬ܣܷݏܯ ൈ ൬ͶǤͶ݇݃ܪܥͶ

݉݋݊ݐ݄ ൰ൊ ͳͲͲͲͲ൰ൈ ʹͷ ൌ ܯ݃ܥܱʹ݁

The CH4 emissions factor of 4.4 kg mo-1 equals the annual emission factor in North America for beef 

cattle divided by 12 (EPA 2014). 

Harvest Operations 

Greenhouse gas emissions from harvest operations are based on the study by Sonne (2006) in the Oregon 

Coast Range for private industrial lands and on harvest records maintained by the Oregon Department of 

Forestry (ODF) for all lands in western Oregon and for Klamath County in eastern Oregon (available at: 

http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/pubs/publications.aspx#agency_annual_reports). The BLM first 

converted harvest records in thousands of board feet to millions of board feet and divided by six to 

estimate millions of cubic feet. From Sonne (2006), BLM used the expected greenhouse gas emissions 

based on planting 1235 trees per acre, and applying a precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, and 

fertilization prior to final harvest: 

݁ʹ݋ܥ݃ܯ ͅ͵൭൬ͳǤ

ͳͲͲ݉ଷ ൰ ൈ ቆ ͳͲͲ݉ଷ

͵ͷ͵ͳǤͶ͸͹݂ݐଷቇ ൈ ͳǡͲͲͲǡͲͲͲ ൌ ͵ͻͲǤ͹͹ ܯ݃ܥܱʹ݁

൱ ݂ܿܯܯ
Appendix G – Climate Change

1108 | Page

The BLM then multiplied the number of million cubic feet harvested by 390.77 to estimate Mg CO2e. 

This emission factor is based on a shorter rotation and more intensive management practices than BLM 

typically uses and, therefore, may somewhat overestimate emissions from harvest activities on BLMadministered lands as well as on other federal lands. 

Prescribed Burning 

Greenhouse gas emissions from past prescribed burning are based on estimated tons of biomass 

consumed as reported to ODF under the state’s smoke management plan (available at 

http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/fire/smp/smkmgtannualrpts.aspx). ODF’s reports include prescribed 

burns on BLM-administered lands in the Other Federal category, which includes U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and consolidates prescribed burns for both Lake and Klamath 

Counties into a single number. The BLM conducts most of prescribed burning in the Other Federal 

category, as indicated by the harvest records. The BLM calculated the various greenhouse gas types 

emitted from burning wood (CO2, CH4, and N2O) by multiplying the tons consumed with EPA-provided 

emission factors (EPA 2014, Table 1). The BLM used emission factors for burning wood and wood 

residuals for power generation. Since power generation typically consumes all material, the BLM may 

have overestimated emissions as compared to open burning where larger pieces of wood may or may not 

completely consume. 

The BLM used two different methods to estimate emissions from future prescribed burning. For pile 

burning (hand piles, machine piles, and landing piles), the BLM used a standard description for each type 

of pile (size, shape, and composition) and a standard estimate of the number of piles per acre to estimate 

emissions per acre using the pile utility in Consume. The BLM multiplied these estimates by the number 

of acres treated by piling. The Woodstock model provided estimates of the acres treated by each type of 

piling method for harvest treatments and historical averages used for the hazardous fuels program. For 

broadcast and under burning, BLM selected a single representative fuel bed for each district that would 

result in the approximate number of tons consumed that had been estimated by past burning, as reported 

by the team’s fuels specialist.

Wildfires 

Wildfire emissions are much more difficult to estimate since there are no records of how much material 

any given fire consumes. The BLM used the following procedures to estimate greenhouse gas emissions 

from past wildfires. 

The BLM downloaded records of all wildfires for Coos Bay, Eugene, Lakeview, Medford, Roseburg, and 

Salem Districts from the FAMWEB site (http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/weatherfirecd/), imported the 

records into FireFamily Plus 4.1, extracted all wildfires 100+ acres in size, and exported the results into 

an Excel Spreadsheet. Using a variety of methods, the BLM deleted as many fires as it could identify as 

burning on Lakeview Resource Area. The BLM combined the data for Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem into 

one group and the data for Medford and Roseburg into one group. Over the 34-year period of record 

(1980-2013), 7,763 acres burned in the Coos Bay-Eugene-Salem group, 277,605 acres in the MedfordRoseburg group, and 29,447 acres in Klamath Falls Field Office. 

The BLM downloaded assessments of burn severity for individual large fires that originated on BLMadministered lands between 1984 and 2012, the latest year available, from the Monitoring Trends in Burn 

Severity website (http://mtbs.gov/data/individualfiredata.html). The BLM averaged acres burned in the 

difference categories of unburned to low, low, moderate, high, increased greenness, and mask and 

calculated the proportion for each category. Mask areas consist of features such as clouds, water and rock 

as well as missing lines of image data. The BLM combined high, increased greenness, and mask into a 
Appendix G – Climate Change

1109 | Page

single category and unburned to low and low into a single category. The resulting proportions of area 

burned were 59.1 percent low severity, 21.8 percent mixed severity, and 19.0 percent high severity. 

Because the documented fire severity record is sparse, BLM used these same severity proportions across 

the planning area. 

Since preburn fuel loadings are not known, BLM used the Fuels Characteristic Class System (FCCS) 

module in Fuel & Fire Tools (FERA and UW 2014) to select representative fuelbeds (Table G-1). Since 

BLM did not know the relative proportion of each fuelbed included in each analysis group, it equally 

weighted all fuelbeds. In order to assess emissions from the different burn severities, BLM multiplied the 

total number of acres burned in each group by the proportional amount in the low, mixed, and high 

severity classes and created separate units in Fuel & Fire Tools. For example, the group comprised of 

Coos Bay, Eugene and Salem Districts had three units labeled low, mixed, and high with assigned acres 

equaling the proportion estimated for each severity class (Table G-2). Each unit consisted of the set of 

fuelbeds selected through FCCS. The Consume module in Fuel & Fire Tools used this information to 

estimate greenhouse gas emissions for CO2 and CH4. Since the Consume module only uses 1000-hour and 

duff fuel moisture to drive the consumption algorithms, the BLM could not fully meet its intent of 

adjusting the amount of live fuel consumed. 

Table G-1. Fuels Characteristic Classification System fuelbeds used in each analysis group to estimate 

greenhouse gas emissions from wildfire. 

District/ 

Field 

Office 

Fuelbed Number Fuelbed Name 

Coos Bay 

– Eugene 

– Salem

2 Western hemlock – western redcedar – Douglas-fir 

5 Douglas-fir – white fir 

8 Western hemlock – Douglas-fir – western redcedar/vine maple 

9 Douglas-fir – western hemlock – western redcedar/vine maple 

10 Western hemlock – Douglas-fir – Sitka spruce 

11 Douglas-fir – western hemlock – Sitka spruce 

18 Douglas-fir/oceanspray 

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir 

52 Douglas-fir – Pacific ponderosa pine/oceanspray 

208 Grand fir – Douglas-fir 

322 Sitka spruce – western hemlock 

Klamath Falls 

20 Western juniper/curl-leaf mountain mahogany

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

25 Pinyon – Utah juniper

53 Pacific ponderosa pine

55 Western juniper/sagebrush

58 Western juniper/sagebrush

67 Interior ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

210 Pinyon – Utah juniper

Medford 

–

Roseburg 

2 Western hemlock – western redcedar – Douglas-fir 

4 Douglas-fir/Ceanothus

5 Douglas-fir – white fir 

6 Oregon white oak – Douglas-fir 

7 Douglas-fir – sugar pine – tanoak 
Appendix G – Climate Change

1110 | Page

15 Jeffrey pine – red fir – white fir/greenleaf - snowbrush 

16 Jeffrey pine – ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir – California black oak 

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir 

37 Ponderosa pine – Jeffrey pine 

38 Douglas-fir – madrone – tanoak 

39 Sugar pine – Douglas-fir – oak 

208 Grand fir – Douglas-fir 

215 Douglas-fir – madrone – tanoak 

239 Douglas-fir – sugar pine – tanoak 

Table G-2. Acres, fuel moistures, and targeted consumption rates for live woody fuels in each severity 

class for past wildfires. 

Live Woody Fuels Low Severity Mixed Severity High Severity 

Consume Inputs 

1,000-hour Fuel Moisture 20% 10% 6% 

Duff Moisture 200% 100% 10% 

Shrub Black - 50% 100% 

Crown Black - 50% 100% 

District/Field Office Acres In Each Severity Class 

Coos Bay – Eugene – Salem 1,475 1,692 4,588 

Klamath Falls 5,595 6,419 17,403 

Medford – Roseburg 52,745 60,518 164,065 

Large fires that originate on BLM-administered lands typically burn onto other lands. However, the future 

wildfire acres burned applied only to BLM-administered lands. In order to provide an appropriate 

comparison, BLM had to adjust the emissions from past fires downward. The BLM calculated the average 

number of acres burned using the data for fires that originated on BLM-administered lands and compared 

that to the average number of acres burned just on BLM-administered lands as reported in Davis et al. 

(2014, p. 7), resulting in a reduction of 62 percent. 

Consume does not estimate N2O. However, the amount of N2O emitted by wood is relatively small (EPA 

2014, Table 1). In addition, since the consumption algorithms in Consume are largely based on data 

collected during prescribed burning of logging debris, the program typically over-predicts consumption of 

natural fuels (Prichard et al. no date). 

To estimate greenhouse gas emissions from future wildfires, BLM used the estimated acres burned in 

mixed and high severity fires each period from the Woodstock model. Using the same set of FCCS 

fuelbeds from Table G-1 and the same fuel moistures and targeted consumption rates from Table G-2, 

BLM used Consume to estimate the per acre emissions for methane and carbon dioxide and converted the 

mass measure of pounds per acre to megagrams per acre. Since Consume does not include an estimate for 

nitrous oxide, BLM used the EPA (2014) emission factor for N2O for wood products of 63 g per short 

ton. Since low-severity fire was not included in Woodstock under the assumption that there was no 

impact to volume, BLM assumed maintenance of the proportional relationship between low, mixed, and 

high severity fire and used the acres burned in mixed and high severity combined to estimate the acres 

burned in low severity fire. 
Appendix G – Climate Change

1111 | Page

Uncertainties in Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Several factors can affect the actual greenhouse gas emissions from the different sectors analyzed in this 

document. Generally, limited input data, measurement errors associated with the available data, the need 

to simplify complex systems, and creating or using models based on limited data are the main sources of 

uncertainty in emissions estimation (Eve et al. 2014, p. 8-4). 

Emissions from livestock grazing account only for the emissions from the animals and not for emissions 

from the soil that can arise based on grazing system, stocking rate, utilization levels, and season of 

grazing (Eve et al. 2014). Further, greenhouse gas emissions from grazing also depend on animal size and 

growth rate, which the BLM does not know for this analysis and likely varies from year-to-year. Thus, the 

estimation method the BLM used in this analysis has an estimated uncertainty of ± 50 percent (Eggleston 

et al. 2006, p. 10.33). 

Emissions from harvest operations used in this analysis are based on a life cycle analysis conducted by 

Sonne (2006), which attempted to account for emissions from fuel used by vehicles and equipment, 

electricity, and fertilizer production in order to harvest trees; prepare sites for planting using prescribed 

fire or herbicides; produce, transport and plant seedlings; fertilize the site, and conduct one or more 

thinning operations before the final harvest of the subsequent stand. Although Sonne (2006) examined 

several different rotation ages, this analysis used age 60, the longest. BLM typically manages even-aged 

stands on longer rotations and under the limitations of the 1995 RMPs, conducts far more thinning 

operations than final harvests, affecting actual greenhouse gas emissions. Further, BLM conducts some 

uneven-aged management in the drier forests, which likely results in different emissions levels than evenaged management, although whether uneven-aged management produces less or greater emissions than 

even-aged management is not known. The BLM does not know the uncertainty associated with harvest 

operations, but expects that it is greater than ± 50 percent. 

Greenhouse gas emissions from fire are particularly large. Estimates of preburn biomass and the amount 

of biomass consumed vary widely and the BLM does not know this information in sufficient detail for 

wildfires. Various estimating tools are available for prescribed fires, such as the debris prediction module 

in the Forest Vegetation Simulator (Rebain 2014) and the pile calculator in Fuel & Fire Tools (FERA and 

UW 2014). However, the districts may or may not use these tools in a given situation and the BLM does 

not know the consistency of use. The tons recorded by ODF are simply those reported by the people who 

conducted the burn, who do not have effective methods for estimating actual consumption. Canopy 

consumption in wildfires of both trees and shrubs is particularly difficult to estimate with high variability 

both within and between wildfires. As with harvest operations, the BLM does not know the uncertainty 

associated with emissions from fire, but expects that it varies by a factor of two (between half and twice 

as much as the estimate). 

References 

Davis, R., L. Evers, Y. Gallimore, J. DeJuilio, and C. Belongie. 2014. Modeling large stochastic wildfires and fire severity within 

the range of the northern spotted owl. Unpublished report. 

Eggleston, S., L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe, editors. 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas 

inventories volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, 

Kanagawa, Japan. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2012. EPA 430-R14-003. Washington, D.C. 529 pp. 

Eve, M., D. Pape, M. Flugge, R. Steele, D. Man, M. Riley-Gilbert, and S. Biggar (eds.). 2014. Quantifying greenhouse gas fluxes

in agriculture and forestry: Methods for entity-scale inventory. USDA, Office of the Chief Economist, Washington, D.C. 

606 pp. 

Fire and Environmental Research Applications Team (FERA), and University of Washington (UW). 2014. Fuel & Fire Tools. 

USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, WA. 
Appendix G – Climate Change

1112 | Page

Prichard, S. J., R. D. Ottmar, and G. Anderson. No date. Consume 3.0 user's guide. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, WA. 235 pp. 

Rebain, S. A. (ed.) 2014. The fire and fuels extension to the forest vegetation simulator: updated model documentation. USDA 

FS, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO. 409 pp. 

Sonne, E. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry operations. Journal of Environmental Quality 35(4): 1439-1450. 

http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/LMD/LandUse/Documents/Lane%20County%20Land%20Use%20Task%20F

orce/Jim%20Just_Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20from%20Forestry%20Operations.pdf. 

 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1113 | Page

Appendix H – Fire and Fuels 

Issue 1 - Assumptions, Methods, etc. 

Methods 

Study Area 

The Nature Conservancy assessed forest vegetation restoration needs across five million acres of forest 

across southwestern Oregon (Figure H-1). Within the study area, they focused on the 1.2 million acres of 

BLM land as the lands that changed by Alternative (Figure H-2). This geography generally includes the 

extent of historically frequent fire forests within SW Oregon. These forests cover very broad climatic, 

edaphic, and topographic gradients with varying natural disturbance regimes. 

Figure H-1. Analysis area. 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1114 | Page

Figure H-2. BLM-administered land within the analysis area. 

Core Concepts and Data Sources 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) built upon the conceptual framework of the LANDFIRE and Fire 

Regime Condition Class (FRCC) programs (Barrett et al. 2010, Rollins 2009) and incorporated Oregon 

and BLM specific datasets. TNC’s assessment of forest vegetation departure is based on four primary data 

inputs: 1) a classification and map of forested biophysical settings, 2) NRV reference conditions for each 

biophysical setting, 3) a delineation of “landscape units” for each biophysical setting, and 4) a map of 

present day forest vegetation structure.
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1115 | Page

Mapping Forested Biophysical Settings 

Biophysical settings are potential vegetation units associated with characteristic land capabilities and 

disturbance regimes (Barrett et al. 2010). Many different forested biophysical settings are found across 

Washington and Oregon based on vegetation, soils, climate, topography, and historic disturbance regimes 

(Keane et al. 2007, Pratt et al. 2006, Rollins 2009). They provide the framework for describing fire 

regimes. TNC mapped biophysical settings using the 30m pixel Integrated Landscape Assessment 

Projects’ Potential Vegetation Type (PVT) dataset (Halofsky et al. In press), which compiled previous 

potential forest vegetation classification and mapping efforts including Simpson (2007) and Henderson 

et.al. (2011). TNC also incorporated subsequent refinements to PVT mapping in southwestern Oregon by 

Henderson (2013). 

A biophysical setting model from either the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment or the later LANDFIRE 

National program (Rollins 2009, Ryan and Opperman 2013) was assigned to each PVT mapping unit 

(Table H-1). Assignments were made by staff in the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 

Ecology Program based upon the geographic, environmental, and biological characteristics of the 

biophysical setting models and the PVT mapping units. TNC defined forests across our study area as 

those described as a “forest” or “forest and woodland” land cover class in the biophysical setting model. 

National Forest System lands are typically considered “forest” if they have >10% tree canopy cover, and 

this generally coincides with forest, and forest and woodland land cover classes (USDA FS 2004). 

Table H-1. ILAP PVT to LANDFIRE BpS model crosswalk. 

Integrated Landscape Assessment 

Project Potential Vegetation Type 

(ILAP PVT) 

LANDFIRE 

Biophysical 

Settings (BpS) 

Douglas-fir - White oak 0210290 

Oregon white oak 0210290 

Douglas-fir - Dry 0710270 

Douglas-fir - Moist R#DFHEwt 

Douglas-fir - Moist R#DFHEwt 

Western hemlock - Coastal R#DFHEwt 

Western hemlock - Cold R#DFHEwt 

Western hemlock - Moist R#DFHEwt 

Western hemlock - Moist (Coastal) R#DFHEwt 

Western hemlock - Wet R#DFHEwt 

Douglas-fir - Dry R#MCONdy 

Douglas-fir - Dry R#MCONdy 

Douglas-fir - Dry R#MCONdy 

Douglas-fir - Xeric R#MCONdy 

Grand fir - Warm/Dry R#MCONdy 

Mixed Conifer - Dry R#MCONdy 

Mixed Conifer - Dry (Pumice soils) R#MCONdy 

Grand fir - Cool/moist R#MCONms 

Grand fir - Cool/moist R#MCONms 

Grand fir - Cool/moist R#MCONms 

Mixed Conifer - Moist R#MCONms 

Douglas-fir - Moist R#MCONsw 

White fir - Intermediate R#MCONsw 

White fir - Moist R#MCONsw 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1116 | Page

Integrated Landscape Assessment 

Project Potential Vegetation Type 

(ILAP PVT) 

LANDFIRE 

Biophysical 

Settings (BpS) 

Tan oak - Douglas-fir - Dry R#MEVG 

Ultramafic R#MEVG 

Idaho fescue - Prairie junegrass R#MGRA 

Oregon white oak - Ponderosa pine R#OAPI 

Lodgepole pine - Dry R#PICOpu 

Lodgepole pine - Wet R#PICOpu 

Jeffery Pine R#PIJEsp 

Ponderosa pine - Dry R#PIPOm 

Ponderosa pine - Lodgepole pine R#PIPOm 

Ponderosa pine - Dry, with juniper R#PIPOxe 

Ponderosa pine - Xeric R#PIPOxe 

Shasta red fir - Dry R#REFI 

Shasta red fir - Moist R#REFI 

White fir - Cool R#REFI 

Mixed Conifer - Cold/dry R#SPFI 

Subalpine fir - Cold/Dry R#SPFI 

Sitka spruce R#SSHE 

Tan oak - Douglas-fir - Moist R#TAOAco 

Tan oak - Moist R#TAOAco 

Shasta red fir - Moist R1RFWF 

White fir - Cool R1RFWF 

Natural Range of Variability Reference Conditions 

Each biophysical setting model is composed of a suite of 3-5 successional/structural stages (s-classes). 

These classes typically include: A) Early Development, B) Mid-Development Closed Canopy, C) MidDevelopment Open Canopy, D) Late Development Open Canopy, and E) Late Development Closed 

Canopy. The definition of each s-class in terms of species composition, stand structure, and stand age is 

unique for each biophysical setting (Table H-2 and Table H-3). The percentage of a biophysical setting 

in each s-class will differ depending on disturbance frequencies and/or intensities. The LANDFIRE and 

FRCC conceptual framework assumes that, given natural processes, a biophysical setting will have a 

characteristic range of variation in the proportion in each s-class and that an effective indicator of 

“ecological condition” for a given landscape is the relative abundance of each s-class within biophysical 

settings (Barrett et al. 2010, Keane et al. 2011). 


Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1119 | Page

NRV reference models describe how the relative distribution of s-classes for a biophysical setting were 

shaped by succession and disturbance prior to European settlement and provide a comparison to presentday forest conditions (Keane et al. 2009, Landres et al. 1999). LANDFIRE biophysical setting models are 

used to develop NRV estimates using state-and-transition models incorporating pre-European settlement 

rates of succession and disturbance. Rates were determined through an intensive literature and expert 

review process (Keane et al. 2002, Keane et al. 2007, Pratt et al. 2006, Rollins 2009). 

The distribution of s-classes for each biophysical setting, which results from running state-and-transition 

models for many time-steps (Table H-4) does not represent a specific historical date, but instead 

approximates characteristic conditions that result from natural biological and physical processes operating 

on a landscape over a relatively long time. NRV is frequently represented by a single value, the mean 

relative abundance of each s-class from a collection of Monte Carlo state-and-transition model 

simulations (e.g., Low et al. 2010, Shlisky et al. 2005, Weisz et al. 2009). However, TNC developed and 

used ranges for each s-class resulting from the stochastic variation within the state-and-transition models. 

TNC ran 10 simulations for each biophysical setting state-and-transition model over 1,000 pixels and 

1,000 annual time steps. Simulations were started with an equal portion in each s-class and it took 200 to 

400 years for the initial trends to stabilize. TNC calculated the range for each s-class as +2 standard 

deviations from the mean abundance from the last 500 time steps (Provencher et al. 2008). Simulations 

were modeled using the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (ESSA Technologies 2007). 

Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1121 | Page

Landscape Units 

Following the LANDFIRE and FRCC conceptual framework, TNC defined discrete landscape units to 

compare present-day forests to modeled NRV reference conditions (Barrett et al. 2010, Pratt et al. 2006). 

Landscape units were chosen that would adequately represent the scale of disturbance of a particular PVT 

and were composed of forested lands within a BLM management district. This would allow 

summarization in an accurate and usable way for managers (Figure H-3). 

Figure H-3. Landscape units. 

Present-Day Forest Structure and Composition 

TNC characterized present-day forest vegetation with the gradient nearest neighbor imputation (GNN, 

Ohmann and Gregory 2002, Figure 3) datasets produced by the US Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Research Station and Oregon State University Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping, and Analysis 

research group (www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma) and outputs from the BLM vegetation modeling process (see 

the Vegetation Modeling Appendix). 

All lands that are outside of BLM ownership used the GNN data for current conditions; the BLM land 

used the RMP data. 

To compare present-day forest vegetation to the NRV reference conditions, TNC mapped the current 

distribution of s-classes for each biophysical setting using BLM Alternative data for the BLM lands and 

GNN data for all other ownerships. S-class mapping was based upon tree canopy cover and tree size 

thresholds provided for each s-class in the biophysical setting model descriptions (Appendix A.2). 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1122 | Page

Departure Analysis 

Departure in ths project is defined as is the difference between a modeled reference condition and the 

current conditions in acres (Figure H-4). In an effort to frame ecological departure appropriately, TNC 

chose to look at the whole landscape and summarize departure for each analysis area (district) by 

alternative. This meant that the BLM s-class by alternative (Figure H-5) was mosaiced with the base 

GNN data (Figure H-6) to create a landscape s-class layer that combined both the BLM data and the 

GNN data (Figure H-7). 

This process of combining BLM data and GNN data was completed for each Alternative and departure 

was calculated for each of these mosaiced dataset. Seven different landscape s-class layers were 

developed: Current Condition, Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative C, Alternative D, No Action 

alternative, and No Timber Harvest alternative. 

Departure was calcuated for each combination of PVT and landscape unit (strata) and summarized as an 

acre value. Departue can be summarized in a deficit or excess acres of s-class or in a combined overall 

departure acres; both were summarized in this analysis. 

All the results were summerized by alternative and analysis unit in Excel as well as summarys of s-class 

by alternative to help frame the conversation and discussion in the RMP. 

Figure H-4. Example strata departure summary calculation. 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1123 | Page

Figure H-5. BLM s-class. 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1124 | Page

Figure H-6. GNN s-class data. 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1125 | Page

Figure H-7. BLM and GNN s-class data combined. 

References 

Barrett, S., D. Havlina, J. Jones, W. J. Hann, W. J., C. Frame, D. Hamilton, K. Schon, T. DeMeo, L. Hutter, and J. Menakis. 

2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Guidebook, version 3.0. USDA FS, USDI BLM, and The Nature 

Conservancy. http://www.frcc.gov/. 

ESSA Technologies. 2007. Vegetation dynamics development tool user guide, version 6.0. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, 

BC. p. 196. 

Halofsky, J. E., M. K. Creutzburg, and M. A. Hemstrom. In press. Integrating social, economic, and ecological values across 

large landscapes. General Technical Report, USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1126 | Page

Henderson, J. A., R. D. Lesher, D. H. Peter, and C. D. Ringo. 2011. A landscape model for predicting potential natural vegetation 

of the Olympic Peninsula USA using boundary equations and newly developed environmental variables. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-841. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 35 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr841.pdf. 

Keane, R. E., R. A. Parsons, and P. F. Hessburg. 2002. Estimating historical range and variation of landscape patch dynamics: 

limitations of the simulation approach. Ecol. Model. 151(1): 29-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00470-7. 

Keane, R. E., M. G. Rollins, and Z. L. Zhu. 2007. Using simulated historical time series to prioritize fuel treatments on 

landscapes across the United States: the LANDFIRE prototype project. Ecol. Model. 204(3): 485-502. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.02.005.

Keane, R. E., P. F. Hessburg, P. B. Landres, and F. J. Swanson. 2009. The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in 

landscape management. For. Ecol. Manage. 258(7): 1025-1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.035. 

Keane, R. E., L. M. Holsinger, and R. A. Parsons. 2011. Evaluating indices that measure departure of current landscape 

composition from historical conditions. RMRS-RP-83. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological 

systems. Ecol. Appl. 9(4): 1179-1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2641389. 

Low, G., L. Provencher, and S. L. Abele. 2010. Enhanced conservation action planning: assessing land-scape condition and 

predicting benefits of conservation strategies. J. Conser. Plan. 6: 36-60. 

Ohmann, J. L., and M. J. Gregory. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and 

nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32(4): 725-741. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/X02-011. 

Pratt, S. D., L. M. Holsinger, R. E. Keane, R. E. 2006. Using simulation modeling to assess historical reference conditions for

vegetation and fire regimes for the LANDFIRE prototype project. In: Rollins, M. G., and C. K. Frame (Eds.). The 

LANDFIRE prototype project: nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data for wildland fire management. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-175. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO. 

Provencher, L., J. L. Campbell, and J. Nachlinger. 2008. Implementation of mid-scale fire regime condition class mapping. Int. J. 

Wildland Fire 17(3): 390-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF07066. 

Rollins, M. G. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18: 

235-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF08088. 

Ryan, K. C., and T. S. Opperman. 2013. LANDFIRE – a national vegetation/fuels data base for use in fuels treatment, 

restoration, and suppression planning. For. Ecol. Management 294: 208-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.003. 

Shlisky, A. J., R. P. Guyette, and K. C. Ryan. 2005. Modeling reference conditions to restore altered fire regimes in oak-hickorypine forests: validating coarse models with local fire history data. In: EastFire Conference Proceedings. George Mason 

University, Fairfax, VA. pp. 12-13 

Simpson, M. 2007. Forested plant associations of the Oregon East Cascades. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-03-207. USDA 

FS, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 

USDA FS. 2004. Standards for mapping of vegetation in the Pacific Northwest Region. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Portland, OR. 22 pp.. 

Van Pelt, R. 2008. Identifying old trees and forests in Eastern Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 

Olympia, WA. 

Weisz, R., J. Tripeke, and R. Truman. 2009. Evaluating the ecological sustainability of a ponderosa pine ecosystem on the 

Kaibab Plateau in Northern Arizona. Fire Ecology 5(1): 100-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0501100. 

Issue 2 and 3 - Assumptions and District-Specific Results 

Issue 2 

How would the alternatives affect fire resistance in the fire-adapted dry forests at the stand level?

Issue 3 

How would the alternatives affect wildfire hazard at the stand – level within close proximity to 

developed areas? 

 Common Analytical Assumptions x The results of this analysis does not include effects from non-commercial hazardous fuels 

work, which would contribute toward increasing fire resistance and reducing fire hazard 

similarly among all alternatives. A large portion of non-commercial hazardous fuels work 

takes place on non-forested lands, which are not included in this analysis. 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1127 | Page

x Vegetation community structure is an important factor affecting potential fire behavior, postfire effects, fire resistance, and fire hazard. 

x General assumptions regarding vegetation structural stage classification and the probable fire 

behavior based on vertical and horizontal fuel profile were used to generate relative standlevel resistance to replacement fire and fire hazard ratings.

Table H-5. Acres of forested and non-forested BLM-administered lands within the planning area by 

district/field office. 

District/Field Office Forest (Acres) Non-Forest (Acres) Totals (Acres) 

Coos Bay 304,031 20,206 324,237 

Eugene 297,223 13,841 311,065 

Klamath Falls 46,773 167,312 214,085 

Medford 749,112 66,556 806,678 

Roseburg 399,165 24,477 423,642 

Salem 374,394 24,765 399,159 

Assumptions of General Stand Structure-Stage and Fire 

Interactions 

Early-Successional 

The BLM assumes that although early-successional communities have less than 30 percent canopy cover, 

resulting in somewhat discontinuous surface fuel loading, this structural stage is typically comprised of 

highly flammable vegetation (Agee 1993). When combined with open conditions that can increase surface 

wind speeds and flames lengths (Pollet and Omi 2002, Rothermel 1983), in general, this structural stage 

presents relatively moderate resistance to replacement fire and moderate fire hazard. 

Stand–establishment and High-Density Young Stands 

The stand establishment and high-density young stand structural stages maintain low canopy base heights 

and a combination of highly flammable early-successional vegetation, along with increased cover. In 

general, these structural stages present relatively low resistance to replacement fire and high fire hazard 

(Odion et al. 2004, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995). 

Low-Density Young Stands 

Although, the canopy base height may be low in young stands of lower density, in general, there is greater 

separation between crowns (vertically and horizontally). This discontinuity in the fuel profile results in 

relatively lower canopy bulk densities, moderate fire hazard, and moderate resistance to replacement fire 

within both the younger and structural legacy components of the stand. 

Structural Legacies 

The stand establishment and high-density young stand structural stages maintain low canopy base heights 

and a combination of highly flammable early-successional vegetation, along with increased cover. In 

general, these structural stages present relatively low resistance to replacement fire and high fire hazard 

(Odion et al. 2004, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995). However, both early-successional and stand 

establishment phases with structural legacies would have some separation of crown layers between legacy 

trees and understory vegetation, resulting in somewhat discontinuous ladder fuels and increased fire 

resistance in structural legacies. Pockets of heavy surface and ladder fuels may result in potential 

mortality to structural legacies from cambial damage (trees < 20" DBH have a 35-70% mortality, USDI 

BLM 2008 WOPR) or passive torching. This potential for cambial damage to overstory legacy structures 

increases along with understory vegetative cover and height (Peterson et al. 2005). Despite some potential 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1128 | Page

separation in crown layers, in general, young high density stands have high continuous surface and ladder 

fuel loading, low canopy fuel base heights, and taller vegetation, relative to early successional and stand 

establishment vegetation. This fuel profile in the young high density stands increases crown fire potential 

of the young stand component and structural legacies (Odion et al. 2004), resulting in lower relative 

resistance to replacement fire and higher fire hazard. 

Overstory canopy cover from structural legacies could also partially shelter the stand, reducing surface 

winds and slowing the drying of fuels (NWCG 2014 Fire Behavior Field Reference Guide), and thus help 

moderate fire behavior. Alternatively, open stand conditions have the potential to increase surface winds 

and thus flame lengths (Pollet and Omi 2002, Rothermel 1983). Increased winds in combination with low 

canopy base heights can increase torching potential and fire hazard, therefore no distinction is made 

between early-successional, stand establishment, and young stands with structural legacies in regards to 

fire hazard. 

Mature Single-layered Canopy 

In general, mature single layer stands have low surface fuel loading (due to closed canopy shading 

inhibiting understory growth), higher canopy base heights, and thus a lower probability of torching and 

crown fire initiation within stand, creating a low stand-level fire hazard condition (Jain et al. 2012). 

Although, continuous canopy cover of high canopy bulk density is susceptible to crown fire spread from 

adjacent stands (Scott and Reinhardt 2001, Jain and Graham 2007, Jain et al. 2012). 

Mature Multi-layered Canopy and Structurally-complex 

Multi-layered and structurally mature and older forests have the potential to exhibit the full range of fire 

behavior (surface to crown fire). In general, these structural stages have heterogeneous composition, 

which can alter fire spread (Jain et al. 2012, Finney 2001) and a greater number of large diameter (> 20 

in. DBH) trees with thick bark, improving stand-level fire resistance, and reducing stand-level fire hazard 

(Agee and Skinner 2005) and potentially increasing the likelihood of burning at low to moderate severity 

(Alexander et al. 2006). Multi-aged closed forest conditions can potentially create a vertical fuel ladder 

for surface fire to reach the canopy (North et al. 2009) and support accumulations of continuous heavy 

surface and ladder fuels, and increase the potential for torching and crown fire, significantly reducing 

resistance to control. Alternatively, these structural types can create influential microclimates and shelter 

surface winds, harboring conditions that are more likely to result in lowered fire severity (Odion et al. 

2004), particularly in topographic locations with low fire probability. 

Ultimately, fire behavior in these structural stages will result from several factors, including weather, fuel 

moisture, and topographic influences, along with the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuel profile. 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1129 | Page

Table H-6. BLM defined structural stages and subdivisions, relative stand-level resistance to replacement 

fire ratings and assumptions regarding overall fuel profile continuity, and vertical and horizontal fuel 

continuity. 

Structural 

Stages Subdivisions 

Resistance to 

Replacement 

Fire 

Assumptions Behind Resistance Ratings 

Entire Fuel Profile 

continuity 

Horizontal Fuel 

Profile Continuity 

Vertical Fuel 

Profile Continuity 

Early 

Successional 

with Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Semi-discontinuous Semi-discontinuous 

without Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Continuous Semi-discontinuous 

Stand 

Establishment 

with Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Semi-discontinuous Continuous 

without Structural Legacies Low Continuous Continuous Continuous 

Young Stands –

High Density 

with Structural Legacies Low Continuous Continuous Continuous 

without Structural Legacies Low Continuous Continuous Continuous 

Young Stands – 

Low Density 

with Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Continuous Semi-discontinuous 

without Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Continuous Semi-discontinuous 

Mature Single-Layered Canopy High Discontinuous Discontinuous Continuous 

Multi-layered Canopy Mixed Mixed continuity Mixed continuity Mixed continuity 

Structurally 

Complex

Developed Structurally 

Complex Mixed Mixed continuity Mixed continuity Mixed continuity 

Existing Old Forest Mixed Mixed continuity Mixed continuity Mixed continuity 

Existing Very Old Forest Mixed Mixed continuity Mixed continuity Mixed continuity 

Table H-7. BLM defined structural stages and subdivisions, relative stand-level fire hazard ratings and 

assumptions regarding surface fuel loading, canopy base height, and canopy fuel bulk density (continuity) 

as the basis for the hazard rating. 

Structural 

Stages Subdivisions 

Fire 

Hazard 

Rating 

Assumptions Behind Hazard Ratings 

Surface 

Fuel 

Loading 

Canopy 

Base 

Height 

Canopy Fuel 

Bulk Density 

(Continuity) 

Early 

Successional 

with Structural legacies Moderate 

Low Low 

Moderate without Structural Legacies Moderate 

Stand 

Establishment 

with Structural Legacies High 

High without Structural Legacies High 

Young Stands –

High Density 

with Structural Legacies High 

without Structural Legacies High 

Young Stands –

Low Density 

with Structural Legacies Moderate 

without Structural Legacies Moderate Moderate 

Mature Single-Layered Canopy Low Moderate High 

Multi-Layered Canopy Mixed 

Structurally Mixed 

Complex

Developed Structurally Complex Mixed 

Existing Old Forest Mixed 

Existing Very Old Forest Mixed 

Issue 2 - Stand-Level Fire Resistance in the Harvest Land Base 

by District 
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1130 | Page

Figure H-8. Stand-level fire resistance categories in the Harvest Land Base in the dry forest in the 

Klamath Falls Field Office for the current condition and each alternative in 50 years. 

Figure H-9. Stand-level fire resistance categories in the Harvest Land Base in the dry forest on the 

Medford District for the current condition and each alternative in 50 years. 

 14,738 

 6,870 

 10,048 

 4,708 

 13,179 

 7,937 

 13,202 12,102 11,485 

5,606 

 7,468 

 13,615 

 3,609 

 331 

 5,913 

 539 

 6,415 

 4,952 

 5,844 

6,785 

 6,899 

 6,242 

 363 

 6,751 

 6,127 

 14,783 

 4,190 7,834 2,633 

7,301 

 7,714 10,092 3,365 

 5,594 

 7,555 9,516 7,797 6,715 7,007 7,277 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

No Action (36,820) Alt. A (17,384) Alt. B (32,775) Alt. C (31,603) Alt. D (26,969)

Dry Forest Harvest Land Base by Alternative (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High

 143,365 

 90,940 

 41,131 43,716 

 76,828 

 49,325 

 84,057 69,696 90,749 

54,342 

 54,805 

 118,525 

 20,141 16,760 

 28,812 

 14,754 

 33,460 

 24,383 

 39,375 

23,190 

 164,820 119,694 

 17,759 14,858 

 84,835 

 106,028 

 71,240 

 74,184 

 70,049 

90,146 

 22,644 56,484 6,250 9,946 13,345 33,722 13,652 34,147 14,125 

46,620 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

No Action

(385,643)

Alt. A (85,281) Alt. B (203,829) Alt. C (202,410) Alt. D (214,298)

Dry Forest Harvest Land Base by Alternative (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1131 | Page

Figure H-10. Stand-level fire resistance categories in the Harvest Land Base in the dry forest on the 

Roseburg District for the current condition and each alternative in 50 years. 

Issue 3 - Stand-Level Fire Hazard Within Wildland Developed 

Areas by District 

Stand-level fire hazard within close proximity to developed areas – All BLM lands by District 

Figure H-11. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Coos Bay District within the 

WDA, current condition and by alternative in 2063. 

 21,805 

 11,326 

 12,785 14,352 20,061 

 10,382 

 23,196 20,081 25,350 

13,891 

 8,567 

 21,247 

 6,149 5,541 7,551 

 1,787 

 8,811 

 5,761 

 12,077 

5,210 

 28,671 

 14,127 

 2,861 

 366 

 3,545 

 9,979 

 8,956 

 7,970 

 8,438 

13,157 

 3,056 

 15,401 

 1,353 2,889 1,568 

 10,576 

 2,211 

 9,363 

 2,231 

15,837 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

No Action (62,100) Alt. A (23,149) Alt. B (32,725) Alt. C (43,175) Alt. D (48,095)

Dry Forest Harvest Land Base by Alternative (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High

17,474 

34,144 31,975 35,312 28,456 35,495 

3,833 

8,431 7,299 8,761 9,588 3,643 

33,904 

48,796 47,583 

52,448 

45,107 

56,858 

54,565 

18,406 22,919 13,255 26,625 13,780 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres) 

Low Moderate Mixed High
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1132 | Page

Figure H-12. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Eugene District within the 

WDA, current condition and by alternative in 2063. 

Figure H-13. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Klamath Falls Field Office 

within the WDA, current condition and by alternative in 2063. 

33,204 

47,975 46,699 45,365 40,517 

44,034 

2,362 

9,242 8,743 18,003 14,275 

5,392 

44,510 

71,050 66,350 

67,144 

44,856 

79,979 

59,669 

11,478 17,953 9,233 

40,097 

10,340 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres) 

Low Moderate Mixed High

294 

894 

851 794 379 

649 

452 

326 

42 111 647 

345 

755 

691 

1,059 1,115 

635 763 

924 

514 474 405 

764 668 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres) 

Low Moderate Mixed High
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1133 | Page

Figure H-14. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Medford District within the 

WDA, current condition and by alternative in 2063. 

Figure H-15. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Roseburg District within the 

WDA, current condition and by alternative in 2063. 

22,951 55,038 55,946 56,383 54,710 59,131 31,677 

41,620 27,302 23,966 26,784 23,015 

166,357 

153,169 195,417 204,527 197,650 202,169 

159,639 130,806 101,968 95,758 101,488 96,318 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres) 

Low Moderate Mixed High

5,099 

38,638 35,755 30,785 23,896 40,946 7,179 

6,127 6,195 11,349 

10,369 

3,855 

65,050 

58,514 72,221 75,954 

64,497 

75,179 

72,123 

46,173 35,281 31,363 

50,689 

29,472 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres) 

Low Moderate Mixed High
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1134 | Page

Figure H-16. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Salem District within the 

WDA, current condition and by alternative in 2063. 

Issue 3 - Stand-Level Fire Hazard for Late-Successional 

Reserves Within Wildland Developed Areas by Planning Area 

Region

27,728 

40,065 39,200 38,109 34,796 38,528 3,200 

7,731 10,408 17,136 16,943 7,622 

40,230 

63,524 52,450 

56,328 

42,679 62,498 

53,867 

13,706 22,969 13,453 

30,608 

16,378 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres) 

Low Moderate Mixed High

 9,268 

 17,044 

 27,103 37,560 36,126 

 55,324 

 21,702 

 29,933 

 11,298 6,483 

 852 

 511 

 2,899 

 1,986 

 3,623 

 2,553 

 1,574 

 1,006 

 1,143 971 

 20,546 

 30,863 

 64,651 

 89,099 

 72,435 

 107,244 

 50,373 

 72,445 

 45,683 54,593 

 20,714 

 2,962 

 41,995 

 8,003 

 63,866 

 10,930 

 35,366 

 5,632 8,519 4,597 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year 2063 Current

Condition

Year 2063 Current

Condition

Year 2063 Current

Condition

Year 2063 Current

Condition

Year 2063

No Action (51,380) Alt. A (136,648) Alt. B (176,050) Alt. C (174,520) Alt. D (115,448)

Late Successional Reserve within WUI by Alternative (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1135 | Page

Figure H-17. Stand-level fire hazard in the Late-Successional Reserves in the dry forest in the 

coastal/north for the current condition and each alternative in 50 years. 

Figure H-18. Stand-level fire hazard in the Late-Successional Reserves in the dry forest in the 

interior/south for the current condition and each alternative in 50 years. 

 

 2,126 10,304 15,681 

 49,325 

 9,709 

 28,394 

 11,534 

 26,528 

 7,985 17,490 3,500 

 1,505 

 10,436 

 10,800 

 7,903 

 3,710 

 8,816 

 5,673 

 4,235 

4,450 

 27,273 

 28,304 

 165,847 

 188,020 

 116,283 

 128,459 

131,041 

 142,063 

 117,057 

125,260 

 17,569 

 10,356 

 96,052 

 39,871 

 51,366 

 24,698 

 52,190 

 29,317 34,549 

16,625 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year 2063 Current

Condition

Year 2063 Current

Condition

Year 2063 Current

Condition

Year 2063 Current

Condition

Year 2063

No Action (305,016) Alt. A (288,016) Alt. B (185,262) Alt. C (184,150) Alt. D (163,151)

Late Successional Reserve within WUI by Alternative (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High
Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

1136 | Page

References 

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of the Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, D.C. Island Press. 493 pp. 

Agee, J. K. and C. N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211(1-

2): 83-96. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.034. 

Alexander J. D., N. E. Seavy, C. J. Ralph, and B. Hogoboom. 2006. Vegetation and topographical correlates of fire severity from

two fires in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of Oregon and California. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15: 237–245. 

http://www.klamathbird.org/images/stories/kbo/pdfs_peer_reviewed_publications/alexanderetal_2006_vegetationandtopogr

aphical.pdf. 

Finney, M. A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior. Forest Science 

47: 219-228. 

Jain T. B. and R. T. Graham. 2007. The relation between tree burn severity and forest structure in the Rocky Mountains. 

Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: Proceedings of the 2005 National Silviculture Workshop. USDA Forest Service Gen. 

Tech. Rep PSW-GTR-203. USDA FS, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 

Jain, T. B., M. A. Battaglia, Han-Sup Han, R. T. Graham, C. R. Keyes, J. S. Fried, J. E. Sandquist. 2012. A comprehensive guide

to fuel management practices for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR292.: USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 331 pp. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42150. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2014. Fire behavior field reference guide. Publication PMS 437.National 

Interagency Fire Center, Fire Environment Committee, Boise, ID. 

North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski, and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixedconifer forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. USDA FS, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 49 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr220/psw_gtr220.pdf.

Odion D. C., E. J. Frost, J. R. Strittholt, H. Jiang, D. A. Dellasala, M. A. Moritz. 2004. Patterns of Fire Severity and Forest

Conditions in the Western Klamath Mountains, California. Conservation Biology 18(4): 927-936. DOI:10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2004.00493.x. 

Pollet, J., and P. N. Omi. 2002. Effects of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(1): 1-10. doi:10.1071/WF01045. 

Peterson, D. L., M. C. Johnson, J. K. Agee, T. B. Jain, D. McKenzie, and E. D. Reinhardt. 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard 

in dry forests of the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-628. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 30 pp. 

Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-143. USDA FS, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 161 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr143.pdf. 

Scott, J. H., and E. D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Res. 

Pap. RMRS-RP-29. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 59 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. Portland, OR. Vol. I-IV. 

Weatherspoon, C. P., and C. N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 

wildfires in northern California. Forest Science 41(3): 430-451.

 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1137 | Page

Appendix I – Best Management Practices 

Introduction 

A Best Management Practice or BMP is a practice, or combination of practices that have been 

determined to be the most eơective and practicable in preventing or reducing the amount of pollution 

generated by diơuse sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (40 CFR 130.2 [m]). 

The BMPs described in this appendix are methods, measures, or practices selected based on sitespeci¿c conditions to ensure that water quality would be maintained at its highest practicable level to 

meet water quality standards and TMDL load allocations as set by the State of Oregon, Department of 

Environmental Quality. These site-specific BMPs are a compilation of commonly employed practices 

developed through professional experience or research, and designed to minimize water quality 

degradation and loss of soil productivity. The BMPs include, but are not limited to, avoidance, 

structural and nonstructural treatments, operations, and maintenance procedures. Although normally 

preventative, BMPs can be applied before, during, and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or 

eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA Water Quality 

Standards Regulation). The implementation of these BMPs would be the beginning of an iterative 

process that includes the monitoring and modification of BMPs, where needed, to achieve water 

quality goals. This cyclic process would be the primary mechanism to achieve Oregon’s water quality 

standards. 

The BLM is responsible for implementing BMPs on the lands it administers.135 The BMPs provide 

compliance with the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, State of Oregon water quality legislation 

(chapter 340), and the O&C Act. For proposed management actions, BMPs would be designed and 

implemented in a manner that is consistent with the DEQ Memorandum of Understanding (2011), and 

with the Clean Water Act. The BLM believes the BMPs are at least as protective as the rules adopted 

under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, covering similar operations on state and private forestlands. 

The Resource Management Plan allocations and Management Objectives, especially relating to the 

Riparian Reserve, are broad scale BMPs. For vegetation treatments using herbicides on BLMadministered lands in the decision area, BMPs are included in Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

on BLM Lands in Oregon Record of Decision, October 2010 as mitigation measures and standard 

operating practices, incorporated by reference. Briefly, mitigation and standard operating procedures in 

Attachment A; General, Soil, Water Resources, Wetlands and Riparian Areas, Fish and Other Aquatic 

Organisms, Recreation and other beneficial uses and values (pp. 33-45), and additional mitigation (pp. 

13-15) are considered BMPs for herbicide treatments. For other management activities, including 

minerals exploration and development, linear transmission projects and most hazardous materials, the 

mechanism to achieve Oregon State Water Quality Standards would be guided by existing Management 

Direction, other regulations or separate Environmental Analysis and not necessarily be covered by the 

BMPs contained in this RMP. For example, management of locatable minerals is non-discretionary and 

governed by regulations found in 43 CFR 3809. The BMPs for locatable minerals include language from 

43 CFR 3809 that requires operators to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation from mining 

operations. 

 

135 The DEQ has granted Designated Management Agency status to the BLM through the Memorandum of Understanding. 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1138 | Page

The following lists of site-specific BMPs are more detailed than, and in addition to, the Management 

Objectives contained in the RMP. The BMPs are not intended to be all-inclusive nor replace site-specific 

project planning, which may require the use of different or additional BMP practices. 

Purpose 

Best management practices (BMPs) are required by the federal Clean Water Act (1972), as amended to 

reduce nonpoint source pollution to the maximum extent practicable. Nonpoint source pollution is defined 

as pollutants detected in water bodies such as a streams, or lakes that come from the landscape in a 

dispersed manner, often related to a wide range of forest and rangeland ground disturbing activities. The 

BMPs are the primary controls for achieving Oregon’s water quality standards pertaining to nonpoint 

source pollution. Oregon’s narrative and numeric criteria within water quality standards, are designed to 

protect designated bene¿cial uses (such as salmonid spawning and rearing, resident ¿sh and aquatic life, 

domestic water supplies, and water-contact recreation). 

BLM’s and DEQ's strategy for managing and controlling nonpoint source water pollution from BLMmanaged lands in the State of Oregon is through a Memorandum of Understanding (2011) between the 

State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the United States Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, (BLM).This MOU defines the process by which the BLM and 

DEQ will cooperatively meet State and Federal water quality rules and regulations. The physical, 

chemical, and biological conditions of "waters of the State" that support beneficial uses (defined in 

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS), Chapter 468B Water Quality, and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), 

Division 41) would be protected, restored, and maintained by working in a proactive, collaborative, and 

adaptive manner. The MOU specifies that the BLM would implement site-specific BMPs as specified in 

Management Objectives, standards, guidelines, design features, and mitigation developed in Resource 

Management Plans (RMP), RMP amendments, project level plans, and Water Quality Restoration Plans 

(WQRP) to meet applicable water quality standards. Monitoring is required, under the MOU, to ensure 

that practices are properly designed and applied, to determine the effectiveness of practices in meeting 

water quality standards, and adjustment of BMPs when it is found that water quality standards are not 

being protected. 

Organization, Selection, and Application of BMPs 

The tables that follow this introduction are organized by core activities on BLM-administered lands in 

the Decision Area. For each core activity, the sequential number, and Best Management Practice is 

listed first in the left columns, the source, or reference in the center column, and the applicable DEQ 

narrative or numeric water quality standards in the right column. The right column identifies the DEQ 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) number(s), and provides OAR references within the roads and 

landings section, to compare these BMPs to similar Oregon Department of Forestry OARs. 

Core activities with BMPs include: 

x Road and landing maintenance and construction

x Timber harvest activities

x Silvicultural activities

x Fire and fuels management

x Surface source water for drinking water

x Recreation management

x Range management
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1139 | Page

x Minerals (salable) development 

x Spill prevention and abatement

x Restoration activities 

x Dry forest-specific BMPs

Those BMPs that are necessary for typical situations have been included. When applied, the BLM 

would expect BMPs to prevent water quality degradation and to meet water quality standards and 

TMDL load allocations.

Selection of BMPs are made by decision-makers using input from soil, water, ¿sheries, geology and 

other professionals during project-level analyses. It is not intended that all of the BMPs listed will be 

selected for any speci¿c management action. Each activity is unique, based on site-speci¿c conditions 

and the selection of an individual BMP or a combination of BMPs and measures that becomes the BMP 

design. Resource aspects of land management activities normally have many facets that require sitespeci¿c BMP design. Therefore, there may be some repetition of the BMPs between sections of the 

following tables. An activity may use an individual BMP, whereas another activity may involve BMPs 

in combination from several core management activities for water quality protection. 

BMPs that relate to instream activities may coincidently be similar to applicable practices speci¿ed in 

Army Corps of Engineers, Department of State Lands, and ODFW joint removal/¿ll permits, DEQ 

water quality permits and 401 certi¿cations, or project design criteria contained in biological 

assessments. The BMPs in the following tables are not speci¿c permit requirements, but rather 

demonstrate the process by which nonpoint source pollution from instream activities would be 

controlled.

The BMPs are practices, techniques, or management strategies that have been evaluated through 

common practice or studies, and are shown to be an eơective and practical means of preventing or 

reducing nonpoint source pollution. The BMPs are not intended to serve as detailed engineering 

speci¿cations or design criteria. Such speci¿cations are available for ¿eld use from various sources.

The BMPs would be applied in a manner that is consistent with all Resource Management Plan 

objectives. The overall goal is not to adhere strictly to a particular BMP(s), but to meet water quality 

objectives when implementing management actions. Although this appendix does not provide an 

exhaustive list of BMPs, the included BMPs, when applied correctly for varying ground-disturbing 

activities, would maintain water quality for the range of project activities in the Decision Area. 

Additional nonpoint source control measures would be identi¿ed during the interdisciplinary process 

when evaluating site-speci¿c management actions.

Monitoring and Adjustment 

BMPs are selected and applied, based upon site-specific conditions, technical feasibility, resource 

availability and the water quality of those water bodies potentially impacted. Specialists may consider 

baseline environmental conditions, type of activity, proximity to water, disturbance level, direct, indirect, 

and cumulative eơects and timing. They may also evaluate new technology and relevant implementation 

or eơectiveness monitoring data, and published studies or other sources of information, in re¿ning 

existing BMPs or recommending new BMPs. Post-project implementation monitoring of selected BMPs 

demonstrate that BMPs are carried forward from the project level plans, and properly designed and 

applied. Effectiveness monitoring demonstrates that selected BMPs meet water quality standards and 

criteria and assure protection of beneficial uses. Modification of BMPs would be initiated when it is 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1140 | Page

found that water quality standards are not being protected. This process involves continued learning and 

applying monitoring feedback. Summarizing thousands of on-site evaluations show that BMPs protect 

surface waters and are implemented correctly at least 86% of the time and are effective in 85% to 99% of 

applications (Rogers 2007, USDA FS 2012). 

Review and update of this appendix, including BMP corrections or additions that are within the core 

subject areas of existing BMPs, would be completed through plan maintenance.

Roads and Landings 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table I-1. Best management practices for roads and landings. 

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

General Construction 

R 1

Locate temporary and permanent roads 

and landings on stable locations, e.g., 

ridge tops, stable benches, or flats, and 

gentle-to-moderate side slopes. 

Minimize construction on steep slopes, 

slide areas, and high landslide hazard 

locations. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 1, 

p. 270.

OAR 629-625-0200 (3) 

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 2

Locate temporary and permanent road 

construction or improvement to 

minimize the number of stream 

crossings.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 2, 

p. 270.

OAR 629-625-0200 (3-

4)

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 3

Locate roads and landings away from 

wetlands, Riparian Reserves, 

floodplains and waters of the State, 

unless there is no practicable 

alternative. Avoid locating landings in 

areas that contribute runoff to channels. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 4, 

p. 270.

OAR 629-625-0200 (2)

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 4

Locate roads and landings to reduce 

total transportation system mileage. 

Renovate or improve existing roads or 

landings when it would cause less

adverse environmental impact. Where 

roads traverse land in another 

ownership, investigate options for using 

those roads before constructing new 

roads.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 2, 

p. 270.

EPA 2005, pp. 3-12, 

Bullet 1

OAR 629-625-0200 (5) 

EPA 2005, pp. 3-10, 

Bullet 1 

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 5

Design roads to the minimum width 

needed for the intended use as 

referenced in BLM Manual 9113.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 8, 

p. 271.

OAR 629-625-0310 (3) 

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 6 Confine pioneer roads to the USDI BLM 2008, OAR 629-625-0410-ODF, Disposal of Waste 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1141 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

construction limits of the permanent 

roadway to reduce the amount of area 

disturbed and avoid deposition in 

wetlands, Riparian Reserves, 

floodplains and waters of the State. 

Install temporary drainage, erosion, and 

sediment control structures. Storm 

proof or close pioneer roads prior to the 

onset of the wet season. 

Appendix I-Water, R 

11, p. 271.

EPA 2005, p. 3-41, 

Bullet 2

Materials

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 7

Design road cut and fill slopes with 

stable angles, to reduce erosion and 

prevent slope failure.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 3, 

p. 270.

EPA 2005 

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 8

End-haul material excavated during 

construction, renovation, and/or 

maintenance where side slopes 

generally exceed 60 percent and any 

slope where side-cast material may 

enter wetlands, floodplains, and waters 

of the State. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

10, p. 271.

EPA 2005, pp. 3-12, 

Bullet 5

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 9

Construct road fills to prevent fill 

failure using inorganic material, 

compaction, buttressing, sub-surface 

drainage, rock facing, or other effective 

means.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

13, p. 271.

OAR 629-625-0310-5 

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 10 

Design and construct sub-surface 

drainage in landslide prone areas and 

saturated soils (e.g., trench drains using 

geo-textile fabrics and drain pipes). 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

19, p. 272.

DEQ 2005, RC-1, RC6, pp.4-5, 4-6 

OAR 629-625-0300-ODF, Road Design

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 11 

Locate waste disposal areas outside 

wetlands, Riparian Reserves, 

floodplains and unstable areas to 

minimize risk of sediment delivery to 

waters of the State. Apply surface 

erosion control prior to the wet season. 

Prevent overloading areas, which may 

become unstable.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

80, p. 281.

OAR 629-625-0340

OAR 629-625-0340-ODF, 

Waste Disposal Areas 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity

OAR 340-041-0036 

R 12 

Use controlled blasting techniques to 

minimize loss of material on steep 

slopes or into wetlands, Riparian 

Reserves, floodplains, and waters of the 

State. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

12, p. 271.

OAR 629-625-0410-ODF, Disposal of Waste 

Materials

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 13 

Use temporary sediment control 

measures (e.g., check dams, silt 

fencing, bark bags, filter strips and 

mulch) to slow runoff and contain 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

14, p. 271.

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1142 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

sediment from road construction areas. 

Remove any accumulated sediment and 

the control measures when work or 

haul is complete. When long-term 

structural sediment control measures 

are incorporated into the final erosion 

control plan, remove any accumulated 

sediment to retain capacity of the 

control measure. 

DEQ 2005, RC-11 Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 14 

Avoid use of road fills for water 

impoundment dams unless specifically 

designed for that purpose. 

Impoundments over 9.2-acre feet or 10 

feet in depth will require a dam safety 

assessment by a registered engineer. 

Upgrade existing road fill 

impoundments to pass 100-year flood 

events. 

OAR 629-625-0310-5 

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Permanent Stream Crossings 

R 15 

Design culverts, bridges, and other 

stream crossings for the 100-year flood 

event including allowance for bed load 

and anticipated floatable debris.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

45, p. 276.

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 16 

Minimize fill volumes at permanent 

and temporary stream crossings by 

restricting width and height of fill to 

amounts needed for safe travel and 

adequate cover for culverts. For deep 

fills (generally greater than 15 feet 

deep,) incorporate additional design 

criteria (e.g., rock blankets, buttressing, 

bioengineering techniques) to reduce 

the susceptibility of fill failures. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

47, p. 276.

OAR 629-625 -0320 

(1b)

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 17 

Locate stream-crossing culverts on 

well-defined, unobstructed, and straight 

reaches of stream. Locate these 

crossings as close to perpendicular to 

the streamflow as stream allows. When 

structure cannot be aligned 

perpendicular, provide inlet and outlet 

structures that protect fill, and 

minimize bank erosion. Choose 

crossings that have well defined stream 

channels with erosion resistant bed and 

banks. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

48, p. 276.

EPA 2005, pp. 3-14

Gesford and Anderson 

2006, pp. 5-30 

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 18 

On new construction, install culverts at 

the natural stream grade, unless a lessor 

gradient is required for fish passage. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

49, p. 276. 

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1143 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

R 19 

Use stream crossing protection 

techniques to allow floodwater and 

debris to flow over the top of the road 

prism without the loss of the fill or 

diversion of streamflow. This 

protection could include hardening 

crossings, armoring fills, dipping 

grades, oversizing culverts, hardening 

inlets and outlets, and lowering the fill 

height. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

53, p. 277.

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 20 

Design stream crossings to prevent 

diversion of water from streams into 

downgrade road ditches or down road 

surfaces.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

31, p. 274.

OAR 629-625 -0330 (3) 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 21 

Place instream grade control structures 

above or below the crossing structure, 

if necessary, to prevent stream 

headcutting, culvert undermining and 

downstream sedimentation. Employ 

bioengineering measures to protect the 

stability of the streambed and banks. 

DEQ 2005 , RC - 2 

Gesford and Anderson 

2006, pp 5-31. 

USDA FS 2002 Chapter 

20

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 22 

Prevent culvert plugging and failure in 

areas of active debris movement with 

measures such as beveled culvert inlets, 

flared inlets, wingwalls, over-sized 

culverts, trash racks, or slotted risers. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

59, p. 278.

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 23 

Utilize stream diversion and isolation 

techniques when installing stream 

crossings. Evaluate the physical 

characteristics of the site, volume of 

water flowing through the project area 

and the risk of erosion and 

sedimentation when selecting the 

proper techniques. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

50, R 51, p. 277.

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 24 

Limit activities and access points of 

mechanized equipment to streambank 

areas or temporary platforms when 

installing or removing structures. Keep 

equipment activity in the stream 

channel to an absolute minimum.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

52, p. 277.

OAR 629-625-0430 (2) 

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 25 

Install stream crossing structures before 

heavy equipment moves beyond the 

crossing area.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

60, p. 278.

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1144 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 26 

Disconnect the road runoff to the 

stream channel by outsloping the road 

approach. If outsloping is not possible, 

use runoff control, erosion control and 

sediment containment measures. These 

may include using additional cross 

drain culverts, ditch lining, and

catchment basins. Prevent or reduce 

ditch flow conveyance to the stream 

through cross drain placement above 

the stream crossing. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

26, p. 273, R 33 p. 274. 

Gesford and Anderson 

2006, pp. 5-22. 

OAR 629-625-0330 (4) 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Temporary Stream Crossings for Roads and Skid Trails 

R 27 

When installing temporary culverts, use 

washed rock as a backfill material. Use 

geotextile fabric as necessary where 

washed rock will spread with traffic 

and cannot be practicably retrieved. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

63, p. 279.

DEQ 2005, NS-3 

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 28 

Use no-fill structures (e.g., portable 

mats, temporary bridges, or improved 

hardened crossings) for temporary 

stream crossings. When not practicable, 

design temporary stream crossings with 

the least amount of fill and construct 

with coarse material to facilitate 

removal upon completion.

OAR 629-625-0320 (2) 

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 29 

Remove temporary crossing structures 

promptly after use. Follow practices 

under the Closure/Decommissioning 

section for removing stream crossing 

drainage structures and reestablishing 

the natural drainage.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

65, p. 279.

OAR 629-625-0430 (5) 

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Surface Drainage 

R 30 

Effectively drain the road surface by 

using crowning, insloping or 

outsloping, grade reversals (rolling 

dips) and waterbars or a combination of 

these methods. Avoid concentrated 

discharge onto fill slopes unless the fill 

slopes are stable and erosion proofed. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

22, p. 272.

EPA 2005, p. 3-41 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 31 

Outslope temporary and permanent low 

volume roads to provide surface 

drainage on road gradients up to 6% 

unless there is a traffic hazard from the 

road shape.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

23, R 24, p. 273.

EPA 2005, p. 3-42 

USDA FS 2002 

Chapter 13 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 32 

Consider using broadbased drainage 

dips and/or lead-off ditches in lieu of 

cross drains for low volume roads. 

Locate these surface water drainage 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

25, R 26, p. 273.

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1145 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

measures where they will not drain into 

wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the 

State. 

EPA 2005, pp. 3-41-45 

USDA FS 2002 Chapter 

13

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 33 

Avoid use of outside road berms unless 

designed to protect road fills from 

runoff. If road berms are used, breach 

to accommodate drainage where fill 

slopes are stable.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

27, p. 273. 

Gesford and Anderson 

2006, pp. 3-7. 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 34 

Construct variable road grades and 

alignments (e.g., roll the grade, grade 

breaks) which limit water 

concentration, velocity, flow distance 

and associated stream power.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

28, p. 273.

Gesford and Anderson 

2006, pp. 5-20. 

OAR 629-625-0310 (1) 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 35 

Install underdrain structures when 

roads cross or expose springs, seeps, or 

wet areas rather than allowing 

intercepted water to flow downgradient 

in ditchlines.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

29, p. 273.

OAR 629-625-0330 (5) 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 36 

Design roads crossing low-lying areas 

so that water does not pond on the 

upslope side of the road. Provide cross 

drains at short intervals to ensure free 

drainage.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

19, p. 272.

EPA 2005, p. 3-14, 

Bullet 1

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 37 

Divert road and landing runoff water 

away from headwalls, slide areas, high 

landslide hazard locations, or steep 

erodible fill slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

29, p. 273.

OAR 629-625-0330 (2) 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 38 Design landings to disperse surface 

water to vegetated stable areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

30, p. 274.

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Cross Drains 

R 39 

Locate cross drains to prevent or 

minimize runoff and sediment

conveyance to wetlands, Riparian 

Reserves, floodplains, and waters of the 

State. Implement sediment reduction 

techniques such as settling basins, 

brush filters, sediment fences, and 

check dams to prevent or minimize 

sediment conveyance. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

33, p. 274.

OAR 629-625 -0330 (4) 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1146 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

R 40 

Space cross drain culverts at intervals 

sufficient to prevent water volume 

concentration and accelerated ditch 

erosion. At a minimum, space cross 

drains at intervals referred to in the 

BLM Road Design Handbook 9113-1, 

Illustration 11 -"Spacing for Drainage 

Lateral.” Increase cross drain frequency 

through erodible soils, steep grades, 

and unstable areas. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

34, p. 274.

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 41 

Choose cross drain culvert diameter 

and type according to predicted ditch 

flow, debris and bedload passage 

expected from the ditch. Minimum 

diameter is 18 inches.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

35, p. 274.

Johansen et al. 1997, p. 

3.

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 42 

Locate surface water drainage measures 

( e.g., cross drain culverts, rolling dips, 

water bars) where water flow will be 

released on convex slopes or other 

stable and non-erosive areas that will 

absorb road drainage and prevent 

sediment flows from reaching wetlands, 

floodplains and waters of the State. 

Where possible locate surface water 

drainage structures above road 

segments with steeper downhill grade. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

26, p. 273.

Johansen et al. 1997, p 

3.

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 43 

Armor surface drainage structures (e.g., 

broad based dips, leadoff ditches) to 

maintain functionality in areas of 

erosive and low strength soils.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

38, p. 275.

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 44 

Discharge cross drain culverts at 

ground level on non-erodible material. 

Install downspout structures and/or 

energy dissipaters at cross drain outlets 

or drivable dips where water is 

discharged onto loose material, erodible 

soils, fills, or steep slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

39, R 40, p. 275.

DEQ 2005, RC-2 

Gesford and Anderson 

2006, pp. 5-31. 

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 45 

Cut protruding "shotgun" culverts at the 

fill surface or existing ground. Install 

downspout and/or energy dissipaters to 

prevent erosion.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

41, p. 275.

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 46 

Skew cross drain culverts 45 to 60 

degrees from the ditchline as referenced 

in BLM Road Design Handbook 9113-

1 and provide pipe gradient slightly 

greater than ditch gradient to reduce 

erosion at cross drain inlet.

BLM Road Design 

Handbook H9113-1 

2009

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 47 Provide for unobstructed flow at culvert 

inlets and within ditch lines during and OAR 629-625-0420 OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1147 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

upon completion of road construction 

prior to the wet season.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Timing of In-Water Work 

R 48 

Conduct all nonemergency in-water 

work during the ODFW instream work 

window.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

44, p.276, R 65, p. 279. 

Oregon guidelines for 

timing of in-water work 

to protect fish and 

wildlife resources. 

ODFW 2008

OAR 629-625-0430

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 49 

Remove stream crossing culverts and 

entire in-channel fill material during 

ODFW instream work period.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

93, p. 283.

Oregon guidelines for 

timing of in-water work 

to protect fish and 

wildlife resources. 

ODFW 2008 

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF,Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Low-Water Ford Stream Crossings 

R 50 

Harden low water ford approaches with 

durable materials. Provide cross 

drainage on approaches.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

67, p. 279.

EPA 2005, pp.3-50.

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 51 Restrict access to unimproved low 

water stream crossings.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

69, p. 280.

OAR 629-625-0430 (5) 

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 52 

Use permanent low water fords in 

debris-flow susceptible streams (e.g., 

concrete, well-anchored concrete mats, 

etc.).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

70, p. 280. 

EPA 2005, pp. 3-50. 

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Maintaining Water Quality - Noxious Weeds 

R 53 

Locate equipment-washing sites in 

areas with no potential for runoff into 

wetlands, Riparian Reserves, 

floodplains, and waters of the State. Do 

not use solvents or detergents to clean 

equipment on site. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

75, p. 280.

DEQ 2005 , NS-5 

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1148 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Water Source Development and Use

R 54 

Limit disturbance to vegetation and 

modification of streambanks when 

locating road approaches to in-stream 

water source developments. Surface 

these approaches with durable material. 

Employ erosion and runoff control 

measures.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

102, p. 285.

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 55 

Direct pass-through flow and/or 

overflow from in-channel and any 

connected off-channel water 

developments back into the stream.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

104, p. 285.

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 056 

Overflow from water harvesting ponds 

should be directed to a safe noneroding dissipation area, and not into a 

stream channel.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

105, p. 285.

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 057 

Limit the construction of temporary inchannel water drafting sites. Develop 

permanent water sources outside of 

stream channels and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

106, p. 286.

DEQ 2005, NS-1 

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 058 

Do not place pump intakes on the 

substrate or edges of the stream 

channel. When placing intakes 

instream, place on hard surfaces (e.g., 

shovel, rocks) to minimize turbidity. 

Use a temporary liner to create intake 

site. After completion of use, remove 

liner and restore channel to natural 

condition. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

107, p. 286.

DEQ 2005, NS-1 

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 059 

Placement of road fill shall not be 

located in the proximity of a public 

water supply intake (404(f) exemption 

criteria xi), in waters of the State.

ACOE 404(f) 

exemption criteria xi 

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Erosion Control Measures 

R 060 

During roadside brushing, remove 

vegetation by cutting rather than 

uprooting.

OAR 629-625-0430 (4) 

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1149 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 061 

Limit road and landing construction, 

reconstruction, or renovation activities 

to the dry season. Keep erosion control 

measures concurrent with ground 

disturbance to allow immediate 

stormproofing.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 9, 

p. 271.

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 062 

Apply native seed and certified weed 

free mulch to cut and fill slopes, 

ditchlines, and waste disposal sites with 

the potential for sediment delivery to 

wetlands, Riparian Reserves, 

floodplains and waters of the State. 

Apply upon completion of construction 

and as early as possible to increase 

germination and growth. Reseed if 

necessary to accomplish erosion 

control. Select seed species that are fast 

growing, have adequate provide ample 

ground cover and soil-binding 

properties. Apply mulch that will stay 

in place and at site-specific rates to 

prevent erosion. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

17, p. 272.

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 063 

Place sediment-trapping materials or 

structures such as straw bales, jute 

netting, or sediment basins at the base 

of newly constructed fill or side slopes 

where sediment could be transported to 

waters of the State. Keep materials 

away from culvert outlets. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

14, p. 271, R 21, p. 272. 

USDA FS 2002 Chapter 

18

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 064 

Use biotechnical stabilization and soil 

bioengineering techniques to control 

bank erosion (e.g., commercially 

produced matting and blankets, live 

plants or cuttings, dead plant material, 

rock or other inert structure).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

54, p. 277.

USDA FS 2002, 

Chapters 18 and 20 

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 065 

Suspend ground-disturbing activity if 

projected forecasted rain will saturate 

soils to the extent that there is potential 

for movement of sediment from the 

road to wetlands, floodplains, and 

waters of the State. Cover or 

temporarily stabilize exposed soils 

during work suspension. Upon 

completion of ground disturbing 

activities, immediately stabilize fill 

material over stream crossing 

structures. Measures could include but 

not limited to erosion control blankets 

and mats, soil binders, soil tackifiers, 

slash placement. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

57, p. 278, R 88, p. 282. 

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 066 

Apply fertilizer in a manner to prevent 

direct fertilizer entry to wetlands, 

Riparian Reserves, floodplains, and 

waters of the State. 

OAR 629-625-0440 

Aquatic Resources 

Biological Opinion 

NMFS-ARBO 2013. 

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1150 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Road Use and Dust Abatement 

R 067 

Apply water or approved road surface 

stabilizers/dust control additives to 

reduce surfacing material loss and 

buildup of fine sediment that can enter 

into wetlands, floodplains and waters of 

the State. Prevent entry of road surface 

stabilizers/dust control additives into 

waters of the State during application. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

76, p. 281.

DEQ 2005, EP-13 

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Road Maintenance 

R 068 

Prior to the wet season, provide 

effective road surface drainage 

maintenance. Clear ditch lines in 

sections where there is lowered capacity 

or obstructed by dry ravel, sediment 

wedges, small failures, or fluvial 

sediment deposition. Remove 

accumulated sediment and blockages at 

cross-drain inlets and outlets. Grade 

natural surface and aggregate roads 

where the surface is uneven from 

surface erosion or vehicle rutting. 

Restore crowning, outsloping or 

insloping for the road type for effective 

runoff. Remove or provide outlets 

through berms on the road shoulder. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

81, R 84, R 85, p. 281. 

OAR 629-625 0600 (2-

4)

EPA 2005, pp. 361-362. 

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 069 

Retain ground cover in ditch lines, 

except where sediment deposition or 

obstructions require maintenance. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

86, p. 282.

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 070 

Maintain water flow conveyance, 

sediment filtering and ditchline 

integrity by limiting ditchline 

disturbance and groundcover 

destruction when machine cleaning 

within 200 feet of road stream 

crossings. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

TurbidityOAR 340-041-0036 

R 071 Avoid undercutting of cut-slopes when 

cleaning ditch lines. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

78, p. 281.

EPA 2005, p. 362

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 072 

Remove and dispose of slide material 

when it is obstructing road surface and 

ditchline drainage. Place material on 

stable ground outside of wetlands, 

Riparian Reserves, floodplains, and 

waters of the State. Seed with native 

seed and weed-free mulch. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

79, p. 281.

OAR 629-625-0600 (6) 

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 073 

Do not sidecast loose ditch or surface 

material where it can enter wetlands, 

Riparian Reserves, floodplains, and 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

80, p. 281. 

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1151 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

waters of the State. 

OAR 629-625-0600 (7) 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 074 Retain low-growing vegetation on cutand-fill slopes. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

86, p. 282.

EPA 2005, EP-6 

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 075 

Seed and mulch cleaned ditch lines and 

bare soils that drain directly to 

wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the 

State, with native species and weedfree mulch.

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Road Stormproofing 

R 076 

Inspect and maintain culvert inlets and 

outlets, drainage structures and ditches 

before and during the wet season to 

diminish the likelihood of plugged 

culverts and the possibility of 

washouts.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

81, R 82, p. 281.

OAR 629-625 -0600 (3) 

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 077 

Repair damaged culvert inlets and 

downspouts to maintain drainage 

design capacity.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

82, p. 281.

OAR 629-625 -0600 (3) 

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 078 

Blade and shape roads to conserve 

existing aggregate surface material 

retain or restore the original cross 

section, remove berms and other 

irregularities that impede effective 

runoff or cause erosion, and ensure that 

surface runoff is directed into 

vegetated, stable areas. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

84, p. 281.

OAR 629-625 -0600 (4) 

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 079 

Stormproof open resource roads 

receiving infrequent maintenance to 

reduce road erosion and reduce the risk 

of washouts by concentrated water 

flows. Stormproof temporary roads if 

retained over-winter. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

87, p. 282.

OAR 629-625-0600 (2) 

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 080 

Suspend stormproofing/ 

decommissioning operations and cover 

or otherwise temporarily stabilize all 

exposed soil if conditions develop that 

cause a potential for sediment-laden 

runoff to enter a wetland, floodplain or 

waters of the State. Resume operations 

when conditions allow turbidity 

standards to be met. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

88, p. 282.

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Road Closure and Decommissioning 

R 081 Inspect closed roads to ensure that OAR 629-625 -0650 (2) OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1152 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

vegetation stabilization measures are 

operating as planned, drainage 

structures are operational, and noxious 

weeds are not providing erosion 

control. Conduct vegetation treatments 

and drainage structure maintenance as 

needed. 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 082 

Fully decommission temporary roads 

upon completion of use unless there is a 

foreseeable need for reuse.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

90, p. 283.

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 083 

Prevent use of vehicular traffic utilizing 

methods such as gates, guard rails, 

earth/log barricades, to reduce or 

eliminate erosion and sedimentation 

due to traffic on roads.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

91, p. 283.

OAR 629-625 -0650 (2) 

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 084 

Convert existing drainage structures 

such as ditches and cross drain culverts 

to a long-term maintenance free 

drainage configuration such as an 

outsloped road surface and waterbars. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

92, p. 283.

OAR 629-625 -0650 (3) 

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 085 

Place and remove temporary stream 

crossings during the dry season, 

without overwintering, unless designed 

to accommodate the 100-year 

theoretical flood. See also R 049. 

OAR 629-625-0430 (5) 

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 086 

Place excavated material from removed 

stream crossings on stable ground 

outside of wetlands, Riparian Reserves, 

floodplains, and waters of the State. In 

some cases, the material could be used 

for recontouring old road cuts or be 

spread across roadbed and treated to 

prevent erosion. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

94, p. 284.

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 087 

Reestablish stream crossings to the 

natural stream gradient. Excavate 

sideslopes back to the natural bank 

profile. Reestablish natural channel 

width and floodplain.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

95, p. 284.

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 088 

On each side of a stream crossing, 

construct waterbars or cross ditches that 

will remain maintenance free.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

96, p. 284.

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1153 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

OAR 629-625 -0650 (3) Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 089 

Following culvert removal and prior to 

the wet season, apply erosion control 

and sediment trapping measures (e.g., 

seeding, mulching, straw bales, jute 

netting, and native vegetative cuttings) 

where sediment can be delivered into 

wetlands, Riparian Reserves, 

floodplains, and waters of the State. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

97, p. 284.

OAR 629-625 -0650 (3) 

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 090 

Implement tillage measures, including 

ripping or subsoiling to an effective 

depth. Treat compacted areas including 

the roadbed, landings, construction 

areas, and spoils sites.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

98, p. 285.

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 091 

After tilling the road surface, pull back 

unstable road fill and end-haul or 

contour to the natural slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

99, p. 285.

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Wet-Season Road Use 

R 092 

On active haul roads, during the wet 

season, use durable rock surfacing and 

sufficient rock depth to resist rutting or 

development of sediment on road 

surfaces that drain directly to wetlands, 

floodplains, and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

71, p. 280.

OAR 629-625-0700 (2) 

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 093 

Prior to winter hauling activities, 

implement structural road treatments 

such as: increasing the frequency of 

cross drains, installing sediment 

barriers or catch basins, applying gravel 

lifts or asphalt road surfacing at stream 

crossing approaches, and armoring 

ditch lines. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

72, p. 280.

OAR 629-625-0700 (2) 

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 094 

Suspend commercial use where the road 

wear surface is deteriorating by 

vehicular rutting or standing water 

causing a mud layer, or where turbid 

runoff from the road is likely to reach 

waters of the State. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

73, p. 280.

OAR 629-625-0700 (3) 

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 095 

Remove snow on surfaced roads in a 

manner that will protect the road and 

adjacent resources. Retain a minimum 

layer (4 inches) of compacted snow on 

the road surface. Provide drainage 

through the snow bank at periodic 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

74, p. 280.

BLM snow removal 

letter. 

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1154 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

intervals to allow snowmelt to drain off 

the road surface. 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 096 

Avoid removing snow from unsurfaced 

roads where runoff drains to waters of 

the State. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 097 

Maintain road surface by applying 

appropriate gradation of aggregate and 

suitable particle hardness to protect 

road surfaces from rutting and erosion 

under active haul where runoff drains 

to wetlands, Riparian Reserves, 

floodplains, and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

71, p. 280.

OAR 629-625-0700 (2) 

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 098 

To reduce sediment tracking from 

natural surface roads during active 

haul, provide a gravel approach before 

entrance onto surfaced roads.

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

R 099 

Install temporary culverts and washed 

rock on top of low water ford to reduce 

vehicle contact with water during active 

haul. Remove culverts promptly after 

use.

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Timber Harvest Activities 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table I-2. Best management practices for timber harvest activities. 

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Cable Yarding 

TH 1 

Design yarding corridors to limit 

canopy loss in Riparian Reserves and to 

maintain effective shade. Techniques 

include limiting the number of such 

corridors, using narrow widths, and 

using the most perpendicular 

orientation to the stream feasible. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

2, p. 287.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

 Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

TH 2 

Trees felled for yarding corridors in the 

Riparian Reserve within a tree height 

distance of a stream channel would be 

directed toward the stream and left on 

site. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 3 

Require full suspension over Àowing 

streams, non- Àowing streams with 

erodible bed and bank, and 

jurisdictional wetlands. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

3, p. 287.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1155 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

TH 4 

When logging downhill into Riparian 

Reserves, design the logging system to 

prevent converging yarding trails from 

intersecting the stream network. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

4, p. 287.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 5 

 Prevent streambank and hillslope 

disturbance on steep slopes (generally 

>60%) along stream channels, by 

yarding across the Riparian Reserve 

with full suspension or one-end 

suspension with seasonal restrictions, 

as needed. Yard the remaining areas 

across the Riparian Reserve using oneend suspension 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

5, p. 287.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 6 

Implement erosion control measures 

such as waterbars, slash placement, and 

seeding in cable yarding corridors 

where the potential for erosion and 

delivery to water bodies, Àand seedi 

and wetlands exists. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

6, p. 288.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Ground-Based Harvesting 

TH 7 

Exclude machinery from the Riparian 

Reserve inner zone, except for road and 

temporary skid trail crossings, 

restoration, and wild¿re operational 

reasons. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

7, p. 288.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

 Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

TH 8 

Exclude ground-based equipment on 

hydric soils, defined by the Timber 

Productivity Capability Classification 

(TPCC). 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

8, p. 288. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 9 

Limit detrimental ground disturbance 

(soil compaction, organic matter 

displacement, and alteration of soil 

structure) to 20% of the harvest unit 

area. This percentage includes 

permanent and temporary roads, 

landings, stockpiles, skid trails, and 

machinery built burn piles. 

Soil Quality Standards 

USDA FS 1998 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 10 

Limit designated skid trails for 

harvesting to 15 percent of the harvest 

unit area including legacy trails, where 

there are no other planned detrimental 

soil disturbances. 

Soil Quality Standards 

USDA FS 1998 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 11 

Limit width of skid roads to single 

width of what is operationally 

necessary for the equipment. Where 

multiple machines are used, provide a 

minimum sized pullout for passing. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

10, p. 288.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 12 

Ensure one-end suspension of logs 

when skidding. Harvesting done with a 

track or wheel driven type machine 

must have an extendable and retractable 

arch and fair lead that is an integral part 

of the machine and is capable of lifting 

the leading end clear of the ground. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

11, p. 288.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 13 

Restrict skidding and forwarding 

operations to periods of low soil 

moisture, frozen ground, or adequate 

snow cover when soils have the 

greatest strength to support equipment 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

12, p. 288.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1156 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

and increased resistance to compaction 

and displacement. The soil texture 

moisture limit, applied at the harvest 

unit level, would be 25% for clay/clay 

loam, 20% for loam/silt loam, and 15% 

for sandy/sandy loam. 

TH 14 

 Use existing compacted surfaces (e.g. 

skid trails, landings), where feasible, 

for ground-based logging equipment, 

considering proper spacing, skid trail 

direction and location relative to terrain 

and stream channel features. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

13, p. 289.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 15 

Limit conventional skidders and 

tracked equipment to slopes less than 

35 percent, except when using legacy 

trails or accessing isolated ground 

based harvest areas requiring short 

trails (up to 100 feet) over steeper 

pitches without causing undue effects 

to soils. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

14, p. 289.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)) 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 16 

Monitor use where specialized groundbased mechanized equipment (i.e. low 

psi tracked or wheeled or self-leveling 

cabs with oversized tracks or tires) 

operate on slopes greater than 35%, and 

restrict where water and sediment could 

channel in overland flow. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

15, p. 289.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 17 

Designate skid trails in locations that 

channel water from the trail surface 

away from water bodies, Àoodplains, 

and wetlands, or unstable areas 

adjacent to them. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

16, p. 289.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 18 

Directionally fall trees to lead for 

skidding and skyline yarding to 

minimize ground disturbance when 

moving logs to skid trails and skyline 

corridors. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

17, p. 289.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 19 

Apply erosion control measures 

to skid trails and other disturbed areas 

with potential for erosion and 

subsequent sediment delivery to water 

bodies, Àoodplains, or wetlands. These 

practices could include seeding, 

mulching, water barring, tillage, and 

woody debris placement. Use 

guidelines from the road 

decommissioning section. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

18, p. 289.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 20 

Construct waterbars on skid trails using 

guidelines in Table C-5, where there is 

potential for soil erosion and delivery 

to water bodies, Àoodplains, and 

wetlands. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

19, p. 289.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 21 

Subsoil skid trails, landings, or 

temporary roads where needed to 

minimize surface runoff, improve soil 

structure and water movement through 

the roadbed. See also R 90. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, R 

98, p. 285.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 22 

 Block skid trails to prevent OHV and 

other unauthorized use at the end of 

seasonal use. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

21, p. 290. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1) 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1157 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 23 

Plan one-entry operations, by 

combining ground-based timber 

harvesting with pre-commercial 

thinning, and/or biomass opportunities, 

or reducing fuel loading. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

22, p. 290.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Helicopter 

TH 24 

Consider the use of helicopter or aerial 

logging systems to prevent water 

quality impacts from road construction 

or ground-based timber yarding, where 

other BMPs would be more costly or 

have limited effectiveness. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

23, p. 290.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

 Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

Horse 

TH 25 Within Riparian Reserves, limit horse 

logging to slopes less than 20 percent. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

24, p. 290.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

TH 26 

Construct waterbars on horse skid trails 

when there is potential for soil erosion 

and delivery to water bodies, 

Àoodplains, and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, TH 

25, p. 290.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Silvicultural Activities 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards additional details about the standards and regulations 

that are associated with the best management practices.

Table I-3. Best management practices for planting, pre-commercial thinning, and fertilization. 

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Planting and Pre-Commercial Thinning 

S 1

Limit the crossing of stream channels 

with motorized support vehicles (e.g., 

ATV’s) and mechanized equipment to 

existing road crossings. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, S 1, 

p. 291.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

S 2

Scatter treatment debris on disturbed 

soils and water bar any equipment 

access trails that could erode and 

deposit sediment in water bodies, 

Àoodplains, and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, S 4, 

p. 291.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Fertilization 

S 3

For streams and water bodies that 

support domestic use, apply fertilizer 

further than 100 feet from the edge of 

the active channel or shoreline.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, S 5, 

p. 291.

EPA 440/5-86-001,-10 mg/L nitrate nitrogen 

for domestic water supply.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

S 4

Locate storage, transfer, and loading 

sites outside Riparian Reserves and 

separated from hydrological 

connections: (e.g., road ditches that are 

linked to stream channels).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, S 6, 

p. 291.

EPA 822-R-13-001 2013,-salmonid acute 

criterion, 17 mg total ammonia nitrogen/L at 

pH 7 and temperature of 20°C. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1158 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

S 5 When aerially applying fertilizer, avoid 

drift of fertilizer into water bodies. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, S 7, 

p. 291. 

EPA 822-R-13-001 2013,-salmonid acute 

criterion, 17 mg total ammonia nitrogen/L at 

pH 7 and temperature of 20°C. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

S 6

When aerially applying fertilizer, 

suspend fertilizer application when 

heavy precipitation is expected at the 

time of application.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, S 8, 

p. 292.

EPA 822-R-13-001 2013,-salmonid acute 

criterion, 17 mg total ammonia nitrogen/L at 

pH 7 and temperature of 20°C. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Fire and Fuels Management 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table I-4. Best management practices for fire and fuel management. 

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Underburn, Jackpot Burn, and Broadcast Burn 

F 1

Keep broadcast burns and jackpot burns 

out of Riparian Reserves inner zone, 

unless prescribed for restoration 

purposes, e.g., sudden oak death 

sanitation, improve species 

composition, invigorate deciduous 

trees. Locate ignition lines above large 

open meadows associated with stream 

channels, unless prescribed for 

restoration. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 1, 

p. 293.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

F 2

Reduce fuel loads by whole tree 

yarding, and piling material, as 

necessary, prior to under burning in dry 

forest types where fuel loads are 

elevated. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 2, 

p. 293.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

F 3

Avoid direct ignition or ignition by a 

backing-in fire of large woody material 

that is touching the high water mark of 

a water body or that may be affected by 

high Àows.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 3, 

p. 293.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

F 4

Avoid delivery of chemical retardant 

foam or additives to water bodies, and 

wetlands. Store and dispose of ignition 

devices/ materials (e.g., Àares, plastic 

spheres, etc.) outside Riparian Reserves 

or a minimum of 100 feet from water 

bodies, Àoodplains, and wetlands. 

Maintain and refuel equipment (e.g., 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 4, 

p. 293.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1159 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

drip torches, chainsaws) a minimum of 

100 feet from water bodies, Àoodplains, 

and wetlands. Portable pumps can be 

refueled on-site within a spill 

containment system. 

F 5

Limit ¿re lines inside Riparian 

Reserves. Construct ¿re lines by hand 

on all slopes greater than 35 percent 

and inside the Riparian Reserve inner 

zone. Use erosion control techniques 

such as tilling, waterbarring, or debris 

placement on ¿re lines when there is 

potential for soil erosion and delivery 

to water bodies, Àoodplains, and 

wetlands. Space the waterbars as shown 

in Table C-5. Avoid placement of any 

¿re line where water would be directed 

into water bodies, Àoodplains, 

wetlands, headwalls, or areas of 

instability. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 5, 

p. 294.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Pile and Burn 

F 6 Avoid mechanical or hand piling in the 

Riparian Reserve inner zone. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 6, 

p. 294.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Mechanical and Manual Fuel Treatments 

F 7

Prevent mechanical fuel reduction 

equipment within the Riparian Reserve 

inner zone, unless prescribed for 

restoration.

Limit mechanical fuel reduction 

equipment to slopes less than 35 

percent. Restrict non- track mechanized 

equipment, e.g., feller bunchers, 

horizontal bar masticators, to slopes 

less than 20 percent. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 7, 

p. 294.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

F 8

Use temporary stream crossings if 

necessary to access the opposite side 

with any equipment or vehicles 

(including ATVs). Follow Temporary 

Stream Crossing practices under Roads 

section. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 8, 

p. 294.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

F 9

Place residual slash on severely burned 

areas, where there is potential for 

sediment delivery into water bodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 9, 

p. 294.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Wildfire Suppression 

F 10 

Limit ¿relines inside Riparian 

Reserves. Where hand constructed 

¿relines are necessary in Riparian 

Reserves, angle the approach, where 

feasible, rather than have it 

perpendicular to the Riparian Reserve. 

Limit heavy equipment to slopes less 

than 35 percent.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 5, 

p.294, F 11, p. 295.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1160 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Locate fire lines to minimize directing 

water into water bodies, wetlands, 

headwalls, or areas of instability.

Use erosion control techniques such as 

tilling, waterbarring, or debris 

placement on fire lines when there is 

potential for soil erosion and delivery 

to water bodies, Àoodplains, and 

wetlands. Space waterbars as shown in 

Table C-5. Block dozer lines and roads 

or landing intersections with an

approved barricade and/or scattered 

slash to preclude OHV use. 

F 11 

Prevent cutting of logs or woody 

material if any portion of that material 

extends into the stream channel, unless 

for restoration.

Fall snags in the Riparian Reserve 

towards the stream channel when 

felling is necessary for safety or ¿re 

suppression activities. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 

12, p. 295.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

F 12 

Avoid locating incident bases, camps, 

helibases, staging areas, constructed 

helispots, and other centers for incident 

activities in Riparian Reserves or 

within 200 feet of any waterbody, 

Àoodplain, or wetland. Water drafting 

sites for engines and tankers would be 

permitted. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 

13, p. 295.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)) 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

 Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

F 13 

Locate and maintain portable sanitation 

facilities at incident bases, camps 

(including spike/ remote camps), 

helibases, staging areas, constructed 

helispots, and other centers for incident 

activities in accordance with state and 

local regulations. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 

14, p. 295.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

F 14 

Avoid application of chemical 

retardant, foam, or other chemicals to 

waterways, maintain a 300 ft. buffer 

(FA-IM-2008-029), unless the wildfire 

is deemed a threat to human safety or 

private property.

Apply aerial retardant adjacent to 

Riparian Reserves by making parallel 

passes. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 

15, p. 295.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Rehabilitation 

F 15 

Implement emergency ¿re 

rehabilitation treatments to accomplish 

erosion control as quickly as possible 

and before the wet season.

Soil and water conservation practices 

may include, but are not restricted to: 

Native vegetation for short-term cover 

development and long-term recovery, 

unless not available in quantities 

necessary for the emergency response. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 

16, p. 296.

Interagency Burned 

Area Emergency 

Response Guidebook; 

Interpretation of 

Department of the 

Interior 620 DM 3 and 

USDA Forest Service 

Manual 2523 For the 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

TurbidityOAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1161 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Mulch with straw, wood chips, or other 

suitable material. To avoid introducing 

noxious weeds when mulching, use 

certi¿ed weed-free straw mulch or rice 

straw where available.

Straw wattles placed on the contour at 

adequate spacing between each row to 

capture eroded material without 

overflowing. Embed to the surface of 

the soil in slight trench to prevent 

undermining.

Log erosion barriers placed and 

anchored similarly to straw wattles.

Spreading available cut vegetation or 

slash on bare soils.

Placing channel sediment retention or 

stabilization structures. 

Placing trash racks for debris above 

road drainage structures.

Installing drainage structures, such as 

waterbars or drainage dips, on ¿re 

lines, ¿re roads, and other cleared areas 

according to guidelines in Table 5 

(Waterbar spacing by gradient and 

erosion class).

Repairing damaged road drainage 

facilities such as flattened or ripped 

culvert ends, burned out plastic pipes or 

cleaning ditch lines of materials that 

impede natural flow

Blocking or decommissioning roads 

and trails. 

Emergency 

Stabilization of Federal 

and Tribal Trust Lands 

Version 4.0 February 

2006

Post-Fire Road Repair 

F 16 

Implement emergency ¿re 

rehabilitation treatments to accomplish 

erosion control as quickly as possible 

and before the wet season.

Soil and water conservation practices 

may include, but are not restricted to: 

Reduce road system hydrologic 

conductivity though proper grading, 

culvert spacing, and installing drivable 

dips.

Replace culverts to increase peak Àow 

capacity of stream crossing culverts to 

accommodate the 100-year design 

Àood.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 

17, p. 297.

Interagency Burned 

Area Emergency 

Response Guidebook; 

Interpretation of 

Department of the 

Interior 620 DM 3 and 

USDA Forest Service 

Manual 2523 For the 

Emergency 

Stabilization of Federal 

and Tribal Trust Lands 

Version 4.0 February 

2006

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1162 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Prevent culvert plugging. 

Correct stream diversions. 

Fuel/Retardant Transport 

F 17 

If more than 42 gallons of fuel or 

combined quantity of petroleum 

product and chemical substances would 

be transported to a project site, the 

following precautions would be 

implemented.

1. Plan a safe route and transfer sites 

that could contain the transported 

volume.

2. Plan an active dispatch system that 

can relay the information to appropriate 

resources.

3. Ensure a spill containment kit that 

can absorb and contain 55 gallons of 

petroleum product and chemical 

substances is readily available. 

4. Provide for immediate noti¿cation

in the event of a spill. Have a radio 

equipped vehicle lead the chemical or 

fuel truck to the project site.

5. Assemble a spill noti¿cation list

that includes the district hazardous 

materials coordinator, DEQ, and spill 

clean-up contractors. 

6. Construct a water user contact list 

with address and phone numbers.

7. When operating within Source Water 

Watersheds, pre-estimate travel times 

through the watershed to predict 

downstream arrival times. 

8. Be prepared to sample water and 

carry sample containers. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, F 

18, p. 297.

[40 CFR 112]-Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is forty-two U.S. Gallons 

not involving waterways, a visible sheen 

where waterways are involved.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Table I-5. Water bar spacing by gradient and erosion class. 

Gradient Water Bar Spacinga

 (Feet) Per Erosion Classb

High Class Moderate Class Low Class 

2-5% 200 300 400 

6-10% 150 200 300 

11-15% 100 150 200 

16-20% 75 100 150 

21-35% 50 75 100 

36+% 50 50 50 a

 Spacing is determined by slope distance and is the maximum allowed for the grade. 

b

 The erosion classes include the following rock types: 

High: Granite, sandstone, andesite porphyry, glacial or alluvial deposits, soft matrix conglomerate, volcanic ash, and 

pyroclastics. 

Moderate: Basalt, andesite, quartzite, hard matrix conglomerate, and rhyolite. 

Low: Metasediments, metavolcanics, and hard shale. 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1163 | Page

Surface Source Water For Drinking Water 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices

Table I-6. Best management practices for surface source water for drinking water protection. 

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

SW 1 

Sanitary facilities would be planned, 

located, designed, constructed,

operated, inspected, and maintained, to 

minimize water contamination.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

1, p. 299.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13) 

SW 2 

Locate contractor camps outside DEQ 

sensitive zones in drinking water source 

areas for public water systems. If this is 

not possible, require self-contained 

sanitary facilities.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

2, p. 299.

DEQ Drinking Water 

Protection Program 

http://www.deq.state.or.

us/wq/dwp/swcountym

ap.htm

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 3 

Require self-contained sanitary 

facilities in surface source water

watersheds, when long-term camping 

(greater than 14 days) is involved with 

contract implementation. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

3, p. 299.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13) 

SW 4 

Provide self-contained sanitary 

facilities when there is high recreational 

use (almost continuous occupancy) 

inside DEQ sensitive zones within 

drinking water source areas for public 

water systems, known domestic source 

water watersheds, or Riparian Reserves 

inner zone.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

4, p. 299.

DEQ Drinking Water 

Protection Program

http://www.deq.state.or.

us/wq/dwp/swcountym

ap.htm

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 5 

Locate pack and riding, facilities 

outside DEQ sensitive zones within 

drinking water source areas for public 

water systems, known domestic source 

water watersheds, or Riparian Reserves 

inner zone. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

5, p. 299.

DEQ Drinking Water 

Protection Program

http://www.deq.state.or.

us/wq/dwp/swcountym

ap.htm

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 6 

Do not allow surface occupancy within 

200 feet of a known domestic water 

source or within DEQ sensitive zones 

in drinking water source areas for 

public water systems.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

6, p. 299.

DEQ Drinking Water 

Protection Program 

http://www.deq.state.or.

us/wq/dwp/swcountym

ap.htm

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 7 

Do not apply sewage sludge as a soil 

amendment within drinking water 

source areas for public water systems, 

known domestic source water 

watersheds, or Riparian Reserves.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

7, p. 300.

DEQ Drinking Water 

Protection Program

http://www.deq.state.or.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1164 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

us/wq/dwp/swcountym

ap.htm

SW 8 

Avoid loading, or storing chemical, 

fuel, or fertilizer in DEQ sensitive 

zones within drinking water source 

areas for public water systems, known 

domestic source water watersheds, or 

Riparian Reserves inner zone.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

8, p. 300.

DEQ Drinking Water 

Protection Program

http://www.deq.state.or.

us/wq/dwp/swcountym

ap.htm

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 9 

Conduct equipment maintenance 

outside DEQ sensitive zones within 

drinking water source areas for public 

water systems, known domestic source 

water watersheds, or Riparian Reserves 

inner zone.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

9, p. 300.

DEQ Drinking Water 

Protection Program

http://www.deq.state.or.

us/wq/dwp/swcountym

ap.htm

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 10 Use non-oil-based dust suppressants 

within surface source water watersheds. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

10, p. 300.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13) 

SW 11 

Use ¿re retardant and surfactants as a 

last resort in ¿re suppression activities 

within surface source water watersheds. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SW 

11, p. 300.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13) 

Recreation 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices. 

Table I-7. Best management practices for recreation management 

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

All Recreation Facilities 

REC 1 

Implement erosion control measures at 

recreation sites to stabilize exposed 

soils where water flows or sediment, 

may reach water bodies. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 1, p. 301.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 2 

Locate new recreational facilities, 

developed and dispersed sites, outside 

of the water inÀuence area. Low impact 

uses, such as hiking trails, picnic sites, 

or water dependent facilities (e.g., boat 

ramps or docks), are excluded. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 2, p. 301.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

Developed Recreation Sites 

REC 3 

Self-contained sanitary facilities would 

be used at all developed recreational 

facilities, unless a sewage system and 

drain ¿eld is approved by the 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 3, p. 301.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

REC 4 When conducting recreation site 

maintenance, do not cut portions of 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1165 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

logs or coarse woody debris that fall 

across the active stream channel. Keep 

adequate lengths of material on the 

banks to anchor it in place. If not 

possible to make the log stable, it may 

be removed. 

REC 5, p. 301. Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Water Dependent Facilities 

REC 5 Construct boat ramps and approaches 

with hardened surfaces.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 6, p. 301.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trails 

REC 6 

Use existing stream crossings to the 

extent possible when constructing trails 

through Riparian Reserves. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 7, p. 301.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 7 

When constructing or maintaining trails 

within Riparian Reserves, do not cut 

the portion of logs or coarse woody 

debris that extend into the active stream 

channel. Provide for adequate 

stabilization of the logs if not doing so 

would create a safety hazard. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 8, p. 302.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 8 

Stream crossings would be designed to 

accommodate active channel width, bed 

load, and ¿sh passage and exceeding 

capacity for the 100-year Àood event.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 10, p. 302.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 9 

Suspend construction or maintenance 

of trails, where erosion and runoff into 

water bodies would occur. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 11, p. 302.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 10 

Locate staging areas outside Riparian 

Reserves. Design or upgrade staging 

areas to prevent sediment/pollutant 

delivery to wetlands, Àoodplains, and 

water bodies, e.g., rocking or 

hardening, drainage through grading or 

shaping. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 12, p. 302.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 11 

Harden trail approaches to stream 

crossings using materials such as 

geotextile fabric and rock aggregate. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 13, p. 302. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 12 

Drain dips or drainage features would 

be installed on approaches to stream 

crossings as needed to divert runoff and 

reinforced with rock for longevity. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 14, p. 302.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 13 

When constructing bridges or 

walkways over streams or water bodies, 

avoid use of chemically treated 

materials at water level contact points, 

where leachate or solids may enter soil 

or water. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 15, p. 302.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(10)

REC 14 

Use a temporary Àow diversion bypass 

to minimize downstream turbidity, 

when constructing perennial stream 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 16, p. 302. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1) 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1166 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

crossings (See Roads Section for 

Stream Crossing BMPs.). 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 15 Prevent vehicle access to nearby 

wetlands by using suitable barriers. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 17, p. 303.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 16 

Where trails intersect road ditches, 

provide erosion resistant crossings. 

Divert water from the trail to keep from 

reaching wetlands, Àoodplains, and 

water bodies. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 18, p. 303.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 17 

If trail width is too wide for the 

designated use (such as old roads 

converted to trails), consider tilling one 

side of the trail, covering with brush, 

and seeding or planting. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 19, p. 303.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 18 

Repair rills and gullies to keep 

sediment from reaching wetlands, 

Àoodplains, and water bodies. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 20, p. 303.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 19 

Water bars, drain dips, and lead off 

ditches will be constructed or repaired 

as needed. These features may need 

rock reinforcement to promote 

longevity. Self-maintaining drain dips 

or lead-off features are the preferred 

design. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 21, p. 303.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 20 

Drain dips or lead off ditches would be 

constructed on steeper gradient trails 

and approaches to stream crossings. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 22, p. 303.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Trails (Hiking) 

REC 21 

When constructing or maintaining trails 

within Riparian Reserves, do not cut 

any portion of logs or coarse woody 

debris that extend into the active stream 

channel. Use alternative passage 

options, such as earthen ramps, small 

notch steps, or slight trail realignments, 

to facilitate maintenance of intact logs. 

Cut and stabilize if necessary for safe 

passage and safety. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 23, p. 303.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041- 

004(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Trail Closure 

REC 22 

Remove existing stream crossings or 

bridges (See Road Decommissioning. 

BMPs). 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 24, p. 303.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(8)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 23 

Position ¿ll or waste material in a 

location that would avoid direct or 

indirect sediment discharge to streams 

or wetlands. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 25, p. 304.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

REC 24 

Restored stream banks would be 

planted with native vegetation, 

mulched, and then planted with watertolerant species where appropriate. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 26, p. 304. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1167 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

REC 25 Barricade and allow nearby vegetation 

to grow into closed trails.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 27, p. 304. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Dispersed Recreation 

REC 26 

Site camps for permitted group 

overnight camping would be greater 

than 100 feet from surface water. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

REC 28, p. 304.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13) 

Range Management 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices. 

Table I-8. Best management practices for grazing. 

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

G 1

Fence water developments, including 

springs and seeps, unless other methods 

are available. Pipe overÀow away from 

the developed source area.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, G 1, 

p. 305.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

G 2

Do not locate salting areas within 1⁄4 

mile of permanent water sources or 

Riparian Reserves.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, G 2, 

p. 305.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

G 3

Locate new permanent livestock 

handling or management facilities 

(corrals, pens, or holding pastures) 

outside Riparian Reserves or 200 feet 

from water bodies and on level ground 

where drainage would not enter surface 

waters. 

Make changes as necessary to existing 

facilities within Riparian Reserves to 

meet water quality standards and 

regulations. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, G 3, 

p. 305.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

G 4

Apply speci¿c grazing strategies for 

riparian wetland areas, including 

timing, intensity, or exclusion for 

maintenance of proper functioning 

condition.

Use one or more of the following 

features:

Inclusion of the water bodies, 

Àoodplains, and wetlands within a 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, G 4, 

p. 306.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1168 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

separate pasture. 

Fence or herd livestock out of water 

bodies, Àoodplains, and wetlands for as 

long as necessary to allow vegetation to 

recover.

Control the timing and intensity of 

grazing to keep livestock off stream 

banks when they are most vulnerable to 

damage and to coincide with the 

physiological needs of target plant 

species.

Add more rest to the grazing cycle to 

increase plant vigor, allow stream

banks to revegetate, or encourage more 

desirable plant species composition. 

Limit grazing intensity to a level that 

will maintain desired species 

composition and vigor.

Permanently exclude livestock from 

those water bodies, Àoodplains, and 

wetlands areas that are at high risk and 

have poor recovery potential, and when 

there is no practical way to protect 

them while grazing adjacent uplands. 

G 5

Recover degraded water bodies through 

adjustments to forage utilization levels, 

improved livestock distribution, and 

management through fencing, 

vegetation treatments, water source 

developments, or changes in season of 

use or livestock numbers.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, G 5, 

p. 306.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Minerals (Salable) 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices. 

Table I-9. Best management practices for minerals (salable).

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Salable Minerals 

M 1

Locate stockpile sites on stable ground 

where the material would not move into 

water bodies, Àoodplains, and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, M 

18, p. 309.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

M 2 

Stabilize and control erosion of 

overburden and stockpiles. Separate 

and windrow or stockpile topsoil for 

use in reclamation. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, M 

10, p. 308.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

M 3

Locate, design, and construct salable 

mineral sites to control runoff and 

prevent or minimize sediment delivery 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, M 

18, p. 309. 

OAR 629-625-0500-ODF, Rock Pits and 

Quarries
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1169 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

to streams. 

Prevent overburden, solid wastes, 

drainage water or petroleum products 

from entering wetlands, Riparian 

Reserves, flood plains and waters of the 

State. 

OAR 629-625-0500 1-5 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

M 5

Outslope quarry floors to provide for 

adequate drainage of the floor and 

away from stream channels.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

M 6 Locate, design, and maintain settling 

ponds to contain sediment discharges. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, M 1, 

p. 309.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

M 7 

When a quarry or rock pit is depleted or 

vacated, stabilize cutbanks, headwalls, 

and other surfaces to prevent surface 

erosion and landslides. Close roads, 

excavations, and crusher pads in 

accordance with Roads and Landings 

section. Remove all potential pollutants 

to prevent their entry into wetlands, 

Riparian Reserves, floodplains, and 

waters of the State. 

OAR 629-625-0500

DEQ 2005 NS - 6 

OAR 629-625-0500-ODF, Rock Pits and 

Quarries

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

M 8

Use erosion-reduction practices, such 

as seeding, mulching, silt fences, and 

woody debris placement, to limit 

erosion and transport of sediment to 

streams from quarries. Provide drainage 

from stockpiles and mineral sites, 

dispersed over stable vegetated areas 

rather than directly into stream 

channels. Grade all material sites, 

where practicable to conform with the 

surrounding topography prior to 

closure. Utilized topsoil as a medium to 

for successful revegetation. Reseed and 

plant trees, where needed.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, M 

22, p. 309. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Spill Prevention and Abatement 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices. 

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

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Operations Near Water bodies 

SP 1 

Take precautions to prevent leaks or 

spills of petroleum products, e.g., fuel, 

motor oil, and hydraulic fluid, from 

entering the waters of the State. 

[40 CFR 112]

OAR 629-620-0100(2) 

[40 CFR 112]-Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

OAR 629-620-0100-ODF, Chemical and 

Other Petroleum Product Rules

DEQ-Water Pollution: 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1170 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13) 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

SP 2 

Take immediate action to stop and 

contain leaks or spills of chemicals and 

other petroleum products. Notify the 

Oregon Emergency Response System, 

through the District Hazard Materials 

specialist, of any spill that enters the 

waters of the State. 

[40 CFR 112]

OAR 629-620-0100(3), 

(4)

[40 CFR 112]-Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

OAR 629-620-0100-ODF, Chemical and 

Other Petroleum Product Rules 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1171 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

SP 3 

Inspect and clean heavy equipment as 

necessary prior to moving on to the 

project site, in order to remove oil and 

grease, noxious weeds, and excessive 

soil.

Inspect hydraulic Àuid and fuel lines on 

heavy-mechanized equipment for 

proper working condition.

Where possible, maintain and refuel 

equipment a minimum of 100 feet away 

from streams and other water bodies , 

except small equipment e.g. chainsaws 

or water pumps. Refuel small 

equipment from no more than 5-gallon 

containers. Use absorbent material or a 

containment system to prevent spills 

when re-fueling small equipment 

within the stream margins or near the 

edge of water bodies.

In the event of a spill or release, all 

reasonable and safe actions to contain 

the material will be taken. Speci¿c 

actions are dependent on the nature of 

the material spilled.

Use spill containment booms or as 

required by DEQ. Have access to 

booms and other absorbent containment 

materials.

Immediately remove waste or spilled 

hazardous materials (including but not 

limited to diesel, oil, hydraulic Àuid) 

and contaminated soils near any stream 

or other water body, and dispose of 

it/them in accordance with the 

applicable regulatory standard. Notify 

Oregon Emergency Response System 

of any spill over the material reportable 

quantities, and any spill not totally 

cleaned up after 24 hours.

Store equipment containing Reportable 

Quantities of toxic Àuids outside of 

Riparian Reserves. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SP 

1, p. 311.

[40 CFR 112]-Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is forty-two U.S. Gallons 

not involving waterways, a visible sheen 

where waterways are involved.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1172 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

SP 4 

If more than 42 gallons of fuel or 

combined quantity of petroleum 

product and chemical substances, as 

project materials, would be transported 

to a project site, the following 

precautions will be implemented.

1. Plan a safe route and material 

transfer sites so that all spilled material 

will be contained easily at that 

designated location.

2. Plan an active dispatch system that 

can relay the information to appropriate 

resources.

3. Ensure a spill containment kit that 

can absorb and contain 55 gallons of 

petroleum product and chemical 

substances is readily available.

4. Provide for immediate noti¿cation to

OERS in the event of a spill. Have a 

radio-equipped vehicle lead the 

chemical or fuel truck to the project 

site.

5. Assemble a spill noti¿cation list that 

includes the district hazardous 

materials coordinator, DEQ, and spill 

clean-up contractors. 

6. Construct a downstream water user 

contact list with addresses and phone 

numbers.

7. When operating within Source Water 

watersheds, pre-estimate water Àow 

travel times through the watershed to 

predict downstream arrival times.

8. Be prepared to sample water and 

carry sample containers.

Be prepared to assist OSP and ODFW 

to assess wildlife impacts of any 

material spilled. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SP 

2, p. 312.

[40 CFR 112]-Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is forty-two U.S. Gallons 

not involving waterways, a visible sheen 

where waterways are involved.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

Spill Abatement 

SP 5 

Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan (SPCC): All 

operators shall develop a modi¿ed 

SPCC plan prior to initiating project 

work if there is a potential risk of 

chemical or petroleum spills near water 

bodies. The SPCC plan will include the 

appropriate containers and design of the 

material transfer locations. No interim 

fuel depot or storage location other than 

a manned transport vehicle would be 

used 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SP 

3, p. 312. 

[40 CFR 112]-Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is forty-two U.S. Gallons 

not involving waterways, a visible sheen 

where waterways are involved.

OAR-340-142-0030-DEQ, Oil and Hazardous 

Materials Emergency Response Requirements 

SP 6 

Spill Containment Kit (SCK): All 

operators shall have a SCK as 

described in the SPCC plan on-site 

during any operation with potential for 

run-off to adjacent water bodies. The 

SCK will be appropriate in size and 

type for the oil or hazardous material 

carried by the operator.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SP 

4, p. 313.

OAR-340-142-0030-DEQ, Oil and Hazardous 

Materials Emergency Response Requirements 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1173 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

SP 7 

Operators shall be responsible for the 

clean-up, removal, and proper disposal 

of contaminated materials from the site. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, SP 

5, p. 313.

OAR-340-102-DEQ, Standards Applicable to 

Generators of Hazardous Waste

OAR-340-122-DEQ, Hazardous Substance 

Remedial Action Rules 

Restoration 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices. 

Table I-11. Best management practices for restoration activities

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

RST 1 

Con¿ne work in the stream channels to 

the low Àow period unless a waiver is 

obtained from the permitting agencies. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

1, p. 314. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

RST 2 

In stream channels that are sensitive to 

disturbance (e.g., meadow streams), do 

not drive heavy equipment in Àowing 

channels and Àoodplains.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

2, p. 314. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

RST 3 

In well-armored channels that are 

resistant to damage (e.g., bedrock, 

small boulder, or cobble dominated), 

consider conducting the majority of 

heavy-equipment work from within the 

channel, during low streamÀow, to 

minimize damage to sensitive riparian 

areas. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

3, p. 314.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

RST 4 

Design access routes for individual 

work sites to reduce exposure of bare 

soil and extensive stream bank shaping. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

4, p. 314.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

RST 5 

Limit the number and length of 

equipment access points through 

Riparian Reserves.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

5, p. 314.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

RST 6 

Limit the amount of stream bank 

excavation to the minimum necessary 

to ensure stability of enhancement 

structures. Provide isolation from 

Àowing water during excavation. Place 

excavated material above the Àood 

prone area and cover or place a berm to 

avoid its reentry into the stream during 

high Àow events.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

6, p. 314. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028 

RST 7 

Inspect all mechanized equipment daily 

for leaks and clean as necessary to 

ensure that toxic materials, such as fuel 

and hydraulic Àuid, do not enter the 

stream. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

7, p. 314.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) 

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1174 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

RST 8 

Locate equipment storage areas at least 

100-feet from any water feature, 

including machinery used in stream 

channels for more than one day.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

8, p. 315. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

RST 9 

When using heavy equipment in or 

adjacent to stream channels during 

restoration activities, develop and 

implement an approved spill

containment plan that includes having a 

spill containment kit on-site and at 

previously identi¿ed containment 

locations. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

9, p. 315.

DEQ Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

RST 10 

Refuel equipment, including chainsaws 

and other hand power tools, at least 100 

feet from water bodies (or as far as 

possible from the water body where 

local site conditions do not allow a 100-

foot setback) to prevent direct delivery 

of contaminants into a water body. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

10, p. 315.

DEQ Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033 

RST 11 

Use waterbars, barricades, seeding, and 

mulching to stabilize bare soil areas 

along project access routes prior to the 

wet season.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

11, p. 315. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

RST 12 

Prior to the wet season, rehabilitate and 

stabilize disturbed areas where soil will 

support seed growth by seeding and 

planting with native seed mixes or 

plants, or using erosion control matting. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

12, p. 315.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

RST 13 

When replacing culverts design 

placement location, crossing type, and 

installation depth to avoid excessive 

scour through the site, consider 

installation of grade control structures 

e.g., boulder vortex weirs or boulder 

step weirs 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

13, p. 315.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

RST 14 Rehabilitate headcuts and gullies. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

14, p. 315.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

RST 15 

Implement measures to control 

turbidity. Measures may include 

installation of turbidity control 

structures (e.g., isolation, diversion, or 

silt curtains) immediately downstream 

of in-stream restoration work areas. 

Remove these structures following 

completion of turbidity generating 

activities. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, RST 

15, p. 315.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011 

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Dry Forest Specific BMPs 

See Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices. 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1175 | Page

Soils of concern in the dry forest area include those with a high potential for severe surface erosion, soil 

creep, periodic slumping (even when not overly saturated), and low nutrient potential. These soils 

weathered from granite, schist, and pyroclastic materials. They are predominately located in the Medford 

District but also found in the southern end of the Roseburg District and the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

On the Medford District, concentrations of these vulnerable soils occur in Evans, Snow, Sugar, and 

Meadow Creeks, upper portions of Williams Creek and headwaters of Birdseye Creek. These soils are 

mapped as fragile soils within the decision area. Limiting disturbance is key to keeping these soils in 

place; particularly from ground-based operations. 

The Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) and Handbook (5251-1) involves mapping, with 

discrete mapping units and interpretations of timbered lands. The classification uses geology, landform, 

topographic position, climate (especially precipitation), soil properties, and vegetation. Lands with the 

capacity to erode excessively or prone to movement, e.g., creep or slump, are denoted with either a fragile 

code of FM (surface erosion potential) or FP (mass movement potential). Sites could have varying 

severity of either of these conditions. Management activities and restrictions would be scaled to reflect the 

differences in erosion or mass movement potential. 

Table I-12. Timber Production Capability Classification soil categories of concern. 

Category Description of Soil Categories 

Surface 

Erosion 

FM 

These sites have soil surface horizons that are highly erodible, easily detached and subject to 

bouncing or sliding downhill (dry ravel), even if partially vegetated. The soils overlay 

intrusive volcanic bedrock, e.g., granite, diorite, or schist. The Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) provides a Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation soil loss 

tolerance factor, known as T factor. It ranges from a low of 1 on shallow soils, 1-10 inches 

depth, to a 5 on soils deeper than 60 inches. This factor describes the maximum rate of 

annual soil loss in tons/acre that can be lost and still permit crop productivity to sustain 

economically and indefinitely. Disturbances from harvesting or burning create increased dry 

raveling of soil, losses of soil nutrients, and burying of newly planted seedlings. 

Classification coding may be FMR for suitable lands or FMNW for non-suitable lands. 

Mass 

Movement 

FP 

These sites range from gentle to moderately steep slopes, ten to sixty percent, where the rate 

of sliding is slow enough to permit forest management, but with some loss in wood quality 

in certain areas. Sites may have an impervious clay pan overlaying pyroclastic bedrock, e.g., 

volcanic tuffs, breccia, and are subject to movement. Tree roots providing strength and 

certain landforms act as resisting forces, while gravity and soil moisture may initiate nonuniform spatial and temporal rates of movement. Slow deep seated, slump or earth flow 

types of mass movements may occur, forming an undulating topography. Classification 

coding may be FPR for suitable lands or FPNW for non-suitable lands. 

Table I-13. Additional dry forest best management practices (refer to Table X[C-12] for category type). 

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Roads and Landings: General Construction, Maintenance 

Timber Harvest: Cable Yarding 

DF 01 

Use full suspension whenever possible 

on TPCC soils identi¿ed as prone to 

surface erosion, category FM in Table 

C-12. Use one-end suspension on these 

soils if full suspension is not 

practicable. Restrict yarding to the dry 

season, generally from June to end of 

September.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

MFO 1, p. 317.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1176 | Page

BMP 

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations 

Use one-end suspension on TPCC soils 

identi¿ed as prone to mass movement, 

category FP in Table C-12. Restrict 

yarding to the dry season. 

Timber Harvest: Ground-Based 

DF 02 

Limit ground-based yarding equipment 

to slopes less than 20% on TPCC soils 

identi¿ed as category FM or FP in 

Table C-12, where soils include less 

than 20% clay. Limit ground-based 

yarding equipment to slopes less than 

35%, on TPCC soils identi¿ed as 

category FM or FP in Table C-12, 

where soils include greater than 20% 

clay. 

Avoid tilling on TPCC soils identi¿ed 

as category FM or FP in Table C-12, 

unless adequate ground cover is present 

to arrest potential sediment transport. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

MFO 2, p. 317. 

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Fire and Fuels Management 

DF 03 

Avoid mechanical piling to limit severe 

surface disturbance and displacement 

on TPCC soils identi¿ed as category 

FM or FP in Table C-12. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

MFO 3, p. 318.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

DF 04 

Allow ground-based equipment on 

TPCC soils identi¿ed as category FM 

or FP in Table C-12, where slopes are 

less than 20% and clay content is less 

than 20%. Limit ground-based 

equipment to slopes less than 35%, 

where clay contents are greater than 

20%. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

MFO 4, p. 318.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Wild¿re: Suppression

DF 05 

Limit the use of track driven heavy 

machinery and other major surfacedisturbing activities to slopes of 20% or 

less on TPCC soils identi¿ed as 

category FM or FP in Table C-12. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

MFO 5, p. 318.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

Rights-of-Way 

DF 06 

Avoid facility construction on soils 

identi¿ed on TPCC soils identified as 

the FM category in Table C-12, unless 

water quality would be maintained.

Locate rights-of-ways to minimize 

surface disturbance on TPCC soils 

identi¿ed as category FM or FP in 

Table C-12. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I-Water, 

MFO 6, p. 318.

DEQ-Water Pollution: 

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036 

 
Appendix I – Best Management Practices

1177 | Page

References 

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

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

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

(P), April 2011. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/pubs/igas/DEQBLMMOU20110401.pdf. 

EPA. 2005. National management measures to control nonpoint source pollution from forestry. Nonpoint Source Control Branch, 

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-841-B-05-001. 

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/forestry/upload/2005_05_09_NPS_forestrymgmt_guidance.pdf. 

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

Department of Transportation. 

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

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

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

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

NMFS. 2013. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Programmatic consultation conference and biological opinion and MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat response for reinitiation of aquatic restoration 

activities in states of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II). NMFS consultation number NWR-2013-9664. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/nmfs-arboii.pdf. 

ODEQ. 2005. Erosion and sediment control manual. Prepared by: Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA. Project Number 

SW0106-01. 

ODFW. 2008. Oregon guidelines for timing of in-water work to protect fish and wildlife resources. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/inwater/Oregon_Guidelines_for_Timing_of_%20InWater_Work2008.pdf. 

Rogers, D. 2007. Montana forestry best management practices monitoring: 2006 forestry BMP audit report. Missoula, MT: 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division. 

USACOE. 1972. Clean Water Act, Section 404. 

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/materials/cwa_sec404doc.pdf. 

USDA FS. 1998. Forest Service Manual 2500, Chap. 2520 Watershed Protection and Management, R-6 Supplement 2520.98-1. 

6pp. 

USDA FS. 2002. Management and techniques for riparian restorations: roads field guide. Vol. I and II. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-102 vol. I and II. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 38 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr102.html. 

USDA FS. 2012. National best management practices for water quality management on National Forest system lands. Volume 1: 

National core BMP technical guide. FS-990a. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf. 

USDA FS, USDI BIA, USDI BLM, USDI NPS, and USDI FWS. 2006. Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response 

Guidebook. Interpretation of Department of the Interior 620 DM 3 and USDA Forest Service Manual 2523. For the 

Emergency Stabilization of Federal and Tribal Trust Lands Version 4.0. 

http://www.fws.gov/fire/ifcc/esr/Policy/es_handbook_2-7-06.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 1986. Timber production capability classification. Handbook 5251-1. Available at district offices. 

USDI BLM. 2006. Interagency burn area rehabilitation guidebook. Interpretation of Department of the Interior 620 DM 3. For 

the burned area rehabilitation of federal and tribal trust lands. Version 1.3. Washington, D.C. 36 pp. 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. Vol. I-IV. Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php. 

USDI BLM. 2010. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on BLM lands in Oregon. Record of Decision. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/vegtreatmentseis/files/Veg_Treatments_ROD_Oct2010.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 2011. BLM Road Design Handbook H9113-1. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.5566.File.dat/H

-9113-1.pdf.
1178 | Page