Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1179 | Page

This appendix provides detailed data about lands and realty, found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the EIS. 

In this appendix: 

Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria . 

Land Withdrawals 

Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands . 

Inventory of Communication Sites . 

Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria 

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and other laws, 

Executive Orders, and Departmental and Bureau policy, the following factors will be considered in 

evaluating opportunities for disposal or acquisition of lands or interests in lands. This list is not 

considered all inclusive, but represents the major factors to be considered. 

General Land Tenure Adjustment Evaluation Factors 

x Improves manageability of specific areas. 

x Maintains or enhances important public resource values and uses. 

x Consolidates Federal mineral estate and/or reuniting split surface and mineral estates. 

x Facilitates development of energy and mineral potential. 

x Reduces difficulty or cost of public land administration. 

x Provides accessibility to Federal land for public recreation and other uses. 

x Amount of public investments in facilities or improvements and the potential for recovering 

those investments. 

x Suitability of land for management by another Federal agency. 

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

conditions, and/or lifestyles. 

x Meets long-term public management goals as opposed to short term. 

x Facilitates National, State, and local BLM priorities. 

x Consistency with cooperative agreements and plans or policies of other agencies. 

x Facilitates implementation of other aspects of the approved resource management plans.

Acquisition Criteria x Facilitates access to public land and resources retained for long-term public use. 

x Secures Threatened or Endangered or Sensitive plant and animal species habitat. 

x Protects riparian areas and wetlands. 

x Contributes to biodiversity. 

x Protects high-quality scenery. 

Appendix J – Lands and Realty 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1180 | Page

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

x Facilitates management practices, uses, scales of operation, or degrees of management 

intensity that are viable under economic program efficiency standards. 

x Protects significant cultural resources and sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register 

of Historic Places where non-federal sites exist for the proposed use. 

Disposal Criteria 

The following criteria will be used to identify parcels in Land Tenure Zones 2 or 3 suitable for disposal: 

x Suitability for purposes including but not limited to community expansion or economic 

development, such as industrial, residential, or agricultural development. 

x Lands of limited public resource value. 

x Lands that are difficult for the BLM to manage and unsuitable for transfer to other federal 

agencies or State and local governments. 

x Lands that would aid in aggregating or repositioning other public lands or public land resource 

values where the public values to be acquired outweigh the values to be exchanged. 

O&C Land Exchange Criteria 

An O&C land exchange is an exchange within the O&C area as delineated in Public Law 105-321. Forest 

management and related factors to consider when evaluating the feasibility of an O&C land exchange 

include the following: 

x Land exchanges which maintain the existing balance between the various land use allocations 

will be considered favorably. 

x Land exchanges that enhance public resource values and/or improve land patterns and 

management capabilities of both non-federal and BLM administered lands within the 

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

x Offered lands which are primarily suitable for agriculture, business, or home sites, or which 

would require extensive post-acquisition management will not be favorably considered. The 

O&C lands designated for timber production will generally not be exchanged for lands which 

will be managed solely for a single use, such as species protection. 

x Generally, where cutting rights are reserved on existing and future timber stands by the 

proponent, the proposed exchange will not be considered favorably. 

x The exchange of O&C and CBWR lands specifically for lands located outside of the 18 O&C 

counties is prohibited by regulations in 43 CFR 2200. This restriction applies to timber and 

other interests in lands as well. 

Land Withdrawals 

Table J-1 through Table J-6 contains detailed information about existing and proposed land withdrawals. 

 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1181 | Page

Table J-1. Withdrawal tables legend. 

Authority/Order Type Segregation Effect: 

DO Director Order A Withdrawn from operation of the general land laws, 

the mining laws, and the Mineral Leasing Act 

EO Executive Order B Withdrawn from operation of the general land and 

mining laws 

SO Secretarial Order C Withdrawn from operation of the general land laws 

BO Bureau Order D Withdrawn from operation of the general land laws; 

Open to mining subject to Public Law 359 

PL Public Law E Withdrawn from operation of the general land laws; 

Withdrawn from mining except metalliferous 

PLO Public Land Order F Withdrawn from operation of the general agricultural 

PSR Power Site Reserve and mining laws 

PSC Power Site Classification Recommendation:

R&PP Recreation and Public Purpose C Continue 

WPD Water Power Designation R Revoke 

FPC Federal Power Commission 

E Expire FO Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission Order 

*** Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 

**** Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. 

Notes:

Location description indicates sections within which withdrawn lands are located. Information on which portions of the cited 

sections are withdrawn is available within the District Office. 

Table does not include lands that have been completely transferred out of Federal ownership subsequent to withdrawal or lands 

within National Forest Boundaries. 
































Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1214 | Page

Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands 

Table J-8 through Table J-13 contains Zone 3 lands that are available for disposal.

Table J-8. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Coos Bay District. 

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

19 S. 12 W. 1 Lots 1 and 2 40.48 PD 

20 S. 10 W. 31 Por. lot 10 5.98 PD 20 S. 11 W. 36 Por. lot 9 

21 S. 11 W. 31 Lot 18 37.22 PD 

21 S. 11 W. 32 Lots 16 and 23 59.01 PD 

22 S. 08 W. 15 Lots 9 and 10 25.30 OC 

22 S. 08 W. 21 Lots 7 and 14 2.42 OC 

22 S. 13 W. 14 Lots 1 and 2 71.10 PD 

25 S. 11 W. 30 Lot 5 39.92 PD 

26 S. 08 W. 10 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

26 S. 11 W. 8 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

26 S. 12 W. 9 Por. SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 4 ACQ 

26 S. 14 W. 3 Por. Lots 1 and 2, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 62.18 PD 

26 S. 14 W. 28 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

28 S. 12 W. 19 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 CBWR 

30 S. 12 W. 5 Lot 6 1.80 OC 

30 S. 12 W. 6 Lots 3 and 4 1.14 PD 

30 S. 13 W. 21 N1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 20 PD 

32 S. 14 W. 7 N1⁄2SW1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 5 PD 

32 S. 15 W. 4 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

W1/2SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, Lots 1 - 4 71.75 PD

39 S. 12 W. 8 W1⁄2NW1⁄4 80 PD 

Grand Total 687.30 - 

Table J-9. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Eugene District. 

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

14S. 1E. 19 W1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 PD 

14S. 1E. 26 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

14S. 1E. 33 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC 

14 S. 2 E. 6 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD 

14 S. 3 E. 19 Lot 1 37.02 PD 

15 S. 2 W. 25 Por. SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 16.19 OC 

16 S. 5 W. 33 Lots 4, 7, and 8, and un-numbered lot 5.66 OC 

16 S. 6 W. 7 Lot 6 3.76 OC 

16 S. 2 E. 27 S1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC 

16 S. 2 1/2 E. 1 All 32.81 PD 

17 S. 1 W. 19 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

17 S. 1 W. 31 Lot 3, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 125.58 OC 

17 S. 3 W. 15 Lot 6 0.85 OC 

17 S. 6 W. 35 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC 

17 S. 11 W. 19 Lot 1 44.82 PD 

18 S. 1 W. 5 Por. lot 8 0.84 OC 

18 S. 1 W. 26 Lot 7 1.68 PD 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1215 | Page

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

18 S. 2 W. 1 Lots 1 - 4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 270.41 OC 

18 S. 4 W. 33 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC 

18 S. 4 W. 35 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

18 S. 5 W. 15 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC 

18 S. 5 W. 23 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 OC 

18 S. 7 W. 11 Por. NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 3 OC 

18 S. 9 W. 7 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC 

18 S. 10 W. 11 Lot 9 6.24 PD 

18 S. 11 W. 18 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

18 S. 12 W. 15 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

19 S. 3 W. 29 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC 

19 S. 3 W. 35 Lot 3 2.79 OC 

19 S. 4 W. 29 Por. NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 0.36 OC 

19 S. 4 W. 31 Lot 1, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 81.33 OC 

19 S. 5 W. 1 S1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 OC 

20 S. 4 W. 6 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.23 PD 

20 S. 4 W. 25 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC 

21 S. 2 W. 7 Lot 1 41.37 OC 

21 S. 1 W. 31 Lot 13 1.42 OC 

21 S. 4 W. 1 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC 

22 S. 1 W. 5 Por. lot 18 2.20 OC 

22 S. 3 W. 7 Lots 1 and 2 91.46 OC 

Grand Total 1850.02 - 

Table J-10. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

37 S. 14 E. 10 W1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 PD 

38 S. 8 E. 31 Lot 4 10.3 PD 

38 S. 11 E. 17 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

38 S. 11 E. 17 E1⁄2SE1⁄4 80 PD 

38 S. 11 E. 32 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 PD 

39 S. 8 E. 6 Lot 8 27.2 PD 

39 S. 8 E. 7 Lot 5 16.9 PD 

39 S. 11 E. 2 Lot 1 40.24 PD 

39 S. 12 E. 28 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD 

40 S. 8 E. 17 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

40 S. 8 E. 33 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD 

40 S. 9 E. 23 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD 

40 S. 11 E. 9 N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 PD 

40 S. 11 E. 9 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

40 S. 11 E. 10 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 280 PD 

40 S. 11 E. 14 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

N1⁄2SW1⁄4 240 PD

40 S. 12 E. 10 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD 

40 S. 12 E. 10 W1⁄2SE1⁄4 80 PD 

40 S. 12 E. 14 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 200 PD

40 S. 12 E. 15 N1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 PD 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1216 | Page

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

40 S. 12 E. 15 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 PD 

40 S. 12 E. 21 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

40 S. 12 E. 22 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 80 PD 

40 S. 13 E. 35 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

41 S. 7 E. 13 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

41 S. 7 E. 13 Lot 4 24.69 PD 

41 S. 11 E. 8 Lot 6 7.12 PD 

Grand Total 1966.45 - 

Table J-11. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Medford District. 

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

33 S. 2 E. 1 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD 

34 S. 2 E. 29 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

34 S. 6 W. 22 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

34 S. 6 W. 33 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 OC 

34 S. 6 W. 35 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

34 S. 8 W. 26 Lot 3 24.23 PD 

35 S. 1 W. 15 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC 

35 S. 5 W. 31 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 281.12 OC 

35 S. 5 W. 32 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 160 PD 

35 S. 6 W. 11 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 160 OC 

35 S. 6 W. 14 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

35 S. 6 W. 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 80 OC 

35 S. 6 W. 19 NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4 239.94 OC 

35 S. 6 W. 21 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

35 S. 6 W. 29 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC 

35 S. 6 W. 30 S1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 PD 

35 S. 6 W. 31 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 403.96 OC 

35 S. 6 W. 33 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 240 OC

35 S. 6 W. 5 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4 280 OC 

35 S. 6 W. 7 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 198.71 OC

36 S. 1 E. 6 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

36 S. 2 E. 34 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 PD 

36 S. 3 W. 21 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC 

36 S. 3 W. 33 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC 

36 S. 3 W. 33 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 10 PD 

36 S. 3 W. 35 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

36 S. 4 W. 25 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 60 OC 

36 S. 4 W. 35 Lot 5, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 112.4 OC 

36 S. 5 W. 29 S1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 OC 

36 S. 5 W. 4 E1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 159.26 PD 

36 S. 5 W. 5 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC 

36 S. 5 W. 9 W1⁄2E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2, E1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 340 OC 

36 S. 6 W. 1 Lots 2 - 4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 440.2 OC

36 S. 6 W. 11 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1217 | Page

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

36 S. 6 W. 17 N1⁄2N1⁄2 160 OC 

36 S. 6 W. 3 SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4 240 OC 

36 S. 6 W. 30 NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 37.78 PD 

36 S. 6 W. 31 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 37.47 OC 

36 S. 6 W. 33 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

36 S. 6 W. 4 W1⁄2W1⁄2 161.06 PD 

36 S. 6 W. 5 E1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 200 OC 

36 S. 6 W. 8 W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD 

36 S. 6 W. 9 N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 200 OC 

37 S. 1 E. 15 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC 

37 S. 3 W. 1 Lot 8 13.82 PD 

37 S. 3 W. 4 Lot 2 4.28 PD 

37 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 7 39.69 PD/OC 

37 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 8 30.72 PD/OC 

37 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 9 4.78 PD 

37 S. 5 W. 18 W1⁄2SW1⁄4 90.4 PD 

37 S. 5 W. 5 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 118.87 OC 

37 S. 5 W. 7 W1⁄2SW1⁄4 90.15 OC 

37 S. 6 W. 11 N1⁄2NW1⁄4 80 OC 

37 S. 6 W. 13 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 120 OC 

37 S. 6 W. 15 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC 

37 S. 6 W. 24 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

37 S. 6 W. 3 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC 

37 S. 6 W. 8 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

37 S. 6 W. 9 NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 400 OC

38 S. 1 E. 3 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC 

38 S. 1 E. 5 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

38 S. 1 W. 21 Lot 1, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4 147.04 OC 

38 S. 2 E. 34 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 80 PD 

38 S. 2 W. 10 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD 

38 S. 2 W. 28 Lot 1 5 PD 

38 S. 4 W. 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

38 S. 4 W. 25 Lot 7 9.26 PD 

39 S. 1 W. 1 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.23 OC 

39 S. 2 W. 18 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 10 PD 

40 S. 8 W. 1 Lots 7 and 8 11.53 OC 

40 S. 8 W. 5 Lots 6 and 7 21.21 OC 

Grand Total 7143.11 - 

Table J-12. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Roseburg District. 

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

24 S. 5 W. 29 Lot 5 28 OC 

24 S. 6 W. 27 W1⁄2, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 360 OC 

25 S. 6 W. 3 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 122 OC 

25 S. 6 W. 33 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC 

26 S. 2 W. 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 (part North of 

Highway 138) 0.3 OC
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1218 | Page

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

26 S. 4 W. 10 Lot 1 7 PD 

26 S. 4 W. 17 Lots 9 and 10 12 OC 

26 S. 6 W. 17 Lot 2, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 126 OC 

26 S. 6 W. 3 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC 

27 S. 4 W. 7 Lot 2 4 OC 

28 S. 4 W. 29 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

28 S. 5 W. 28 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD 

28 S. 5 W. 29 E1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 OC 

30 S. 2 W. 34 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD 

30 S. 4 W. 1 Lot 9 4 OC 

30 S. 6 W. 18 Lots 1 and 2 39 PD 

Grand Total 1022.3 - 

Table J-13. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Salem District. 

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

3 N. 1 W. 9 Lot 8 1.24 Ot 

3 N. 8 W. 10 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

3 N. 8 W. 11 Lot 2 0.01 PD 

5 N. 6 W. 6 Lot 9 2.12 PD 

5 N. 7 W. 10 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

7 N. 4 W. 6 Lot 7 0.03 PD 

1 S. 3 W. 7 Lot 1 0.18 OC 

1 S. 3 W. 8 Lot 1 0.05 PD 

2 S. 2 E. 4 Lot 2 0.04 PD 

2 S. 2 E. 9 Lot 7 0.11 Ot 

2 S. 3 E. 23 Lots 8 and 12 6.25 OC 

2 S. 3 E. 25 Lots 7 and 8 1.69 OC 

2 S. 3 W. 13 N1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 OC 

2 S. 3 W. 23 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC 

2 S. 4 W. 31 Lot 1 1.30 OC 

3 S. 2 E. 7 Lot 1 0.87 OC 

3 S. 4 W. 33 Lot 4 0.11 OC 

3 S. 9 W. 20 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

3 S. 9 W. 28 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

3 S. 9 W. 33 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

3 S. 10 W. 30 Lot 15 0.45 PD 

4 S. 1 E. 21 Lot 1 0.49 OC 

4 S. 2 E. 11 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 200 OC

4 S. 2 E. 15 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC 

4 S. 2 E. 33 Lots 1 0.1 OC 

4 S. 3 E. 9 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC 

4 S. 3 E. 19 Un-numbered lot in SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 47.31 OC 

4 S. 3 E. 21 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 200 OC 

4 S. 3 E. 29 E1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 OC 

4 S. 3 E. 31 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 OC 

4 S. 1 W. 22 Un-numbered lot 0.5 PD 

4 S. 3 W. 2 Lot 1 0.25 PD 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1219 | Page

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

4 S. 3 W. 34 Lots 1 and 2 4.4 PD 

4 S. 10 W. 28 Lot 3 0.53 PD 

5 S. 3 W. 4 Lot 1 1.16 PD 

5 S. 5 W. 13 Lot 3 0.05 OC 

5 S. 5 W. 31 Lot 1 3.57 OC 

5 S. 5 W. 34 Lot 1 0.93 PD 

5 S. 5 W. 35 Lot 1 8 OC 

6 S. 3 W. 2 Lot 2 0.2 PD 

6 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 1 2 OC 

6 S. 1 E. 13 E1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC 

6 S. 1 E. 25 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 80 OC 

6 S. 9 W. 32 W1⁄2SE1⁄4 80 PD 

6 S. 9 W. 34 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

6 S. 10 W. 35 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

7 S. 1 E. 1 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC 

7 S. 3 W. 29 Lot 3 5.42 OC 

7 S. 6 W. 34 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC 

8 S. 1 E. 3 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4 200 OC 

8 S. 1 E. 27 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC 

8 S. 1 E. 35 Lots 1 and 2, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2 400.22 OC 

8 S. 4 W. 24 M&B 1.54 Ot 

8 S. 4 W. 25 M&B 8 Ot 

8 S. 10 W. 20 W1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 20 PD 

8 S. 11 W. 3 Lot 8 4.73 PD 

9 S. 1 W. 21 Lot 7, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 84.21 OC 

9 S. 3 W. 21 Lot 3 0.08 Ot 

9 S. 3 W. 24 Un-numbered lot 1.4 PD 

9 S. 3 W. 32 Lot 2 4.6 PD 

9 S. 4 W. 9 Lot 5 1.16 OC 

9 S. 4 W. 14 Lot 9 0.17 PD 

9 S. 9 W. 19 Por. lot 29 10 PD 

9 S. 9 W. 33 Lot 17 20 PD 

9 S. 9 W. 34 W1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 20 PD 

9 S. 10 W. 26 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD 

9 S. 10 W. 36 Por. lots 5 and 6 10 PD 

9 S. 11 W. 1 Lot 6 1.46 PD 

9 S. 11 W. 4 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD 

10 S. 2 W. 8 Lot 1 6.13 PD 

10 S. 3 W. 24 Lot 6 0.9 PD 

10 S. 4 W. 11 Lot 5 1.52 OC 

10 S. 5 W. 19 Lots 1 - 4, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4 480 OC 

10 S. 5 W. 23 Lot 4 0.79 OC 

10 S. 6 W. 22 Lots 2 and 3 15.7 PD 

10 S. 7 W. 18 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 160 PD 

10 S. 10 W. 2 Lot 20 20 PD 

11 S. 8 W. 6 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD 

11 S. 9 W. 31 Lot 2 43.25 PD 

11 S. 10 W. 12 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 160 PD 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1220 | Page

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status 

11 S. 10 W. 14 Lot 1 2.87 PD 

11 S. 10 W. 23 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

11 S. 10 W. 24 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD 

11 S. 10 W. 25 Lot 1 37.22 PD 

11 S. 10 W. 35 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

12 S. 4 E. 30 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD 

12 S. 4 E. 31 Lot 1, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 84.81 PD 

12 S. 2 W. 13 Lot 6 7.04 Ot 

12 S. 6 W. 35 Lot 3 0.2 Ot 

12 S. 8 W. 6 Lot 7 40.18 PD 

12 S. 8 W. 7 Lots 1 and 2 79.04 PD 

12 S. 9 W. 29 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD 

12 S. 9 W. 32 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 120 PD 

12 S. 9 W. 34 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD 

12 S. 9 W. 35 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 PD 

12 S. 10 W. 6 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

12 S. 10 W. 14 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

12 S. 11 W. 10 Lots 3 and 4 76.16 PD 

12 S. 11 W. 17 Lot 5 38.84 PD 

13 S. 3 E. 9 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

13 S. 2 E. 24 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE 1⁄4 120 PD 

13 S. 2 W. 21 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC 

13 S. 4 W. 30 Lot 5 8.49 PD 

13 S. 5 W. 29 Lot 1 0.84 OC 

13 S. 9 W. 10 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD 

13 S. 9 W. 13 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD 

13 S. 11 W. 3 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

13 S. 11 W. 28 Lot 9 7.6 PD 

13 S. 11 W. 33 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

14 S. 5 W. 25 Lot 1 0.26 OC 

14 S. 11 W. 3 Lots 1, 2, and 25 111.5 PD 

14 S. 11 W. 4 Lots 29 and 30 84.3 PD 

14 S. 11 W. 5 Lot 10 40.62 PD 

14 S. 11 W. 6 Lot 16 40 PD 

14 S. 11 W. 10 Lots 1, 11 - 13, and 17 210.21 PD 

14 S. 11 W. 15 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD 

14 S. 12 W. 35 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD 

15 S. 5 W. 6 Lot 5 1.46 PD 

Grand Total 5596.86 - 

Inventory of Communication Sites 

Table J-14 through Table J-19 contains information on existing communication sites. Appendix B of the 

DEIS contains management direction related to management of communication sites.

 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1221 | Page

Table J-14. Communication sites in the Coos Bay District. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section 

Roman Nose 19 S. 9 W. 23 NE1⁄4 and NW1⁄4 

Johns's Peak 23 S. 9 W. 27 SW1⁄4 

Blue Ridge 26 S. 12 W. 35 SW1⁄4 

Signal Tree 29 S. 9 W. 33 SW1⁄4 

Anderson Mountain 29 S. 11 W. 21 SW1⁄4 

Sugar Loaf 29 S. 12 W. 23 NE1⁄4 

Bennett Butte 30 S. 13 W. 20 NW1⁄4 

Edson Butte 31 S. 14 W. 23 NW1⁄4 

Grizzly Mountain 37 S. 14 W. 4 SE1⁄4 

Bosley Butte 39 S. 13 W. 10 SE1⁄4 

Palmer Butte 40 S. 13 W. 10 SE1⁄4 

Black Mound 40 S. 13 W. 20 SW1⁄4 

Table J-15. Communication sites in the Eugene District. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section 

Horse Rock 15 S. 2 W. 1 NW1⁄4 

Mt. Tom 15 S. 2 W. 31 SW1⁄4 

Buck Mountain 16 S. 2 W. 7 NW1⁄4 

South McGowan 16 S. 2 W. 31 NW1⁄4 

Amy Road 16 S. 7 W. 1 NW1⁄4 and SW1⁄4 

Elk Mountain 16 S. 8 W. 26 NE1⁄4 

Windy Peak 16 S. 8 W. 27 SW1⁄4 

Black Canyon 17 S. 2 W. 7 SW1⁄4 

Camp Creek Ridge 17 S. 2 W. 15 NE1⁄4 

Badger Mountain 17 S. 7 W. 35 NE1⁄4 

Vaughn Hill 18 S. 6 W. 5 SE1⁄4 and NE1⁄4 

Brickerville 18 S. 10 W. 3 NW1⁄4 

High Point 19 S. 6 W. 23 NW1⁄4 

Eagle's Rest 20 S. 1 W. 12 NE1⁄4 

Cougar Mountain 20 S. 3 W. 1 NE1⁄4 

Hawley Butte 21 S. 1 W. 29 NE1⁄4 

Hobart Butte 22 S. 3 W. 1 NW1⁄4 

Laurel Butte 22 S. 3 W. 23 SE1⁄4 

Huckleberry Mountain 24 S. 1 W. 6 SW1⁄4 

Table J-16. Communication sites in the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section 

Yaniax 37 S. 12 E. 26 SW1⁄4 

Harpold 39 S. 11 E. 19 SE1⁄4 and SW1⁄4 

Hamaker 40 S. 7 E. 26 NW1⁄4 

Stukel 40 S. 10 E. 10 SW1⁄4 

15 NW1⁄4 

Buck Butte 40 S. 12 E. 20 NW1⁄4 

Brady Butte 41 S. 14 1⁄2 E. 14 NW1⁄4 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1222 | Page

Table J-17. Communication sites in the Medford District. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section 

Cedar Springs 32 S. 4 W. 25 NE1⁄4 

Ninemile Mountain 32 S. 9 W. 13 SW1⁄4 

Buck Rock 33 S. 1 W. 15 NW1⁄4 

King Mountain 33 S. 5 W. 24 NE1⁄4 

Peavine Lookout 34 S. 8 W. 21 NE1⁄4 

Flounce Rock 33 S. 2 E. 5 SE1⁄4 

Mt. Isabelle 37 S. 3 W. 31 SW1⁄4 

Mt. Sexton 34 S. 6 W. 24 SW1⁄4 

Elk Mountain 35 S. 5 W. 11 SE1⁄4 

Manzanita/Round Top 37 S. 6 W. 31 SE1⁄4 

Anderson Butte 38 S. 2 W. 34 NE1⁄4 

Nuggett Butte 36 S. 3 W. 9 SE1⁄4 

Tin Pan Peak 36 S. 4 W. 23 SW1⁄4 

Squires Peak 38 S. 3 W. 34 SE1⁄4 

Woodrat 38 S. 3 W. 36 NW1⁄4 

Gilbert Peak 35 S. 5 W. 33 NW1⁄4 

Fielder Mountain 36 S. 4 W. 7 SE1⁄4 

Beacon Hill 36 S. 5 W. 9 SE1⁄4 

Mt. Bluie 37 S. 5 W. 3 SE1⁄4 

Table Mountain 39 S. 3 E. 8 NW1⁄4 

Chestnut Mountain 39 S. 3 E. 35 NW1⁄4 

Mt. Baldy 36 S. 5 W. 27 NW1⁄4 

Tallowbox 39 S. 4 W. 11 NW1⁄4 

Rock Creek 39 S. 5 W. 21 NE1⁄4 and NW1⁄4 

Little Grayback Lockout 39 S. 7 W. 2 SE1⁄4 

Soda Mountain 40 S. 3 E. 28 NW1⁄4 

Table J-18. Communication sites in the Roseburg District. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section 

Yellow Butte 23 S. 6 W. 27 NW1⁄4 

Lane Mountain 27 S. 4 W. 25 NE1⁄4 

Kenyon Mountain 30 S. 9 W. 3 NW1⁄4 

Canyon Mountain 31 S. 5 W. 3 SW1⁄4 

Table J-19. Communication sites in the Salem District. 

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section 

Lookout Point 1 S. 5 E. 13 SE1⁄4 

Blind Cabin Ridge 1 S. 5 W. 31 NE1⁄4 

Dixie Mountain 2 N. 2 W. 27 NE1⁄4 

Brightwood 2 S. 6 E. 14 NW1⁄4 

Trask Mountain 2 S. 6 W. 29 NW1⁄4 

High Heaven 3 S. 5 W. 33 SE1⁄4 

Bald Mountain 3 S. 6 W. 29 SW1⁄4 

Goat Mountain 5 S. 4 E. 14 SW1⁄4 

Prospect Hill 8 S. 4 W. 24 SE1⁄4 

Mt. Horeb 9 S. 4 E. 17 NE1⁄4 

Snow Peak 11 S. 2 E. 5 NW1⁄4 
Appendix J – Lands and Realty

1223 | Page

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section 

Yellowstone Mountain 11 S. 3 E. 32 NW1⁄4 

Prairie Mtn. East 15 S. 7 W. 4 SE1⁄4 

Prairie Mtn. 15 S. 7 W. 7 SW1⁄4 

Prairie Mtn. West 15 S. 7 W. 7 SW1⁄4 
1224 | Page

 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1225 | Page

Appendix K – Livestock Grazing 

This appendix provides the background information regarding standards for range improvements, grazing 

allotments, and standards for rangeland health. These topics are referenced in Chapters 1-3. 

This appendix contains the following: 

x Standard procedures and design elements for range improvements within the Medford District 

and Klamath Falls Field Office 

x Grazing Allotments in the Klamath Falls Field Office and Medford District 

x Standards for Rangeland Health 

x Drought management policies 

Standard Procedures and Design Elements for Range 

Improvements within the Klamath Falls Field Office and 

Medford District 

The following standard procedures and design elements would be adhered to in implementation of the 

proposed construction of range improvements within the Klamath Falls Field Office and Medford 

District: 

x Inventories and surveys for cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, and Special 

Status Species would be conducted prior to authorization of any project construction, and 

appropriate mitigation implemented to reduce or eliminate potential effects. 

x Surface disturbance at all project sites would be held to a minimum. Disturbed soil would be 

rehabilitated to blend into surrounding soil surface and reseeded as needed with a mixture of 

native grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees as applicable to replace ground cover, reduce soil loss 

from wind and water erosion, and discourage the potential establishment of any invasive, nonnative plant species. 

x Where possible, existing roads and trails would provide access for range improvement 

construction. If needed, unimproved trails and tracks would be created to reach construction sites 

and provide access for future maintenance of the improvements. Locate unimproved trails or 

tracks outside riparian management areas where workable. 

All range improvements would be constructed in accordance with USDI BLM Manual 1741-1 (1989, 

Fencing), USDI BLM Manual 1741-2 (1990, Water Developments) and Oregon Water Resources 

Department for water developments. 

Additional design features specific to the individual types of improvements are the following: 

Reservoirs 

x Development of reservoirs would involve the construction of pits and dams to impound water for 

livestock and wildlife use. 

x Pits would be in dry lake beds or other natural depressions. Dams would be constructed in 

drainages or to one side of a drainage, with a diversion ditch constructed into the impoundment 

area. 

x Water right applications would be coordinated as needed with applicable agencies, irrigation 

districts, and other interested parties. 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1226 | Page

x A water right permit would be obtained from the Oregon Water Resources Department prior to 

construction. 

x Water storage capacity would not exceed 3.0 acre-feet. 

x Dams would be located, if possible, to take advantage of natural spillway sites; otherwise, a 

spillway would be constructed around the dam for the reservoir. The slopes of the dam must be a 

minimum 3 to 1 on the upstream face and minimum of 2 to 1 on the downstream face. Minimum 

width of the top of all dams would be 12 feet. 

x The spillway would be designed to withstand the 50-year flood flow without overtopping the 

dam. It should also direct the pass flow downstream to prevent erosion of the embankment. 

x Fill material, if needed, would come from the impoundment area and/or a borrow area for dams. 

x Excavated material from pits would be piled adjacent to the pit. The potential for erosion of the 

excavated material into the pit would be eliminated. Topsoil would be stockpiled and used to 

rehabilitate the borrow areas. 

x All brush, stumps, roots, and organic matter would be cleared from the borrow area and beneath 

the dam. Only fill materials consisting of non-organic and cohesive soils adjusted in moisture to 

optimum water content would be used for construction of the dam. Individual layers would not 

exceed 8 inches in thickness and would be compacted with a sheepsfoot roller or similar 

equipment. Fill material should be placed in thin layers parallel with the long axis of the dam. 

Spring Developments 

x The spring source would be fenced to prevent livestock grazing and trampling. 

x Escape ramps would be installed in all water troughs to allow wildlife to escape. 

x Overflow from troughs would be piped away from the developed source area. 

Fencing 

x Fences would be designed to prevent the passage of livestock without stopping the movement of 

wildlife. 

x Wire spacing would follow these specifications :The majority of fences would be constructed as 

follows: 4-wire with the bottom wire 16-18 inches off the ground with the sequence of the 

remaining 3-wires above this being 6 inches, 6 inches, and 12 inches; the maximum height of the 

fence (ground to top wire) would be 42 inches. 

x The bottom wire on all fencing would be 2-strand smooth wire, not barbed, to facilitate antelope 

crossings. 

x Steel “t-post” spacing would be between 16 feet and 24 feet, depending on local conditions. 

x Brace posts, tree scabs, and/or rock jacks (rock cribs) would be constructed to enhance fence 

integrity with one at least every 0.25 mile. 

x No woven wire “sheep” fences would be constructed on public lands. 

x Brushing and tree limb removal will be limited to only that necessary for surveying, placement, 

and construction of a fence. 

x Where fences cross existing roads, either gates or cattle guards would be installed. 

x Where workable, fence construction would be located outside riparian management areas. 

Grazing Allotments in the Klamath Falls Field Office and 

Medford District

The following tables summarize information for allotments on the Klamath Falls Field Office and the 

Medford District. Table K-1 and Table K-2 contain detailed information about these grazing allotments 

including acres derived from the BLM allotment and pasture boundary (GRA) theme. For all allotments 

proposed to be made unavailable to livestock grazing see Appendix B (Management Direction). 









Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1236 | Page

Standards for Rangeland Health 

The following section contains the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington. These standards and guidelines are referenced 

in Chapters 2 and 3 of this Draft EIS. Livestock grazing would be managed in accordance with these

standards and guidelines.

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH 

AND 

GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

MANAGEMENT 

FOR 

PUBLIC LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE STATES OF OREGON 

AND 

WASHINGTON 

AUGUST 12, 1997 

 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1237 | Page

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon 

and Washington 

Introduction 

These Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public 

Lands in Oregon and Washington were developed in consultation with Resource Advisory Councils and 

Provincial Advisory Committees, tribes and others. These standards and guidelines meet the requirements 

and intent of 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 4180 (Rangeland Health) and are to be used as 

presented, in their entirety. These standards and guidelines are intended to provide a clear statement of 

agency policy and direction for those who use public lands for livestock grazing, and for those who are 

responsible for their management and accountable for their condition. Nothing in this document should be 

interpreted as an abrogation of Federal trust responsibilities in protection of treaty rights of Indian tribes 

or any other statutory responsibilities including, but not limited to, the Taylor Grazing Act, the Clean 

Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. 

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health 

The objectives of the rangeland health regulations referred to above are “to promote healthy sustainable 

rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public rangelands to properly 

functioning conditions; . . . and to provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry and 

communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands.”

To help meet these objectives, the regulations on rangeland health identify fundamental principles 

providing direction to the States, districts, and on-the-ground public land managers and users in the 

management and use of rangeland ecosystems. 

A hierarchy, or order, of ecological function and process exists within each ecosystem. The rangeland 

ecosystem consists of four primary, interactive components: a physical component, a biological 

component, a social component, and an economic component. This perspective implies that the physical 

function of an ecosystem supports the biological health, diversity, and productivity of that system. In turn, 

the interaction of the physical and biological components of the ecosystem provides the basic needs of 

society and supports economic use and potential. 

The Fundamentals of Rangeland Health stated in 43 CFR 4180 are: 

1. Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical 

condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant 

conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage and the release of water that are in balance 

with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity and the timing 

and duration of flow. 

2. Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle and energy flow, are 

maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support healthy 

biotic populations and communities. 

3. Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is making significant 

progress toward achieving, established Bureau of Land Management objectives such as meeting 

wildlife needs. 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1238 | Page

4. Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for Federal 

threatened and endangered species, Federal Proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal candidate and 

other special status species. 

The fundamentals of rangeland health combine the basic precepts of physical function and biological 

health with elements of law relating to water quality, and plant and animal populations and communities. 

They provide direction in the development and implementation of the standards for rangeland health. 

Standards for Rangeland Health 

The standards for rangeland health (standards), based on the above fundamentals, are expressions of the 

physical and biological condition or degree of function necessary to sustain healthy rangeland 

ecosystems. Although the focus of these standards is on domestic livestock grazing on Bureau of Land 

Management lands, on-the-ground decisions must consider the effects and impacts of all uses. 

Standards that address the physical components of rangeland ecosystems focus on the roles and 

interactions of geology and landform, soil, climate and water as they govern watershed function and soil 

stability. The biological components addressed in the standards focus on the roles and interactions of 

plants, animals and microbes (producers, consumers and decomposers), and their habitats in the 

ecosystem. The biological component of rangeland ecosystems is supported by physical function of the 

system, and it is recognized that biological activity influences and supports many of the ecosystem's 

physical functions. 

Guidance contained in 43 CFR 4180 of the regulations directs management toward the maintenance or 

restoration of the physical function and biological health of rangeland ecosystems. Focusing on the basic 

ecological health and function of rangelands is expected to provide for the maintenance, enhancement, or 

creation of future social and economic options. 

The standards are based upon the ecological potential and capability of each site. In assessing a site's 

condition or degree of function, it must be understood that the evaluation compares each site to its own 

potential or capability. Potential and capability are defined as follows: 

x Potential-The highest level of condition or degree of function a site can attain given no political, 

social, or economic constraints. 

x Capability-The highest level of condition or degree of function a site can attain given certain 

political, social, or economic constraints. For example, these constraints might include riparian 

areas permanently occupied by a highway or railroad bed that prevent the stream's full access to 

its original flood plain. If such constraints are removed, the site may be able to move toward its 

potential. 

In designing and implementing management strategies to meet the standards of rangeland health, the 

potential of the site must be identified, and any constraints recognized, in order that plan goals and 

objectives are realistic and physically and economically achievable. 

Standards and Guidelines in Relation to the Planning 

Process 

The standards apply to the goals of land use plans, activity plans, and project plans (Allotment 

Management Plans, Annual Operating Plans, Habitat Management Plans, etc.). They establish the 

physical and biological conditions or degree of function toward which management of publicly-owned 

rangeland is to be directed. In the development of a plan, direction provided by the standards and the 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1239 | Page

social and economic needs expressed by local communities and individuals are brought together in 

formulating the goal(s) of that plan. 

When the standards and the social and economic goals of the planning participants are woven together in 

the plan goal(s), the quantifiable, time specific objective(s) of the plan are then developed. Objectives 

describe and quantify the desired future conditions to be achieved within a specified timeframe. Each plan 

objective should address the physical, biological, social, and economic elements identified in the plan 

goal. 

Standards apply to all ecological sites and landforms on public rangelands throughout Oregon and 

Washington. The standards require site-specific information for full on-ground usability. For each 

standard, a set of indicators is identified for use in tailoring the standards to site-specific situations. These 

indicators are used for rangeland ecosystem assessments and monitoring and for developing terms and 

conditions for permits and leases that achieve the plan goal. 

Guidelines for livestock grazing management offer guidance in achieving the plan goal and objectives. 

The guidelines outline practices, methods, techniques and considerations used to ensure that progress is 

achieved in a way, and at a rate, that meets the plan goal and objectives. 

Indicators of Rangeland Health 

The condition or degree of function of a site in relation to the standards and its trend toward or away from 

any standard is determined through the use of reliable and scientifically sound indicators. The consistent 

application of such indicators can provide an objective view of the condition and trend of a site when used 

by trained observers. 

For example, the amount and distribution of ground cover can be used to indicate that infiltration at the 

soil surface can take place as described in the standard relating to upland watershed function. In applying 

this indicator, the specific levels of plant cover necessary to support infiltration in a particular soil should 

be identified using currently available information from reference areas, if they exist; from technical 

sources like soil survey reports, Ecological Site Inventories, and Ecological Site Descriptions, or from 

other existing reference materials. Reference areas are lands that best represent the potential of a specific 

ecological site in both physical function and biological health. In many instances potential reference areas 

are identified in Ecological Site Descriptions and are referred to as “type locations.” In the absence of 

suitable reference areas, the selection of indicators to be used in measuring or judging condition or 

function should be made by an interdisciplinary team of experienced professionals and other trained 

individuals. 

Not all indicators identified for each standard are expected to be employed in every situation. Criteria for 

selecting appropriate indicators and methods of measurement and observation include, but are not limited 

to: 1. the relationship between the attribute(s) being measured or observed and the desired outcome; 2. the 

relationship between the activity (e.g., livestock grazing) and the attribute(s) being measured or observed; 

and 3. funds and workforce available to conduct the measurements or observations. 

Assessments and Monitoring 

The standards are the basis for assessing and monitoring rangeland condition and trend. Carrying out 

well-designed assessment and monitoring is critical to restoring or maintaining healthy rangelands and 

determining trends and conditions. 

Assessments are a cursory form of evaluation based on the standards that can be used at different 

landscape scales. Assessments, conducted by qualified interdisciplinary teams (which may include but are 

not limited to physical, biological, and social specialists, and interagency personnel) with participation 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1240 | Page

from permittees and other interested parties, are appropriate at the watershed and sub-watershed levels, at 

the allotment and pasture levels and on individual ecological sites or groups of sites. Assessments identify 

the condition or degree of function within the rangeland ecosystem and indicate resource problems and 

issues that should be monitored or studied in more detail. The results of assessments are a valuable tool 

for managers in assigning priorities within an administrative area and the subsequent allocation of 

personnel, money and time in resource monitoring and treatment. The results of assessments may also be 

used in making management decisions where an obvious problem exists. 

Monitoring, which is the well documented and orderly collection, analysis and interpretation of resource 

data, serves as the basis for determining trends in the condition or degree of function of rangeland 

resources and for making management decisions. Monitoring should be designed and carried out to 

identify trends in resource conditions, to point out resource problems, to help indicate the cause of such 

problems, to point out solutions, and/or to contribute to adaptive management decisions. In cases where 

monitoring data do not exist, professional judgment, supported by interdisciplinary team 

recommendation, may be relied upon by the authorized officer in order to take necessary action. Review 

and evaluation of new information must be an ongoing activity. 

To be effective, monitoring must be consistent over time, throughout administrative areas, and in the 

methods of measurement and observation of selected indicators. Those doing the monitoring must have 

the knowledge and skill required by the level or intensity of the monitoring being done, as well as the 

experience to properly interpret the results. Technical support for training must be made available. 

Measurability 

It is recognized that not every area will immediately meet the standards and that it will sometimes be a 

long-term process to restore some rangelands to properly functioning condition. It is intended that in cases 

where standards are not being met, measurable progress should be made toward achieving those 

standards, and significant progress should be made toward fulfilling the fundamentals of rangeland health. 

Measurability is defined on a case-specific basis based upon the stated planning objectives (i.e., 

quantifiable, time specific), taking into account economic and social goals along with the biological and 

ecological capability of the area. To the extent that a rate of recovery conforms with the planning 

objectives, the area is allowed the time to meet the standard under the selected management regime. 

Implementation 

The material contained in this document will be incorporated into existing Land Use Plans and used in the 

development of new Land Use Plans. According to 43 CFR 4130.3-1, permits and leases shall incorporate 

terms and conditions that ensure conformance with 43 CFR 4180. Terms and conditions of existing 

permits and leases will be modified to reflect standards and guidelines at the earliest possible date with 

priority for modification being at the discretion of the authorized officer. Terms and conditions of new 

permits and leases will reflect standards and guidelines in their development. 

Indicators identified in this document will serve as a focus of interpretation of existing monitoring data 

and will provide the basis of design for monitoring and assessment techniques, and in the development of 

monitoring and assessment plans. 

The authorized officer shall take appropriate action as soon as practicable but not later than the start of the 

next grazing year upon determining, through assessment or monitoring by experienced professionals and 

interdisciplinary teams, that a standard is not being achieved and that livestock are a significant 

contributing factor to the failure to achieve the standards and conform with the guidelines. 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1241 | Page

Standards for Rangeland Health 

Standard 1 Watershed Function – Uplands 

Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, 

moisture storage and stability that are appropriate to soil, 

climate and landform. 

Rationale and Intent 

This standard focuses on the basic physical functions of upland soils that support plant growth, the 

maintenance or development of plant populations and communities, and promote dependable flows of 

quality water from the watershed. 

To achieve and sustain rangeland health, watersheds must function properly. Watersheds consist of three 

principle components: the uplands, riparian/wetland areas and the aquatic zone. This standard addresses 

the upland component of the watershed. When functioning properly, within its potential, a watershed 

captures, stores and safely releases the moisture associated with normal precipitation events (equal to or 

less than the 25 year, 5 hour event) that falls within its boundaries. Uplands make up the largest part of 

the watershed and are where most of the moisture received during precipitation events is captured and 

stored. 

While all watersheds consist of similar components and processes, each is unique in its individual 

makeup. Each watershed displays its own pattern of landform and soil, its unique climate and weather 

patterns, and its own history of use and current condition. In directing management toward achieving this 

standard, it is essential to treat each unit of the landscape (soil, ecological site, and watershed) according 

to its own capability and how it fits with both smaller and larger units of the landscape. A set of potential 

indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used to determine if this standard is 

being met. The appropriate indicators to be used in determining attainment of the standard should be 

drawn from the following list. 

Potential Indicators 

Protection of the soil surface from raindrop impact; detention of overland flow; maintenance of 

infiltration and permeability, and protection of the soil surface from erosion, consistent with the 

potential/capability of the site, as evidenced by the following: 

x Amount and distribution of plant cover (including forest canopy cover) 

x Amount and distribution of plant litter 

x Accumulation/incorporation of organic matter 

x Amount and distribution of bare ground 

x Amount and distribution of rock, stone, and gravel 

x Plant composition and community structure 

x Thickness and continuity of A horizon 

x Character of micro-relief 

x Presence and integrity of biotic crusts 

x Root occupancy of the soil profile 

x Biological activity (plant, animal, and insect) 

x Absence of accelerated erosion and overland flow 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1242 | Page

Soil and plant conditions promote moisture storage as evidenced by: 

x Amount and distribution of plant cover (including forest canopy cover) 

x Amount and distribution of plant litter 

x Plant composition and community structure 

x Accumulation/incorporation of organic matter 

Standard 2 Watershed Function - Riparian/Wetland Areas 

Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning physical 

condition appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. 

Rationale and Intent 

Riparian-wetland areas are grouped into two major categories: 1. lentic, or standing water systems such as 

lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows; and 2. lotic, or moving water systems such as rivers, streams, 

and springs. Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 

and duration to support, and which under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation 

typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Riparian areas commonly occupy the transition zone 

between the uplands and surface water bodies (the aquatic zone) or permanently saturated wetlands. 

Properly functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas describes the degree of physical function of 

these components of the watershed. Their functionality is important to water quality in the capture and 

retention of sediment and debris, the detention and detoxification of pollutants, and in moderating 

seasonal extremes of water temperature. Properly functioning riparian areas and wetlands enhance the 

timing and duration of streamflow through dissipation of flood energy, improved bank storage, and 

ground water recharge. Properly functioning condition should not be confused with the Desired Plant 

Community (DPC) or the Desired Future Condition (DFC) since, in most cases, it is the precursor to these 

levels of resource condition and is required for their attainment. 

A set of indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used to determine if this 

standard is being met. The criteria are based upon the potential (or upon the capability where potential 

cannot be achieved) of individual sites or land forms. 

Potential Indicators 

Hydrologic, vegetative, and erosional/depositional processes interact in supporting physical function, 

consistent with the potential or capability of the site, as evidenced by: 

x Frequency of floodplain/wetland inundation; 

x Plant composition, age class distribution, and community structure; 

x Root mass; 

x Point bars re-vegetating; 

x Streambank/shoreline stability; 

x Riparian area width; 

x Sediment deposition; 

x Active/stable beaver dams; 

x Coarse/large woody debris; 

x Upland watershed conditions; 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1243 | Page

x Frequency/duration of soil saturation; and 

x Water table fluctuation. 

Stream channel characteristics are appropriate for landscape position as evidenced by: 

x Channel width/depth ratio; 

x Channel sinuosity; 

x Gradient; 

x Rocks and coarse and/or large woody debris; 

x Overhanging banks; 

x Pool/riffle ratio; 

x Pool size and frequency; and 

x Stream embeddedness. 

Standard 3 Ecological Processes 

Healthy, productive and diverse plant and animal populations 

and communities appropriate to soil, climate and landform 

are supported by ecological processes of nutrient cycling, 

energy flow and the hydrologic cycle. 

Rationale and Intent 

This standard addresses the ecological processes of energy flow and nutrient cycling as influenced by 

existing and desired plant and animal communities without establishing the kinds, amounts, or 

proportions of plant and animal community compositions. While emphasis may be on native species, an 

ecological site may be capable of supporting a number of different native and introduced plant and animal 

populations and communities while meeting this standard. This standard also addresses the hydrologic 

cycle, which is essential for plant growth and appropriate levels of energy flow and nutrient cycling. 

Standards 1 and 2 address the watershed aspects of the hydrologic cycle. 

With few exceptions, all life on earth is supported by the energy supplied by the sun and captured by 

plants in the process of photosynthesis. This energy enters the food chain when plants are consumed by 

insects and herbivores and passes upward through the food chain to the carnivores. Eventually, the energy 

reaches the decomposers and is released as the thermal output of decomposition or through oxidation. 

The ability of plants to capture sunlight energy, to grow and develop, to play a role in soil development 

and watershed function, to provide habitat for wildlife and to support economic uses depends on the 

availability of nutrients and moisture. Nutrients necessary for plant growth are made available to plants 

through the decomposition and metabolization of organic matter by insects, bacteria, and fungi, the 

weathering of rocks and extraction from the atmosphere. Nutrients are transported through the soil by 

plant uptake, leaching and by rodent, insect and microbial activity. They follow cyclical patterns as they 

are used and reused by living organisms. 

The ability of rangelands to supply resources and satisfy social and economic needs depends on the 

buildup and cycling of nutrients over time. Interrupting or slowing nutrient cycling can lead to site 

degradation, as these lands become increasingly deficient in the nutrients plants require. 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1244 | Page

Some plant communities, because of past use, frequent fire or other histories of extreme or continued 

disturbance, are incapable of meeting this standard. For example, shallow-rooted winter-annual grasses 

that completely dominate some sites do not fully occupy the potential rooting depth of some soils, thereby 

reducing nutrient cycling well below optimum levels. In addition, these plants have a relatively short 

growth period and thus capture less sunlight than more diverse plant communities. Plant communities like 

those cited in this example are considered to have crossed the threshold of recovery and often require 

great expense to be recovered. The cost of recovery must be weighed against the site’s potential 

ecological/economic value in establishing treatment priorities. 

The role of fire in natural ecosystems should be considered, whether it acts as a primary driver or only as 

one of many factors. It may play a significant role in both nutrient cycling and energy flows. 

A set of indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used to determine if this 

standard is being met. 

Potential Indicators 

Photosynthesis is effectively occurring throughout the potential growing season, consistent with the 

potential/capability of the site, as evidenced by plant composition and community structure. 

Nutrient cycling is occurring effectively, consistent with the potential/capability of the site, as evidenced 

by: 

x Plant composition and community structure; 

x Accumulation, distribution, incorporation of plant litter and organic matter into the soil; 

x Animal community structure and composition; 

x Root occupancy in the soil profile; and 

x Biological activity including plant growth, herbivory, and rodent, insect, and microbial activity. 

Standard 4 Water Quality 

Surface water and groundwater quality, influenced by agency 

actions, complies with State water quality standards. 

Rationale and Intent 

The quality of the water yielded by a watershed is determined by the physical and chemical properties of 

the geology and soils unique to the watershed, the prevailing climate and weather patterns, current 

resource conditions, the uses to which the land is put and the quality of the management of those uses. 

Standards 1, 2, and 3 contribute to attaining this standard. 

States are legally required to establish water quality standards and Federal land management agencies are 

to comply with those standards. In mixed ownership watersheds, agencies, like any other landowners, 

have limited influence on the quality of the water yielded by the watershed. The actions taken by the 

agency will contribute to meeting State water quality standards during the period that water crosses 

agency-administered holdings. 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1245 | Page

Potential Indicators 

Water quality meets applicable water quality standards as evidenced by: 

x Water temperature; 

x Dissolved oxygen; 

x Fecal coliform; 

x Turbidity; 

x pH; 

x Populations of aquatic organisms; and 

x Effects on beneficial uses (i.e., effects of management activities on beneficial uses as defined 

under the Clean Water Act and State implementing regulations). 

Standard 5 Native, T&E, and Locally Important Species 

Habitats support healthy, productive and diverse populations 

and communities of native plants and animals (including 

special status species and species of local importance) 

appropriate to soil, climate and landform. 

Rationale and Intent 

Federal agencies are mandated to protect threatened and endangered species and will take appropriate 

action to avoid the listing of any species. This standard focuses on retaining and restoring native plant and 

animal (including fish) species, populations and communities (including threatened, endangered and other 

special status species and species of local importance). In meeting the standard, native plant communities 

and animal habitats would be spatially distributed across the landscape with a density and frequency of 

species suitable to ensure reproductive capability and sustainability. Plant populations and communities 

would exhibit a range of age classes necessary to sustain recruitment and mortality fluctuations. 

Potential Indicators 

Essential habitat elements for species, populations, and communities are present and available, consistent 

with the potential/capability of the landscape, as evidenced by: 

x plant community composition, age class distribution, productivity; 

x animal community composition, productivity; 

x habitat elements; 

x spatial distribution of habitat; 

x habitat connectivity; and 

x population stability/resilience 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

Guidelines for livestock grazing management offer guidance in achieving plan goals, meeting standards 

for rangeland health and fulfilling the fundamentals of rangeland health. Guidelines are applied in 

accordance with the capabilities of the resource in consultation, cooperation, and coordination with 

permittees/lessees and the interested public. Guidelines enable managers to adjust grazing management 

on public lands to meet current and anticipated climatic and biological conditions. 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1246 | Page

General Guidelines 

1. Involve diverse interests in rangeland assessment, planning and monitoring. 

2. Assessment and monitoring are essential to the management of rangelands, especially in areas 

where resource problems exist or issues arise. Monitoring should proceed using a qualitative 

method of assessment to identify critical, site-specific problems or issues using interdisciplinary 

teams of specialists, managers, and knowledgeable land users. 

Once identified, critical, site-specific problems or issues should be targeted for more intensive, 

quantitative monitoring or investigation. Priority for monitoring and treatment should be given to those 

areas that are ecologically at-risk where benefits can be maximized given existing budgets and other 

resources. 

Livestock Grazing Management 

1. The season, timing, frequency, duration and intensity of livestock grazing use should be based on 

the physical and biological characteristics of the site and the management unit in order to: 

a. Provide adequate cover (live plants, plant litter and residue) to promote infiltration, conserve 

soil moisture and to maintain soil stability. 

b. Provide adequate cover and plant community structure to promote streambank stability, 

debris and sediment capture, floodwater energy dissipation in the riparian areas. 

c. Promote soil surface conditions that support infiltration. 

d. Avoid sub-surface soil compaction that retards the movement of water in the soil profile. 

e. Help prevent the increase and spread of noxious weeds. 

f. Maintain or restore diverse plant populations and communities that fully occupy the potential 

rooting volume of the soil 

g. Maintain or restore plant communities that optimize the length of the photosynthetic period. 

h. Promote soil and site conditions that provide the opportunity for the establishment of 

desirable plants 

i. Protect or restore water quality. 

j. Provide for the life cycle requirements, and maintain or restore the habitat elements of native 

(including T and E, special status, and locally important species) and desired plants and 

animals. 

2. Grazing management plans should be tailored to site-specific conditions and plan objectives. 

Livestock grazing should be coordinated with the timing of precipitation, plant growth and plant 

form. Soil moisture, plant growth stage and the timing of peak stream flows are key factors in 

determining when to graze. Response to different grazing strategies varies with differing 

ecological sites. 

3. Grazing management systems should consider nutritional and her health requirements of the 

livestock in the system. 

4. Integrate grazing management systems into the year-round management strategy and resources of 

the permittee(s) or lessee(s). Consider the use of collaborative approaches (e.g., Coordinated 

Resource Management, Working Groups) in the integration. 

5. Competition for forage and browse between livestock, big game animals, and wild horses must be 

considered in designing and implementing a grazing plan. 

6. Provide periodic rest form grazing for rangeland vegetation during critical growth periods to 

promote plant vigor, reproduction and productivity. 

7. Range improvements practices should be prioritized to promotes rehabilitation and resolve 

grazing concerns on transitory grazing land. 

8. The potential for conflict between grazing use on public land and adjoining land uses must be 

considered in the design and implementation of the grazing management plan. 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1247 | Page

Facilitating the Management of Livestock Grazing 

1. The uses of practices to facilitate the implementation of grazing systems should consider the kind 

and class of animals managed, indigenous wildlife, wild horses, the terrain and the availability of 

water. Practices such as fencing, herding, water development, and the placement of salt and 

supplements are used where appropriate to: 

a. Provide adequate cover (live plants, plant litter and residue) to promote infiltration, conserve 

soil moisture and to maintain soil stability. 

b. Encourage a uniform level of proper grazing use throughout the grazing unit; 

c. Avoid unwanted or damaging concentrations of livestock on streambank, in riparian areas 

and other sensitive areas such as highly erodible soils, unique wildlife habitat, and plant 

communities and 

d. Protect water quality. 

2. Roads used to facilitate livestock grazing are constructed and maintained in a manner that 

minimized the effects on landscape hydrology; concentration of overland flow, erosion and 

sediment transport are prevented; and subsurface flows are retained. 

Accelerating Rangeland Recovery 

1. Upland treatments that alter the vegetative composition of a site, like prescribed burning, juniper 

management and seedings or plants must be based on the potential of the site and should: 

2. Retain or promote infiltration, permeability, and soil moisture storage 

a. Contribute to nutrient cycling and energy flow. 

b. Protect water quality 

c. Help prevent the increase and spread of noxious weeds 

d. Contribute to the diversity of plant communities and plant community composition and 

structure 

e. Support the conservation of T&E, other special status species and species of local importance 

f. Be followed up with grazing management and other treatments that extend the life of the 

treatments and address the cause of the original treatment need. 

g. Seedings and plantings of non-native vegetation should only be used in those cases where 

native species are not available in sufficient quantities, native species are incapable of 

maintaining or achieving the Standards; or where non-native species are essential to the 

protection of the functional integrity of the site. 

3. Structural and vegetative treatments and animal introductions in riparian and wetland areas must 

be compatible with the capability of the site, including the systems hydrologic regime, and 

contribute to the maintenance or restoration of properly functioning condition. 

Drought Management Policies 

With drought conditions and issues, the principal focus of the Bureau of Land Management’s actions is to 

maintain the long-term health and productivity of the Nation’s rangelands with awareness to maintain a 

balance to those who rely on public lands for their livelihood. 

Pre-Season 

Preferable four or months before turn out, but a minimum of one month prior to turn out (or 2 weeks if 

authorized use is year round). 

Inform grazing permittee and lessees, in writing, about current and projected drought conditions. Outline 

potential responsive management actions the BLM may take that would affect their use of public lands for 

grazing in the coming grazing season. Actively engage and encourage operators to communicate and 

coordinate identifying and implementing appropriately responsive grazing management adjustments. 
Appendix K – Livestock Grazing

1248 | Page

Inform permittee of suggested adjustments to grazing use, as necessary, which may include reducing 

livestock numbers, shortening the season of use, altering pasture move dates, changing pasture rotations, 

authorizing water hauling, allowing use in vacant allotments. 

Line officers have the option to implement needed changes through a formal agreement between the BLM 

and grazing operator (which is recommended to be implemented by decision) that specifies the droughtrelated grazing adjustments (43 CFR 4110.3-3 (a)), or by temporarily suspending or otherwise modifying 

use via a decision that may be put into immediate effect, if necessary (43 CFR 4113.3-2 (a) and 3-3 (b). 

Be sure to include the intended duration of the drought-related grazing adjustment with rationale. 

Issuing a grazing decision to implement an agreement for changes in use provides for administrative 

finality of the approval of actions that will occur under the agreement. Issuing a grazing a grazing 

agreement where agreement cannot be reached must be preceded by a reasonable attempt at consultation, 

cooperation, and coordination with affected grazing operators, the state having lands or responsible for 

managing resources in the affected area and the interested public. 

Mid-Season 

Evaluate on-the-ground resource conditions to determine the effects and appropriateness of continued 

grazing by all users. Continue to interact with affected livestock permittees and lessees to refine livestock 

grazing management practices as needed. Communicate to permittees or lessees in advance the conditions 

or circumstances that would prompt further livestock management adjustments or modifications. 

During multiple-year drought cycles consult with the agency to determine if temporary reductions of 

ungulate populations are appropriate to provide for healthy long-term habitats. 

Late-Season 

Notify permit or lease holder they must move or remove livestock within a designated period, if adverse 

impacts to resources attributable to livestock grazing are occurring despite the drought response actions 

implemented. 

Regulation 43 CFR 4130.8-2(b) authorizes the BLM to refund grazing fees if previously approved 

grazing use is not made due to drought conditions. 

Coordinate with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies on drought response actions and potential effects to fish 

and wildlife pursuant to state-level Memorandums of Understanding with the BLM. 

Coordinate and consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on 

drought response actions and potential effects to Federally-listed fish and wildlife pursuant to section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act. 

References 

USDI BLM. 1989. BLM Manual Handbook 1741-1 – Fencing. Available at BLM district offices. 

USDI BLM. 1990. BLM Manual Handbook 1741-2 – Water Developments. Available at BLM district offices. 

 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1249 | Page

Appendix L – Energy and Minerals 

This appendix contains the following: 

x Trends in salable mineral developments and proposed guidelines on salable mineral 

exploration and development activity 

x Trends in locatable mineral developments and regulation for locatable mineral 

exploration and development activity 

x Reasonably foreseeable leasable mineral developments and proposed stipulations on 

leasable mineral exploration and development activity 

x Quarry management in special areas 

x Rankings of prospective mineral occurrence or development ranking of each special area 

that is recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 

Trends in Salable Mineral Developments and Guidelines 

Table L-1 shows the estimated number of new quarries that could be developed or the existing sites that 

will require expansion for development per district over a 10-year period. Based on past BLM data, onehalf acre per site was used as the estimated amount of land to be disturbed for either a new site or the 

expansion of an existing site. As Table L-1 shows, the BLM estimates that 37 quarry developments or 

expansions would utilize 18.5 acres of land in the next 10 years. 

Table L-1. Salable mineral development ten-year scenario for new or expanded* quarry development. 

The BLM assumes 0.5 acres per quarry. 

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals 

Number of quarries 7 4 2 9 6 9 37 

Total (Acres) 3.5 2 1 4.5 3 4.5 18.5 

* Expanded development beyond the existing quarry development footprint. 

Salable Mineral Developments and Guidelines

Where practicable, the following requirements should be incorporated into quarry design and use of 

mineral material sites: 

x BLM quarries will be designed to have slopes no steeper than 1.5 : 1, which is the current State 

of Oregon standard. Bench height should not exceed 40 feet and bench width should be at least 

12 feet wide or wider if regularly used by earthmoving equipment. 

x All topsoil shall be stockpiled or windrowed as appropriate, for use in reclamation. Where 

needed, stabilization and erosion control of overburden and stockpiles will be employed. 

x Clearing of timber and brush should be planned at least 10 feet beyond the edge of the excavation 

limit. 

x If applicable, the quarry floor should be designed with an out slope to provide for adequate 

drainage. Alternatively, often water can be managed through infiltration. 

x The operator shall comply with Federal, local and state safety codes or regulations covering 

quarry operations, warning signs and traffic control. All necessary permits must be obtained from 

Federal, State, and local agencies. 

x Use of the quarry site beyond that of the contract period will require authorization normally 

under a temporary use permit. 

x Where reasonably practicable, based on the approved mining and reclamation plan, all material 

sites will be graded to conform with the surrounding topography prior to closure. Topsoil will be 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1250 | Page

utilized to create a medium for re-vegetation. Access roads no longer needed will be reclaimed. 

Other reclamation strategies include helicopter landing site, log landing, dispersed camp site, 

recreational shooting range, overburden waste sites for ditch cleanings or landslides, fire staging 

areas, helicopter ponds sites, hang gliding sites, raptor nesting (in rock walls of the quarry 

benches), or other post-quarry uses. 

Trends in Locatable Mineral Development and Regulation 

Tables L-2 and L-3 show the estimated number of notices and plans of operation that may be filed over 

the next ten years. The BLM used past data to estimate the number of proposals and the acres per 

operation. This data showed that the average plan of operation is about three acres and the average notice 

is about one-quarter of an acre. Based on the number of past submittals of mining proposals the BLM 

expects that 86 notices and 24 plans of operations will be submitted over a 10-year period (Table L-2). 

These notices will cover 21 acres, with the majority of the notices in the Medford district. Approximately 

24 plans of operation will cover 72 acres, with the majority of the plans of operation in the Medford 

District (Table L-3). Notices or plans of operation will utilize 93 acres over the next 10 years in the 

decision area. 

Table L-2. Locatable mineral development 10-year scenario notices of operation. The BLM assumes 0.25 

acres per notice. 

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals 

Number of notices 4 4 - 70 4 4 86 

Total (Acres) 1 1 - 17 1 1 21 

Table L-3. Locatable mineral development 10-year scenario plans of operation. The BLM assumes 3 

acres per plan of operation. 

Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals 

Number of plans of 

operation 1 1 - 20 1 1 24 

Total (Acres) 3 3 - 60 3 3 72 

Mining is regulated by the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR 3809) and Use and Occupancy 

Under the Mining Laws (43 CFR 3715). It is the responsibility of the mining claimant/operator to prevent 

“unnecessary or undue degradation,” perform all necessary reclamation work, and comply with relevant 

Federal and State regulations. 

Operations ordinarily resulting in only negligible disturbance as defined in 43 CFR 3809.5 are considered 

to be casual use and no notification to the BLM is required. All activities exceeding casual use must file a 

notice or plan of operations. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Leasable Mineral Developments and 

Proposed Restrictions 

The Reasonably Foreseeable Mineral and Energy Developments from the 2008 RMP/EIS (Appendix Q 

pp. 564, 568-622) is incorporated by reference. 

The BLM has completed a review in 2015 of the fluid mineral reasonably foreseeable development 

scenarios (RFDs) for the 2008 RMP/EIS. The intent of the review was to determine if the RFDs could be 

included into this EIS by reference. The review focused on whether the circumstances or research 

completed in the RFDs had substantially altered since 2008. 

Discussions with Dr. Allan Niem, the author or co-author of the predominantly referenced materials in 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1251 | Page

this EIS, indicates that the geologic settings and interpreted petroleum plays and systems have not altered 

substantially. Dr. Niem’s work is focusing on detailing his original research. No substantial publications 

have been issued since 2008 that would alter the RFDs interpretations. There are no concerns in 

incorporating by reference the resource portion of the RFDs from the 2008 RMP/EIS. 

Potential development scenarios of the Coos Basin Coalbed Natural Gas (CBNG) Play, as described in 

this EIS, were dependent upon industry interest and development, as well as natural gas prices, occurring 

in 2008. Between 2008 and the present, the gas prices have dropped more than 3-fold, the original 

company involved with the Coos Basin development has gone into receivership through bankruptcy, and 

the current holder of the Coos Basin developments is Westport Energy. Westport Energy has retained 

property interests, but intends to abandon permanently all but five wells, which are located in the shallow 

gases. The remaining five wells will be kept in long-term suspension (Bob Houston, Oregon Department 

of Geology and Mineral Industries, personal communication-multiple events, 2014 and 2015). Therefore, 

based on this information, the projected development scenarios described in 2008 were not accurate. 

However, a change in development scenario of CBNG for this EIS is not likely warranted. Analysis of the 

projected infrastructure was completed, with resulting stipulations. Analysis does not guarantee 

development; any development less than the analysis do not create an exceedance of impact. There are a 

great many unknowns that may occur within the life of this DEIS and future RMP. Neither the geologic 

setting nor the mineral potential for CBNG has altered since 2008. The current operator is maintaining 

resource extraction capabilities for future development. That development could occur under many highly 

feasible circumstances. The first is the development of the natural gas export facility in Coos Bay. Such 

systems would increase the market value of the Coos Basin CBNG and provide an immediate connection 

to market. Secondly, there would possibly be an increase in the domestic value of natural gas. During the 

research of 2008, natural gas prices ranged up to $15.00/MMcf at wellhead. It has since reached lows 

below $3.00/MMcf. As historical prices did reach the high level at one time, it is plausible that the same 

level could be reached or exceeded, making development of the Coos Basin once more marketable. Based 

on this reasoning, especially the foreseeable development of the Coos Bay export facility within the life 

of the RMP, it is recommended that the development scenarios within the 2008 document be maintained 

and incorporated into this EIS by reference. 

Proposed Stipulations on Leasable Mineral Exploration and 

Development Activity 

The section titled Proposed Restrictions and Requirements on Mineral and Energy Exploration and 

Development Activity from the 2008 RMP/EIS (USDI BLM 2008, Appendix Q, pp. 623-631) is 

incorporated by reference. 

The State Geologist and the Medford District Geologist reviewed the stipulations of the 2008 document 

and found them applicable. 

The same special leasing stipulations as Recreation Sites from Appendix Q, p. 628 of the 2008 RMP/EIS 

shall be applied to the land use allocation of Recreation Management Areas. 

The land use allocations of eligible Wild and Scenic River segments and lands managed for Wilderness 

Characteristics shall have the following stipulations: 

No Surface Occupancy

Resource: eligible Wild and Scenic River segments and Lands managed for Wilderness 

Characteristics
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1252 | Page

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within all eligible Wild and Scenic River 

segments and Lands managed for Wilderness Characteristics.

Objective: To protect eligible Wild and Scenic River segments and Lands managed for 

Wilderness Characteristics lands.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the 

operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or 

can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if 

the eligible Wild and Scenic River segments and Lands managed for Wilderness Characteristics 

boundaries are changed.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire 

leasehold no longer contains eligible Wild and Scenic River segments and Lands managed for 

Wilderness Characteristics designations. 

The stipulations will apply to all forms of leasable fluid minerals, including geothermal. 

Quarry Management within Special Areas 

This section includes a discussion of Lands managed for their Wilderness Characteristics, eligible Wild 

and Scenic River segments, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and Recreation Management Areas 

that have quarries within their boundaries. 

When gathering data for this information, many of the BLM staff (geologists, realty specialists, and 

engineers) stated that even though the entire area is proposed for closure to salable mineral development, 

many of the districts prefer to keep some or all of the developed quarries open until the quarry is depleted. 

See the appropriate section of this RMP revision for which areas closed to salable mineral entry for each 

alternative. Eligible Wild and Scenic River segments, Lands managed for Wilderness Characteristics 

ACECs, and RMAs that have existing developed quarries within their boundaries are detailed in Tables 

L-4 through L-7. 

Table L-4. Quarries located in Lands managed for Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs) by district/field 

office. 

District/Field Office LWC Name Quarry Name 

Medford

Burton-Ninemile 

Burton Butte 

Negro Bend 

Unnamed 

Dakubetede Anderson Butte 

Wild Rogue Addition

Fire Fly 

Kelsey Peak 

Marble Gap 

Mt. Ruben 

Mt. Ruben Road 

Serpeng Springs 

 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1253 | Page

Table L-5. Quarries located in eligible Wild and Scenic River segments by district/field office. 

District/Field Office Eligible Wild and Scenic River Quarry Name 

Coos Bay South Fork Coquille River Oregon State Highway Pit 

Old Diamond Pit 

Medford

Cow Creek Cow Creek Number C 

Russell Road 

Elk Valley Creek Elk Valley Quarry 

Quines Creek Quines Creek Quarry 

Roseburg Cow Creek Cattle Creek 

Quarry 

Salem Luckiamute River Pedee Quarry 

Table L-6. Quarries located in Areas of Environmental Concern by district/field office. 

District/Field Office ACEC Name Quarry Name 

Coos Bay Roman Nose Roman Nose 

Eugene Low Elevation Headwaters of the 

McKenzie River West Hagan

Medford

Dakubetede Anderson Butte 

East Fork Whiskey Creek Mt. Ruben 

Mt. Ruben Road 

Old Baldy Old Baldy 

Roseburg China Ditch Buck Fork Creek 

Quarry/28-4-13B 

Table L-7. Quarries located in Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) by district/field office. 

District/Field Office RMA Name Quarry Name 

Eugene 

Coburg Hiking Trail System McGowan Creek 

Upper Lake Creek

Lake Creek 

Prairie Mt. 

Prairie Mtn. 

Ranking of the Prospective Mineral Occurrence and/or 

Development of Each Special Area Recommended for 

Withdrawal from Locatable Mineral Entry 

Tables L-8 through L-11 list the estimated prospective mineral occurrence and/or development ranking 

of each eligible Wild and Scenic River segments, lands managed for Wilderness Characteristics, ACEC, 

and RMA that is recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Some proposals have 

multiple polygons; when this was the case, each polygon was analyzed separately and that is why some 

sites have multiple rankings. Chapter 3 contains information on which areas are proposed for a 

recommendation for withdrawal from mineral entry by each alternative. 

 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1254 | Page

Table L-8. Ranking of each Lands managed for their Wilderness Characteristics that are recommended 

for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. These withdrawals vary by alternative. 

Lands Managed for Wilderness Characteristics Ranking 

Berry Creek Low 

Bull of the Woods-Opal Creek Add - Evans Mountain High 

Bull of the Woods-Opal Creek Add - Nasty Rock High 

Burton-Ninemile High 

Clackamas Wilderness Add - Memaloose Creek Low 

Clackamas Wilderness Add - South Fork Clackamas #1 Low 

Clackamas Wilderness Add - South Fork Clackamas #2 Low 

Dakubetede High 

Round Top Mountain High 

Salmon Huckleberry Add - Boulder Creek Low 

Salmon Huckleberry Add - Eagle River Low 

Salmon Huckleberry Add - Salmon River Low 

Table Rock Wilderness Add Low 

Wasson Creek Low 

Wellington Mountain High 

Whiskey Creek High 

Wild Rogue High 

Wild Rogue Additions High 

Table L-9. Ranking of each eligible Wild and Scenic River segment that is recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry for all alternatives including the No Action alternative. 

Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segment Name Ranking 

Alsea River Low 

Antelope Creek Medium 

Applegate River High 

Big Butte Creek (including South Fork Big Butte) Medium 

Cheney Creek Medium 

Clackamas River Low 

Cow Creek High 

Drift Creek Low 

Drift Creek Segment A and B Low 

Elk Valley Creek High 

Fall Creek - Eugene Low 

Fall Creek - Salem Low/Low 

Kilches River Low 

Lake Creek Low 

Left Fork Foots Creek High 

Little Applegate River High 

Little Luckiamute River Medium 

Little North Santiam River High 

Lobster Creek Low 

Lobster Creek Segment B Low 

McKenzie River Low 

Middle Santiam River Low 

Nehalem River Low 

Nelson Creek Low 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1255 | Page

Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segment Name Ranking 

Nestucca River Segment B Low 

North Fork Clackamas River Low 

North Fork Gate Creek Low 

North Fork Siletz River Low 

North Fork Trask River Low 

North Santiam Medium 

Quines Creek High 

Riffle Creek High 

Rogue River High 

Sam’s Creek High 

Sandy River Segments A and B Low 

Siletz River Low 

Sixes River High 

South Fork Coos River Low 

South Fork Coquille River High 

South Fork Gate Creek Low 

South Fork Little Butte Creek Low 

South Fork Trask River Low 

South Umpqua River High 

South Yamhill River Medium 

Table Rock Fork Molalla River Medium 

Trask River Low 

Tualatin River Low 

Umpqua River Medium 

West Fork Illinois River High 

Willamette River Low 

Wilson River Low 

Yaquina River Low 

Table L-10. Ranking of each Area of Environmental Concern (ACEC) that is recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. These withdrawals vary by alternative. 

ACEC Name Ranking 

Baker Cypress Low 

Bear Gulch High 

Beatty Creek High 

Beaver Creek Low 

Bobby Creek Low 

Brewer Spruce Medium/High 

Bumpheads Low 

Bushnell-Irwin Rocks Low 

Callahan Meadows Medium 

Camas Swale Low 

Cherry Creek Low 

China Wall Low 

Coburg Hills Low 

Cougar Mountain Yew Grove Low 

Crabtree Complex Medium 

Dakubetede Medium/High 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1256 | Page

ACEC Name Ranking 

Dorena Lake Low 

East Fork Whiskey Creek High 

Eight Dollar Mountain Medium/High 

Elk Creek Low 

Forest Peak Low 

Fox Hollow Low 

Grass Mountain Low 

Grassy Mountain Low 

Grayback Glades Medium 

Heceta Sand Dunes Medium 

High Peak - Moon Creek Low 

Holton Creek Medium 

Horse Rock Ridge Low 

Hult Marsh Low 

Hunter Creek Bog High 

Iron Creek High 

Little North Fork Wilson River Medium 

Little Sink Low 

Lost Prairie Low/Low 

Lower Scappoose Eagle Low/Medium 

Mary’s Peak Low/Medium 

McCully Mountain Low 

McGowan Meadow Low 

Middle Santiam Terrace Low 

Mill Creek Ridge Low 

Mohawk Low 

Molalla Meadows Low 

Myrtle Island Low 

Nestucca River Low 

New River Medium/High 

North Bank Low 

North Fork Chetco Medium 

North Fork Coquille River Low 

North Fork Hunter Creek Low/High 

North Fork Silver Creek High 

North Myrtle Creek Medium 

North Santiam Low 

North Spit Medium 

Oak Basin Prairies Low 

Old Baldy Low 

Pickett Creek Medium 

Pipe Fork Medium 

Red Pond Low 

Reeves Creek Medium 

Rickreall Ridge Low 

Rocky Peak Medium 

Rough and Ready Medium/High 

Saddle Bag Mountain Medium 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1257 | Page

ACEC Name Ranking 

Sandy River Gorge Low 

Silt Creek Low 

Snow Peak Medium 

Soosap Meadows Low 

Spencer Creek Low 

Surveyor Low 

Table Rocks Low/Medium 

Tater Hill High 

The Butte Low 

Tunnel Creek Low 

Upper Elk Meadows Low 

Upper Klamath River Low/Medium 

Upper Klamath River Addition Low 

Upper Rock Creek Low 

Upper Willamette Valley Margin Low/Medium 

Valley of the Giants Low 

Walker Flat Low 

Wassen Creek Low 

Waterloo Low 

West Fork Illinois River Medium/High 

White Rock Fen Low 

Wilhoit Springs Medium 

Willamette Valley Prairie Oak and Pine Area Low 

Williams Lake Low 

Woodcock Bog Medium 

Yainax Butte Low 

Yaquina Head Low 

Yellowstone Creek High 

Table L-11. Ranking of each Recreational Management Area that is recommended for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry. These recommendations vary by alternative. 

Recreation Management Area Name Ranking 

Alder Glen Campground Low 

Armstrong Gulch Trailhead Medium 

Barlow Creek Trail and Trailhead Low 

Bastendorff Beach Low 

Bear Gulch Trailhead Medium 

Bolt Mountain Trail Medium 

Carpenter Bypass Mountain Bike Trail Low 

Carpenter Bypass Staging Area Low 

Cascade View OHV Complex Low 

Cathedral Hills Trails Medium 

Cedar Grove Low 

Clay Creek Recreation Site Low 

Clay Creek Trail Low 

Coos Head Low 

Crooked Creek OHV Staging Site Low 

Culp Creek Expansion Site Low 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1258 | Page

Recreation Management Area Name Ranking 

Culp Creek Trailhead Low 

Deer Creek Education/Interpretive Area Medium 

Dorena Dam Trail Access Site Low 

Dovre Low 

Eagles Rest Hiking/Biking Trail Low 

Edson Creek Campground Low 

Eight Dollar Mountain High 

Eight Dollar Mountain Interpretive Site High 

Elderberry Flat Campground Medium 

Elk Bend Low 

Elkhorn Creek WSR Medium 

Emerald Trail Low 

Esmond lake Trailhead and Trail Low 

Fan Creek Low 

Flores lake Medium 

Gold Nugget Waysides High 

Grizzly Peak Medium 

Hill Creek Trail Low 

Hill Creek Wayside Low 

Hult Equestrian Staging Area Low 

Hult Reservoir Non-Motorized Trail Low 

Hult Reservoir Recreation Area Low 

Hunter Creek Trail System High 

Ivors Wayside Low 

Jacksonville Woodlands Trails High 

Kenney Meadows Recreation Site High 

King Mountain Trail High 

Klamath River WSR Low/Medium 

Loon Lake Recreation Area Low 

Lost Creek Trails Low 

Lower Lake Creek Falls Low 

Martin Rapids Overlook Low 

McGowan Creek Environmental Education Area Trail Low 

McGowan Creek Environmental Education Area Low 

McKenzie River Campground Low 

McKercher Park (R&PP Lease) Low 

Mosby Creek Trailhead Low 

North Bank - Comstock Day Use Area Low 

North Bank Habitat Management Area Low 

North Bank- Western Trailhead Low 

North Bowl Campground Low 

North Spit Beach and Ponds Unit Medium 

North Umpqua Trail - Swiftwater Low/Medium 

North Umpqua Trail - Tioga Low 

North Umpqua Wild Scenic River Corridor Low/Medium 

Northwest Hills Medium 

Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) 1 and 2 Low 

Park Creek Campground Low 
Appendix L – Energy and Minerals

1259 | Page

Recreation Management Area Name Ranking 

Provolt Seed Orchard High 

Rennie Boat landing Low 

Rocky Peak Trail Medium 

Rogue Wild and Scenic River Medium/High 

Rough and Ready Trail Medium 

Row River Trail Low/Medium 

Row River Trail Expansion Low/Medium 

Sandy Ridge Trailhead Low 

Sawmill Trail Low 

Sharps Creek Recreation Site Medium 

Shotgun Creek Recreation Site Low 

Shotgun Non-Motorized Trail System Low 

Shotgun OHV Trail System Low 

Silver Creek Boat and McKenzie River Watchable 

Wildlife Site Low 

Siuslaw Bend Campground Low 

Sixes River Campground Medium 

Smith Creek Low 

Smith River Falls Campground Low 

Sterling Mine Ditch Trail High 

Stick Beach Medium 

Storm Ranch Medium 

Table Rocks Low/Medium 

Taylor landing Recreation Site Low 

Three Bears- Hardy Creek Low 

Tyrrell Seed Orchard Interpretive Trail Low 

Upper lake Creek ERMA Low 

Vincent Creek Campground Low 

Whitewater Day Use Area Low 

Whittaker Creek Recreation Area Low 

Whittaker Creek Trail Low 

Wild Rogue Canyon Low/Medium/High 

Wilhoit Springs Medium 

Willamalane Non-Motorized Trails Low 

Willamette River Greenway (R&PP lease) Low 

Wolf Creek Environmental Education Site and Trail Low 

Wolf Creek Falls Trail Low 

References 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 
1260 | Page

 

















Appendix M – Special Status Species – Botany

1278 | Page

References 

Cowden, M. M. A. 2002. A study of the current range and habitat of fuzzy sandozi conks (Bridgeoporus 

nobilissimus) throughout Pacific Northwest forests. PhD dissertation. Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR. 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/10271/Cowden_Margaret_McAndrews_

2002.pdf?sequence=1. 

Exeter, R. L., L. L. Norvell, and E. Cazares. 2006. Ramaria of the Pacific Northwest United States. USDI 

BLM, Salem District. 

Harpel, J. A. 2007. Schistogeta. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of 

North America North of Mexico. 18+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 27, p. 475. 

http://www.efloras.org. 

Redberg, G. L., D. S. Hibbett, J. F. Ammirati, and R. J. Rodriguez. 2003. Phylogeny and genetic diversity 

of Bridgeoporus nobilissimus inferred using mitochondrial and nuclear rDNA sequences. Mycologia 

96(5): 836-845. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3762012?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. 

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Tetraphis geniculata Grig. ex Mitt. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/ca-br-tetraphis-geniculata-2010-02.pdf.

USDI BLM. 2011. Oregon/Washington State Director's Sensitive Species List, December 2011. BLM, 

OR/WA State Office, Portland, OR. 

 
Appendix N – Recreation

1279 | Page

Appendix N - Recreation 

Table N-287. Decision Area Recreation Management Areas information. 

District/ 

Field Office 

Map 

No. RMA Name RMA Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Coos Bay 

1 Bastendorff Beach SRMA 39 39 39 39 

2 Blue Ridge Trail System ERMA - 1,405 1,405 1,405 

3 Coos Head ERMA - - 11 11 

4 Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area SRMA 14 14 14 1,146 

5 Doerner Fir Trail ERMA - 17 17 17 

6 Edson Creek Campground SRMA 46 45 45 45 

7 Euphoria Ridge Trail ERMA - - - 473 

8 Fawn Creek Campground SRMA 3 3 3 3 

9 Flores Lake ERMA - 50 50 50 

10 Hinsdale Garden SRMA 11 11 11 11 

11 Hunter Creek Trail System ERMA - 1,408 198 198 

12 Loon Lake Recreation Area SRMA 77 76 76 76 

13 Lost Lake SRMA - 14 - - 

14 North Spit Beach and Ponds Unit ERMA - - 336 336 

15 North Spit Boat Ramp SRMA 5 5 5 5 

16 North Spit Trail System ERMA - 1,317 1,317 - 

17 Park Creek Campground SRMA 4 4 4 4 

18 Rocky Peak Trail ERMA - 1,948 1,948 1,948 

19 Sixes River Campground SRMA 27 27 27 27 

20 Smith River Corridor ERMA - - 9,505 9,505 

21 Smith River Falls Campground SRMA 4 4 4 4 

22 Storm Ranch SRMA 235 236 236 236 

23 Vincent Creek Campground SMRA 4 4 4 4 

24 Wasson Creek ERMA - - - 5,813 

Eugene

25 Barlow Creek Trail and Trailhead ERMA - - - 100 

26 Calapooya Divide Backcountry Byway ERMA - - 270 270 

27 Carpenter Bypass Mountain Bike Trail ERMA - 1,160 1,160 1,160 

28 Carpenter Bypass Staging Area SRMA 1 1 1 1 

29 Cascade View OHV Complex SRMA 6 6 6 6 

30 Clay Creek Recreation Site SRMA 10 10 10 10 

31 Clay Creek Trail ERMA - 14 14 14 

32 Coburg Hiking Trail System ERMA - - 2,019 2,019 

33 Coburg Hills Backcountry Byway ERMA - - 79 79 

34 Crooked Creek OHV Staging Site SRMA 1 1 1 1 

35 Culp Creek Expansion Site SRMA - - - <1 

36 Culp Creek Trailhead SRMA 1 <1 <1 <1 

37 Dorena Dam Trail Access Site SRMA 3 1 1 1 

38 Eagles Rest Hiking/Biking Trail ERMA - 3 3 3 

39 Esmond Lake Trailhead and Trail ERMA - - - 158 

40 Hult Equestrian Staging Area SRMA - 1 1 1 

41 Hult Reservoir Non-motorized Trail ERMA - 213 213 213 

42 Hult Reservoir Recreation Area SRMA 21 21 21 21 

43 Lost Creek Backcountry Byway ERMA - - 145 145 

44 Lost Creek Trails ERMA - 20 20 20 

45 Low Pass OHV Emphasis Area ERMA - - 511 511 

46 Lower Lake Creek Falls SRMA 2 2 2 2 

47 Martin Rapids Overlook SRMA 3 3 3 3 
Appendix N – Recreation

1280 | Page

District/ 

Field Office 

Map 

No. RMA Name RMA Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

48 McGowan Creek Environmental 

Education Area Trail ERMA - 80 80 80 

49 McGowan Creek Environmental 

Education Area SRMA 1 1 1 1 

50 McKenzie River Campground SRMA - - 146 146 

51 McKenzie River Dispersed Recreation 

Corridor ERMA - - 276 276 

52 McKercher Park SRMA 2 <1 <1 <1 

53 Mosby Creek Trailhead SRMA 10 10 10 10 

54 North Bowl Campground ERMA - - 83 83 

55 Rennie Boat Landing SRMA 1 1 1 1 

56 Row River Trail ERMA - 67 67 67 

57 Row River Trail Expansion ERMA - - 3 3 

58 Sharps Creek Expansion Site ERMA - - - 5 

59 Sharps Creek Recreation Site SRMA 3 3 3 3 

60 Shotgun Creek Backcountry Byway ERMA - - 169 169 

61 Shotgun Creek Recreation Site SRMA 16 16 16 16 

62 Shotgun Non-Motorized Trail System ERMA - 64 64 64 

63 Shotgun OHV Trail System ERMA - 5,755 5,753 5,753 

64 Silver Creek Boat and McKenzie River 

Watchable Wildlife Site SRMA 2 1 1 1 

65 Siuslaw Bend Campground ERMA - - - 483 

66 Siuslaw River SRMA - - - 8,403 

67 Smith Creek SRMA 3 1 1 1 

68 Taylor Landing Recreation Site SRMA 3 3 3 3 

69 Tyrrell Seed Orchard Interpretive Trail ERMA - 8 8 8 

70 Upper Lake Creek ERMA - 13,021 13,021 13,021 

71 Whitewater Day Use Area SRMA 8 6 6 6 

72 Whittaker Creek Recreation Area SRMA 2 2 2 2 

73 Whittaker Creek Trail ERMA - 13 13 13 

74 Willamalane Non-Motorized Trails ERMA - - - 1,057 

75 Willamette River Greenway SRMA 4 4 4 4 

76 Wolf Creek Environmental Education 

Site and Trail ERMA - - - 549 

Klamath 

Falls

77 Barnes Valley Boat Ramp ERMA 8 8 8 8 

78 Bryant Mountain ERMA - - 9,086 9,094 

79 Frog Camp SRMA 7 7 7 7 

80 Gerber ERMA - 41,332 41,332 39,917 

81 Gerber Recreation Area SRMA 473 272 272 272 

82 Hogback Mountain SRMA - 2,284 2,284 - 

83 KFRA ERMA - - - 140,576 

84 Klamath River Campground SRMA 38 26 26 26 

85 Klamath River WSR ERMA - 2,663 2,663 2,663 

86 Lower Klamath Hills B=E, 

CD=S - 1,596 1,596 1,596 

87 Miller Creek Camp SRMA 2 2 2 2 

88 North Bryant Mountain SRMA - - 5 - 

89 Pacific Crest Trail Corridor SRMA 7 7 7 7 

90 Potholes Camp SRMA 8 8 8 8 

91 South Bryant Mountain SRMA - - 3 - 

92 Spring Island River Access SRMA 6 2 2 2 

93 Stan H Spring SRMA 6 2 2 - 
Appendix N – Recreation

1281 | Page

District/ 

Field Office 

Map 

No. RMA Name RMA Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

94 Stukel Mountain C=E, D=S - - 9,622 9,622 

95 Surveyor Campground SRMA 28 28 28 28 

96 Surveyor Mountain ERMA - 18,033 18,033 - 

97 Swan Lake Rim ERMA - - 9,106 9,106 

98 Topsy Recreation Site SRMA 14 14 14 14 

99 Willow Valley Reservoir Boat Ramp SRMA 12 12 12 12 

100 Wood River Wetland A,C,D=S, 

B=E 1 3,174 3,174 3,174 

Medford 

101 Anderson-Little Apple ERMA - - 7,483 7,483 

102 Anderson Addition ERMA - - 10,076 10,076 

103 Armstrong Gulch Trailhead SRMA 1 1 1 1 

104 Baker Cypress Trail ERMA - 3 3 3 

105 Bald-Wagon ERMA - - 3,124 - 

106 Beacon Hill Trail ERMA - 12 12 12 

107 Bear Gulch Trailhead SRMA <1 <1 <1 <1 

108 Bell Forest ERMA - - 3,800 - 

109 Bolt Mountain Trail ERMA - 10 392 392 

110 Buck-Berry Rock ERMA - - 6,504 6,504 

111 Buck Prairie II XC Ski Trailhead SRMA 1 1 1 1 

112 Buck Prairie II XC Ski Trails SRMA - 967 - - 

113 Buck Prairie Toilet SRMA <1 <1 <1 <1 

114 Buck Prairie XC Ski Trails SRMA - 967 - - 

115 Buck Prairie/Hyatt ERMA - - 11,845 16,817 

116 Buckhorn Mountain ERMA - - 8,284 8,284 

117 Bunny Meadows A=S, 

BCD=E 8 8 8 8 

118 Burma Pond Campground and Trailhead SRMA 2 2 2 2 

119 Burma Pond Trail ERMA - 4 4 4 

120 Cathedral Hills Trail System B=E, 

CD=S - 545 546 546 

121 Chicken Foot SRMA <1 - - - 

122 China Gulch SRMA <1 - - - 

123 Cow Creek Backcountry Byway ERMA - 88 - - 

124 Coyote Creek OHV Area ERMA - - - 14,569 

125 Deer Creek Education/Interpretive Area SRMA - - 41 41 

126 Deming Gulch Equestrian Trailhead SRMA 1 1 - - 

127 Deming Gulch Trailhead SRMA <1 <1 - - 

128 East Applegate Ridge Trail ERMA - - 44 44 

129 East Fork Illinois Trails C=E, D=S - - 1,441 1,441 

130 Eight Dollar Accessible Boardwalk 

Trailhead SRMA <1 - - - 

131 Eight Dollar Mountain ERMA C=2,095 C=2,134 

132 Eight Dollar Mountain Boardwalk Trail ERMA - 1 - - 

133 Eight Dollar Mountain Interpretive Site ERMA - - - 39 

134 Eight Dollar Mountain Parking Area SRMA <1 <1 - - 

135 Elderberry Flat Campground SRMA 23 23 23 23 

136 Enchanted-Timber ERMA - - - 13,774 

137 Enchanted Forest and Felton Trails ERMA - 36 37 37 

138 Enchanted Forest Trailhead SRMA 2 2 - - 

139 Enchanted Well ERMA - - - 8,641 

140 Espy Trailhead SRMA 1 1 - - 

141 Evans Creek Hang Gliding Launch site ERMA - - - 26 

142 Galice Hellgate Backcountry Byway ERMA - 258 258 258 
Appendix N – Recreation

1282 | Page

District/ 

Field Office 

Map 

No. RMA Name RMA Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

143 Gold Nugget Waysides SRMA 11 11 49 49 

144 Grants Pass Peak Non-motorized Trails ERMA - - 11,927 11,834 

145 Grave Creek to Marial Backcountry 

Byway ERMA - 348 348 348 

146 Grayback Mountain Trail ERMA - 76 76 76 

147 Grayback Mountain Trailhead SRMA <1 <1 <1 <1 

148 Green Springs Mtn. Loop Trailhead SRMA <1 <1 - - 

149 Green Top Mountain ERMA - - - 5,316 

150 Grizzly Peak SRMA - - - 3,593 

151 Grizzly Peak Trail SRMA - - 2,954 - 

152 Grizzly Peak Trailhead SRMA 1 506 - - 

153 Hidden Creek Trail ERMA - 7 7 7 

154 Hidden Creek Trailhead SRMA <1 - - - 

155 Hyatt Lake Campground SRMA 37 149 149 149 

156 Hyatt Watchable Wildlife Site SRMA - 2 2 2 

157 Illinois Forks Park ERMA - - 79 79 

158 Isabella SRMA <1 - - - 

159 Jack Ash Trail and Connector Trail ERMA - - 203 203 

160 Jackson Creek ERMA - - 507 - 

161 Jacksonville Woodlands Trailhead SRMA 1 1 - - 

162 Jacksonville Woodlands Trails ERMA - 105 103 103 

163 Jeffrey Pine Loop Trail ERMA - 4 - - 

164 Kane Creek SRMA <1 - - - 

165 Kenney Meadows Recreation Site SRMA 20 20 20 20 

166 Kerby ERMA - - 654 654 

167 Kerby Peak Trail ERMA - 36 36 36 

168 Kerby Peak Trailhead SRMA <1 <1 <1 <1 

169 King Mountain Trail SRMA - 5 5 5 

170 King Mountain Trailhead SRMA 1 1 1 1 

171 Lake Selmac Trails B=E, 

CD=S - 440 443 443 

172 Layton Ditch Trail ERMA - 43 

173 Layton Ditch Trailhead SRMA <1 - - - 

174 Left Right Center Foots ERMA - - 7,657 7,657 

175 Little Applegate Trailhead SRMA 1 1 - - 

176 Lodgepole SRMA <1 <1 <1 <1 

177 Logan Cut ERMA - - 527 527 

178 London Peak Trail ERMA - 14 14 14 

179 Lower Table Rock Trailhead SRMA 2 - - - 

180 Medco RR Trail ERMA - - - 106 

181 Mount Bolivar Trailhead SRMA <1 <1 <1 <1 

182 Mountain of the Rogue SRMA - - 5,069 5,069 

183 Mungers Butte ERMA - - 11,873 11,873 

184 Northwest Hills ERMA - - 480 2,620 

185 Nugget Falls ERMA - 5 - - 

186 Pacific Crest Trail 1 and 2 SRMA 1,094 955 951 951 

187 Pacific Crest Trailhead at Little Hyatt 

Lake SRMA <1 - - - 

188 Provolt Seed Orchard SRMA - - 295 295 

189 Quartz Creek OHV Area SRMA - - 8,344 8,344 

190 Rainie Falls Overlook SRMA 1 1 <1 <1 

191 Rattlesnake ERMA - 21 56 56 
Appendix N – Recreation

1283 | Page

District/ 

Field Office 

Map 

No. RMA Name RMA Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

192 Rock Creek Trails ERMA - - 6,793 6,793 

193 Rockydale ERMA - - 186 186 

194 Rogue Greenway ERMA - - 370 370 

195 Rogue Timber ERMA - - 7,906 - 

196 Rogue Wild and Scenic River SRMA 15,949 11,409 11,409 11,409 

197 Rough and Ready Trail ERMA - 2 2 2 

198 Roundtop Mountain SRMA - - 13,168 13,168 

199 Section 29 ERMA - - 203 203 

200 Silver Creek ERMA - - 57 57 

201 Skull Creek Campground SRMA 8 7 7 7 

202 Skycrest Trailhead SRMA <1 <1 - - 

203 Sterling Mine Ditch Trail SRMA - 1,322 1,279 1,279 

204 Table Mountain Snow Play Area SRMA 9 9 9 9 

205 Table Rock Trailheads SRMA - 4 - - 

206 Table Rock Trails ERMA - 52 - - 

207 Table Rocks SRMA - - 1,329 1,329 

208 Thompson-Cantrall ERMA - - 23,317 23,317 

209 Timber Mountain Recreation Area ERMA - 10,160 - - 

210 Tucker Flat Campground SRMA 9 8 8 8 

211 Tunnel Ridge Trailhead SRMA 1 1 - - 

212 Upper Table Rock Trailhead SRMA 2 - - - 

213 Wagner Creek Trail ERMA - 2 2 2 

214 Wagner Creek Trailhead SRMA <1 <1 - - 

215 Wellington Mine Trail ERMA - - 44 44 

216 West Applegate Ridge Trail ERMA - - - 210 

217 West Fork Evans Creek ERMA - - 3,042 3,042 

218 Whiskey Creek Overlook SRMA <1 <1 <1 <1 

219 Wild Rogue Canyon ERMA - - - 50,451 

220 Wildcat Campground and Horse Camp SRMA - 47 47 47 

221 Williams Creek Wayside SRMA 1 1 - - 

222 Wolf Gap Trailhead SRMA 1 1 - - 

223 Woodrat ERMA - - 3,876 3,876 

224 Woodrat Mtn. Gliding Sites SRMA 7 7 - - 

Roseburg 

225 Baker Park SRMA 12 12 12 12 

226 Bohemia Trail ERMA - - - 16 

227 Boomer Hill OHV ERMA - - 4,635 4,635 

228 Cavitt Creek Falls Recreation Site SRMA 16 16 16 16 

229 China Ditch ERMA - 62 62 62 

230 Cow Creek Backcountry Byway ERMA - - 88 88 

231 Cow Creek Backcountry Byway Kiosk SRMA 1 1 1 1 

232 Cow Creek Recreation Gold Panning 

Area SRMA 4 4 4 4 

233 E-Mile Day-Use Area SRMA 5 5 5 5 

234 Eagleview Group Campground SRMA 12 12 12 12 

235 Emerald Trail B=E, 

CD=S - 17 17 17 

236 Hill Creek Trail B=E, 

CD=S - 2 2 2 

237 Hill Creek Wayside SRMA 1 1 1 1 

238 Honeycombs ERMA - - - 63 

239 Hubbard Creek OHV ERMA - - 11,587 11,587 

240 Island Creek Day-Use Area SRMA 1 1 28 28 

241 Lone Pine Group Campground SRMA 9 9 9 9 
Appendix N – Recreation

1284 | Page

District/ 

Field Office 

Map 

No. RMA Name RMA Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

242 Lone Rock Drift Boat Launch SRMA 2 <1 <1 <1 

243 Millpond/Lone Pine Recreation Site SRMA - - 23 23 

244 Millpond Recreation Site SRMA 21 21 - - 

245 Narrows ERMA - - 16 16 

246 North Bank-Western Trailhead SRMA 1 1 1 1 

247 North Bank-Comstock Day Use Area SRMA 2 2 2 2 

248 North Bank Habitat Management Area ERMA - 6,586 6,586 6,586 

249 North Umpqua Trail-Swiftwater B=E, 

CD=S - 65 65 65 

250 North Umpqua Trail-Tioga B=E, 

CD=S - 33 33 33 

251 North Umpqua Wild Scenic River 

Corridor SRMA - - 2,058 2.058 

252 Olalla Creek OHV ERMA - - 4,752 4,752 

253 Osprey Boat Ramp SRMA 2 3 3 3 

254 Red Top Pond ERMA - 11 11 11 

255 Rock Creek Recreation Site SRMA 19 19 21 21 

256 Rock Creek Trail ERMA - - - 14 

257 Sawmill Trail B=E, 

CD=S - 20 20 20 

258 Scaredman Recreation Site SRMA 10 10 10 10 

259 Smith River Corridor-Roseburg ERMA - - 140 140 

260 South Fork Deer Creek OHV ERMA - - 1,402 1,402 

261 South Umpqua ERMA - - - 4 

262 Stick Beach B=E, 

CD=S - 1 1 1 

263 Susan Creek Day Use Area SRMA 2 2 2 2 

264 Susan Creek Falls Trail B=E, 

CD=S - 8 8 8 

265 Susan Creek Falls Trailhead SRMA 1 1 1 1 

266 Susan Creek Recreation Site SRMA 25 25 25 25 

267 Swiftwater Day-Use Area SRMA 4 4 4 4 

268 Swiftwater Trailhead SRMA 2 2 2 2 

269 Tinhat Pond ERMA - - - 5 

270 Tyee Recreation Area SRMA 14 14 14 14 

271 Upper Susan Creek Falls Trail ERMA - - - 1,318 

272 White Rock OHV Area ERMA - - 9,846 9,846 

273 Wolf Creek Falls Trail B=E, D=S - 14 - 14 

274 Wolf Creek Falls Trailhead SRMA 2 2 - 2 

275 Wolf Creek Falls Trailhead and Trail SRMA - - 16 - 

Salem

276 Alder Glen SRMA 5 - - - 

277 Alder Glen Campground SRMA - 4 4 4 

278 Alsea Falls Hiking Trails ERMA - 272 272 272 

279 Alsea Falls Recreation Site SRMA 36 31 31 31 

280 Alsea Falls Shared Use Trail System ERMA - 1,510 2,923 2,923 

281 Aquila Vista SRMA 178 178 178 178 

282 Baty Butte Trail ERMA - 551 - - 

283 Canyon Creek SRMA 13 13 13 13 

284 Cedar Grove SRMA 5 5 5 5 

285 Crabtree Valley ERMA - - 914 914 

286 Crazy Cougar ERMA - - 1,444 1,444 

287 Crooked Finger ERMA - - - 451 

288 Crown Zellerbach Trail (CZ Mainline) ERMA - - 23 23 

289 Dogwood SRMA 6 6 6 6 

290 Dovre SRMA 4 4 4 4 
Appendix N – Recreation

1285 | Page

District/ 

Field Office 

Map 

No. RMA Name RMA Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

291 Eagle Creek Trail ERMA - 160 160 160 

292 Elk Bend SRMA 4 4 4 4 

293 Elkhorn Creek WSR ERMA - - - 1,103 

294 Elkhorn Valley Campground SRMA 78 78 78 78 

295 Fan Creek SRMA 3 3 3 3 

296 Fishermen's Bend Recreation Site SRMA 183 184 184 184 

297 Green Peter Peninsula ERMA - - 1,557 2,056 

298 High Peak-Grindstone ERMA - - - 976 

299 Highland ERMA - - - 844 

300 Ivors Wayside SRMA 2 2 2 2 

301 Kilchis Glider Launch Site ERMA - - 38 38 

302 Little North Fork Wilson ERMA - - 1,160 1,160 

303 Marmot Recreation Site SRMA - 26 92 92 

304 Marmot Trail System ERMA - - 576 - 

305 Mary’s Peak ERMA - - - 3,774 

306 Mill Creek SRMA 6 6 469 6 

307 Mill Creek-Gooseneck ERMA - - 7,416 7,878 

308 Missouri Bend SRMA 3 3 3 3 

309 Table Rock Fork – Molalla River ERMA - 5,907 13,997 19,906 

310 Monument Peak Trail System ERMA - 909 909 909 

311 Nasty Rock Trail ERMA - 135 135 135 

312 Nestucca Backcountry Byway ERMA - 323 322 322 

313 North Fork Eagle Creek Campground SRMA - - - 68 

314 North Fork Santiam County Park SRMA 12 12 12 12 

315 Old Miner’s Meadow SRMA 3 3 - 3 

316 Oxbow Regional Park SRMA 265 260 260 260 

317 Pacific City ERMA - - 79 79 

318 Quartzville Backcountry Byway ERMA - 34 34 34 

319 Quartzville Creek and Yellowstone Trail ERMA - - 2,731 2,727 

320 Quartzville Creek Corridor ERMA - 2,060 - - 

321 Salmon/Sandy WSR Corridor ERMA - 785 - - 

322 Salmonberry Rail to Trail ERMA - - 14 14 

323 Sandy-Salmon River Corridor ERMA - - 1,824 2,400 

324 Sandy Ridge Trail System ERMA - 1,260 2,239 3,802 

325 Sandy Ridge Trailhead SRMA 29 29 52 52 

326 Scaponia Park SRMA 8 8 8 8 

327 Shellburg Trail System ERMA - - 283 283 

328 Sheridan Peak Overlook SRMA 4 3 3 3 

329 Silver Falls State Park SRMA 237 237 237 237 

330 Snow Peak/Neal Creek ERMA - - - 6,763 

331 South Fork Alsea Backcountry Byway ERMA - 88 88 88 

332 South Fork Clackamas Waterfalls ERMA - - - 1,116 

333 Table Rock Wilderness-Pechuck 

Lookout ERMA - 6,171 6,171 6,171 

334 Three Bears-Hardy Creek SRMA 14 14 14 14 

335 Upper Nestucca OHV Trail System ERMA - 6,713 6,494 10,663 

336 Wildcat Creek ERMA - - - 2,444 

337 Wildcat Creek Trail System ERMA - - 2,444 - 

338 Wildwood Recreation Site SRMA 311 553 553 553 

339 Wilhoit Springs ERMA - - - 571 

340 Yaquina Head ONA SRMA 91 91 91 91 

341 Yellowbottom SRMA 13 13 13 13 






1292 | Page
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1293 | Page

The socioeconomic analysis and this appendix were prepared for the BLM by a team of specialists at 

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) and subcontractors, under the project management of 

Clive Graham, ERM, and the direction of Stewart Allen of the interdisciplinary team. 

Issue 1 

How would the alternatives affect the supply, demand, and value of goods and services derived from 

BLM-administered lands?

Western Oregon Timber Market Model 

The BLM modeled timber markets136 in western Oregon using stumpage supply and demand functions 

that incorporate existing information, linear functions, and the economic constructs of supply, derived 

demand, and market arbitrage. In this analysis, the BLM described the stumpage market using linear 

equations for demand (ܳௗ) and supply (ܳ௦): 

ܳௗ ൌ ܽଵ െܽଶ כ ܲ) 1 (

ܳ௦ ൌ ܾଵ ൅ܾଶ כ ܲ) 2 (

The parametersܽଵǡ ܽଶ, ܾଵǡ ܾܽ݊݀ଶcan be estimated from the observed market price, quantity, estimates of 

the stumpage supply, and demand elasticities. Key is the relation for estimating elasticity (א (as: 

אൌ οொ

ο௉

ൈ ௣

௤

 (3) 

Equation 3 can be rewritten to solve for the slope of equations 1 and 2 ሺܽଶ, ܾଶሻ as: 

௤ ൈאൌ ݁݌݋݈ݏ

௣

 (4) 

The intercept terms of equations 1 and 2 ሺܽଵ, ܾଵ) can be solved as: 

௤ ൌ ݐ݌ܿ݁ݎ݁ݐ݅݊

௦௟௢௣௘ൈ௣ (5) 

The development of the supply and demand relations each involve additional steps described in the 

following paragraphs. Once the equations are parameterized, they can be solved as simultaneous 

equations for market equilibrium (where qs = qd and ps = pd). In this analysis, the BLM assumed that 

market arbitrage following changes in BLM timber harvest would lead to new market equilibrium prices 

and private harvest levels. 

 

136 Timber markets are regional in nature defined by available species and mix of manufacturing facilities. 

Traditionally western Oregon is considered part of the larger Douglas-fir region, or the Pacific Northwest, Westside. 

For more detailed discussion, see Haynes (2008). 

Appendix O – Socioeconomics 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1294 | Page

Stumpage Supply 

The supply curve is constructed as a composite of the behavior of different groups of timberland owners. 

In this case, it represents the timber harvest behavior of five different timberland owners/agencies: private 

entities, State agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, the BLM, and other public entities. Of these five owner 

groups, only the private timberland owners are known to be responsive to different price levels. The BLM 

assumed in this analysis that the four public owner groups set harvest levels through various planning 

processes that are generally unresponsive to price levels. In the context of equation 2, this means that the 

slope coefficient is based solely on the elasticity of private timberland owners. Public owners contribute 

only to the intercept term; the q in equation 5 includes both public and private timber harvest. 

Stumpage Demand 

In the case of sawtimber, the largest product markets are for solidwood products like lumber and panel 

products.137 In this case, the BLM derived stumpage demand function from product demand. In 

agricultural literature,138 factor and product markets are linked through a concept called the “elasticity of 

price transmission” (߲ሻǡdefined as: 

߲ ൌ ο௉೛

ο௉ೞ ൈ

௉ೞ

௉೛ (6) 

where ܲ௣ is product price and ܲ௦ is the stumpage price. The elasticity of price transmission is calculated 

in two steps. First, a marketing margin can be estimated as: 

ܲ௦ ൌ ܿଵ + ܿଶൈܲ௣ (7) 

Second, using the results from equation 7,  is calculated as: 

߲ ൌ ଵ

௖మ

ൈ 

௉ೞ

௉೛ (8) 

The elasticity of price transmission is necessary to estimate the elasticity of demand for stumpage, 

consistent with product markets as shown in equation 9. 

א௦ൌ א௣ൈ ߲ (9) 

Withא௦, equation 4 can estimate the slope of the stumpage demand function, and equation 5 can estimate 

the slope coefficient. 

Parameterizing the Model 

In this analysis, the BLM estimated the model using data for 2012. Price data ($/Mbf) and harvest volume 

data (MMbf) are in long log scale, and were collected from the 2012 Production, Prices, Employment and 

Trade report (Zhou 2013). 

 

 

137 See the discussion in Adams and Haynes (1980). Also see Adams and Haynes (2007). 138 See George and King (1971) for a summary of derived demand as it is used here. 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1295 | Page

Table O-288. Price data and harvest volume data. 

Owner Harvest (MMbf) Price ($/Mbf) Weights Weighted Price 

Private 2,664.2 - - - 

State 234.4 $301.55 0.362 $109.28 

USFS 268.1 $94.65 0.414 $39.23 

BLM 144.3 $146.41 0.223 $28.74 

Other Public 43.2 - - - 

Total/Average 3,354.2 $180.87 1.000 177.26 

In this analysis, the BLM estimated  as 0.838139 and, from the literature, used values for א of 0.277 for 

private timber supply and 0.685140 for softwood lumber and panels. Using this information, the BLM 

developed the following supply and demand functions: 

qs = 2,615.84 + 4.1655 P

qd = 5,279.59 – 10.8619 P 

The solution of these two equations is the equilibrium price and quantity observed in 2012. 

Issue 2 

How would the alternatives affect economic activity in the planning area derived from BLM-administered 

lands?

 

139 The BLM estimated this by estimating the market margin (Equation 7) using lumber price data (Table O-7) and 

BLM stumpage price (Table 96) from PPET, 1986-2011. The elasticity of price transmission was computed using 

equation 8. 

140 Both elasticity estimates are weighted averages taken from Table 3.4 and 3.3 in Adams and Haynes (2007). 















Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1311 | Page

Issue 5 

How would the RMP alternatives affect the capacity and resiliency of different types of communities in 

the planning area?

Census Places Random Selection 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1312 | Page

Census Places Random Selection for Community Capacity and Resiliency 

May 29, 2014 

Table O-305. Stratified random sample of communities by population (selected cities highlighted). 

Coos Bay 47,218 Roseburg 661,130 Salem 

Powers 689 Sutherlin 7,810 Hubbard 3,173 

Port Orford 1,133 Roseburg 21,181 Mount Angel 3,286 

Lakeside 1,699 Salem 661,130 Toledo 3,465 

Gold Beach 2,253 Johnson City 566 Harrisburg 3,567 

Myrtle Point 2,514 Manzanita 598 Aumsville 3,584 

Bandon 3,066 Monroe 617 Lafayette 3,742 

Coquille 3,866 Gaston 637 Wood Village 3,878 

Brookings 6,336 Yachats 690 Philomath 4,584 

North Bend 9,695 Maywood Park 752 Tillamook 4,935 

Coos Bay 15,967 Garibaldi 779 Warrenton 4,989 

Eugene 39,724 Scio 838 Sheridan 6,127 

Coburg 1,035 Adair Village 840 Seaside 6,477 

Lowell 1,045 Halsey 904 Scappoose 6,592 

Dunes City 1,303 Aurora 918 Stayton 7,644 

Oakridge 3,205 Falls City 947 Lincoln City 7,930 

Veneta 4,561 Donald 979 Molalla 8,108 

Creswell 5,031 Yamhill 1,024 Independence 8,590 

Junction City 5,392 Lyons 1,161 Fairview 8,920 

Florence 8,466 Tangent 1,164 Sweet Home 8,925 

Cottage Grove 9,686 Siletz 1,212 Silverton 9,222 

Lakeview 23,223 Bay City 1,286 Astoria 9,477 

Chiloquin 734 Rockaway Beach 1,312 Monmouth 9,534 

Malin 805 Millersburg 1,329 Sandy 9,570 

Merrill 844 Durham 1,351 Newport 9,989 

Klamath Falls 20,840 Depoe Bay 1,398 Damascus 10,539 

Medford 101,776 Gearhart 1,462 Gladstone 11,497 

Gold Hill 1,220 Amity 1,614 Cornelius 11,869 

Cave Junction 1,883 Brownsville 1,668 St. Helens 12,883 

Rogue River 2,131 Cannon Beach 1,690 Happy Valley 13,903 

Jacksonville 2,785 Clatskanie 1,737 Dallas 14,583 

Shady Cove 2,904 Banks 1,777 Lebanon 15,518 

Phoenix 4,538 Turner 1,854 Canby 15,829 

Talent 6,066 Mill 1,855 Troutdale 15,962 

Eagle Point 8,469 Rainier 1,895 Sherwood 18,194 

Central Point 17,169 Columbia City 1,946 Wilsonville 19,509 

Ashland 20,078 North Plains 1,947 Milwaukie 20,291 

Grants Pass 34,533 Carlton 2,007 Forest Grove 21,083 

Roseburg 49,031 Willamina 2,025 Newberg 22,068 

Glendale 874 Waldport 2,033 Woodburn 24,080 

Oakland 927 Vernonia 2,151 West Linn 25,109 

Yoncalla 1,047 Gervais 2,464 Tualatin 26,054 

Drain 1,151 Dayton 2,534 Oregon City 31,859 

Riddle 1,185 Sublimity 2,681 McMinnville 32,187 

Canyonville 1,884 Estacada 2,695 Keizer 36,478 

Myrtle Creek 3,439 Jefferson 3,098 Lake Oswego 36,619 

Reedsport 4,154 King City 3,111 

Winston 5,379 Dundee 3,162 Grand Total 922,102 

 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1313 | Page

Community Capacity/Resiliency Baseline 

Table O-306. Community capacity/resiliency baseline inputs. 

Data Set What Does This Tell Us? Community Base Data Availability 

County Sub County 

Population 2010, 2012 Size, generally 

= more community capacity Y Y 

Population change 2000 to 

2010/2012 

Growing pop, generally 

= more capacity Y Y 

Employment/Unemployment, 

2012

High employment/low 

unemployment, generally 

= more capacity 

Y Y 

Employment volatility 

(diversity) current at place empt 

by industry (possibly including 

change over time)

More employment, employment 

access = more capacity

More diversity in disconnected 

industries (not all in one sector) 

= more resiliency 

Y Y 

Household income 2010 or 

most recent from American 

Community Survey (number of 

households)

Median household income or 

share in plus 3 to 5 $ income 

brackets ($20-34, 35-50 etc.) 

Higher incomes, generally 

= more capacity, more 

resiliency. 

Y Y 

Poverty rate Lower poverty = more capacity Y Y 

Education (% population with 

High School certificate; with a 

4 year degree) 

Higher = more capacity, more 

resiliency. Y Y 

Community Health 

Population with health 

insurance (available from 

census) 

Healthy Communities have 

more capacity, more resiliency Y Y 

Community wealth: 

Assessable tax base?

(needs to be expressed in 

relative terms (e.g., per capita)) 

More wealth = more capacity, 

more resiliency Y If available 

Recreation indicator? 

Recreation demand/scarcity? 

(per Rec. Planning Criteria) 

Lower scarcity 

= more capacity 

Y - Specifics to 

be determined If available 

Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics 

Table O-307. Selected socioeconomic characteristics for selected cities in western Oregon. 

Characteristic Oregon Coquille Drain Florence 

# % # % # % # % 

Population

Total Population, 2012 3,836,628 3,874 1,142 8,412 

Population, 2000 3,421,399 4,184 1,012 7,263 

Population Change 2000-

2012 415,229 12% -310 -8% 130 13% 1,149 16% 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1314 | Page

Characteristic Oregon Coquille Drain Florence 

# % # % # % # % 

Age Distribution (2012)

Population 19 years and under 967,636 25% 756 20% 296 26% 1,036 12% 

Population 20 to 64 years 2,328,465 61% 2,312 60% 594 52% 4,293 51% 

Population 65 years and older 540,527 14% 806 21% 252 22% 3,083 37% 

Totals 3,836,628 100% 3,874 100% 1,142 100% 8,412 100% 

Median age (years) 38.4 47.4 42.2 57.6 

Race

White alone, 2012 3,272,707 85% 3,460 89% 1,084 95% 7,820 93% 

Minority 563,921 15% 414 11% 58 5% 592 7% 

Housing

Total housing units 1,673,593 N/A 1,953 50% 433 38% 5,207 62% 

Occupied housing units 1,512,718 100% 1,592 82% 418 97% 4,438 85% 

Vacant housing units 160,875 11% 361 18% 15 4% 769 15% 

Owner-occupied 945,824 63% 1,104 57% 253 61% 2,766 62% 

Renter-occupied 566,894 37% 488 25% 165 39% 1,672 38% 

Median housing unit value ($) 246,100 154,100 133,100 201,200 

Median gross rent ($) 854 478 151 1,606 

Employment

Workers 16 years and over 3,072,774 80% 3,281 85% 921 81% 7,600 90% 

In labor force 1,957,085 67% 1,794 46% 501 44% 3,244 39% 

Unemployed 210,379 7% 71 2% 115 10% 258 3% 

Occupation

Civilian employed population 

16 years and over 1,743,524 57% 1,723 44% 386 34% 2,967 35% 

Management, business, 

science and arts occupations 627,719 36% 399 23% 62 16% 653 22% 

Service occupations 315,529 18% 474 28% 82 21% 689 23% 

Sales and office occupations 426,554 25% 409 24% 96 25% 637 21% 

Natural resources, 

construction, and 

maintenance occupations 

164,625 9% 343 20% 38 10% 347 12% 

Production, 

transportation, and 

material moving 

occupations 

209,097 12% 98 6% 108 28% 641 22% 

Jobs in a 5-Mile Radius of 

the Community by Sector 2,086 559 3,651

Accommodation and Food 

Services 145,131 9% 81 4% 33 6% 1,008 28% 

Administration and Support, 

Waste Management and 

Remediation

84,402 5% 50 2% 20 4% 141 4% 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 

and Hunting 40,859 3% 182 9% 16 3% 86 2% 

Arts, Entertainment, and 

Recreation 26,407 2% 4 0% 2 0% 89 2% 

Construction 71,050 4% 85 4% 46 8% 142 4% 

Educational Services 158,758 10% 115 6% 124 22% 171 5% 

Finance and Insurance 57,164 4% 87 4% 10 2% 103 3% 

Health Care and Social 

Assistance 230,433 14% 254 12% 8 1% 702 19% 

Information 33,677 2% 12 1% 0 0% 110 3% 

Management of Companies 

and Enterprises 32,692 2% 64 3% 13 2% 21 1% 

Manufacturing 167,695 10% 378 18% 139 25% 39 1% 

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil 

and Gas Extraction 1,596 0% 1 0% 8 1% 0 0% 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1315 | Page

Characteristic Oregon Coquille Drain Florence 

# % # % # % # % 

Other Services (excluding 

Public Administration) 60,136 4% 81 4% 13 2% 154 4% 

Professional, Scientific, and 

Technical Services 77,910 5% 27 1% 2 0% 70 2% 

Public Administration 91,242 6% 480 23% 29 5% 93 3% 

Real Estate and Rental and 

Leasing 25,259 2% 5 0% 0 0% 102 3% 

Retail Trade 181,165 11% 125 6% 61 11% 525 14% 

Transportation and 

Warehousing 52,036 3% 45 2% 31 6% 43 1% 

Utilities 8,692 1% 9 0% 4 1% 27 1% 

Wholesale Trade 74,290 5% 1 0% 0 0% 25 1% 

Jobs Distribution 

Variability Compared to

Oregon (3)

608% 267% 130% 

Jobs by Earnings

$1,250 per month or less 395,867 24% 458 22% 163 29% 1,240 34% 

$1,251 to $3,333 per month 621,915 38% 865 41% 257 46% 1,675 46% 

More than $3,333 per month 602,812 37% 763 37% 139 25% 736 20% 

Income

Median household income ($) 50,036 47,714 36,964 35,000 

Persons below poverty level 584,059 15% 185 5% 97 8% 995 12% 

Health Insurance Coverage

Civilian noninstitutionalized 

population 3,796,881 99% 3,704 96% 1,142 100% 8,377 100% 

With health insurance coverage 3,191,034 84% 3,240 84% 911 80% 6,996 83% 

No health insurance coverage 605,847 16% 464 12% 231 20% 1,381 16% 

Education (highest level obtained)

High School certificate 635,670 17% 2,371 61% 466 41% 3,541 42% 

4 year degree 760,816 20% 682 18% 0 0% 0 0% 

Assessed Value of Property

Total assessed value for tax 

year 2013-14 ($) 202,372,480 52,373,224 837,548,331 

Assessed Value Per Capita 

(dollars) 52,239 45,861 99,566 

Recreation

Outdoor recreation land in the 

county where the community 

is located (acres per 1,000

population) 

8,605 5,012 16,069 5,098 

 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1316 | Page

Characteristic Gold Beach Grants Pass Junction City Klamath Falls 

# % # % # % # % 

Population

Total Population, 2012 2,563 34,454 5,445 20,943 

Population, 2000 1,897 23,003 4,721 19,462 

Population Change 2000-2012 666 35% 11,451 50% 724 15% 1,481 8% 

Age Distribution (2012)

Population 19 years and under 664 26% 8,918 26% 1,551 28% 5,425 26% 

Population 20 to 64 years 1,401 55% 18,533 54% 3,110 57% 12,989 62% 

Population 65 years and older 498 19% 7,003 20% 784 14% 2,529 12% 

Totals 2,563 100% 34,454 100% 5,445 100% 20,943 100% 

Median age (years) 41.1 40 36.3 35 

Race

White alone, 2012 2,334 91% 32,246 94% 5,032 92% 17,985 86% 

Minority 229 9% 2,178 6% 413 8% 2,958 14% 

Housing

Total housing units 1,327 52% 15,760 46% 2,250 41% 10,190 49% 

Occupied housing units 1,029 78% 14,545 92% 2,049 91% 9,054 89% 

Vacant housing units 298 22% 1,215 8% 201 9% 1,136 11% 

Owner-occupied 674 66% 7,308 50% 990 48% 4,280 47% 

Renter-occupied 355 34% 7,237 50% 1,059 52% 4,774 53% 

Median housing unit value ($) 220,100 196,900 179,400 148,600 

Median gross rent ($) 336 6,959 984 4,551 

Employment

Workers 16 years and over 2,103 82% 27,321 79% 4,188 77% 16,844 80% 

In labor force 1,195 47% 14,892 55% 2,747 50% 10,539 50% 

Unemployed 123 5% 1,771 6% 386 7% 1,354 6% 

Occupation

Civilian employed population 

16 years and over 1,072 42% 13,092 38% 2,361 43% 9,118 44% 

Management, business, 

science and arts occupations 284 26% 3,138 24% 443 19% 2,836 31% 

Service occupations 257 24% 3,273 25% 461 20% 2,213 24% 

Sales and office occupations 304 28% 3,687 28% 565 24% 2,002 22% 

Natural resources, 

construction, and maintenance 

occupations 

134 13% 1,108 8% 498 21% 937 10% 

Production, transportation, 

and material moving 

occupations 

93 9% 1,886 14% 394 17% 1,130 12% 

Jobs in a 5-Mile Radius of 

the Community by Sector 1,394 17,216 12,205 18,710

Accommodation and Food 

Services 229 16% 2,012 12% 690 6% 1,644 9% 

Administration and Support, 

Waste Management and 

Remediation 

6 0% 778 5% 413 3% 1,143 6% 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 

and Hunting 37 3% 45 0% 488 4% 377 2% 

Arts, Entertainment, and 

Recreation 4 0% 165 1% 86 1% 284 2% 

Construction 49 4% 390 2% 641 5% 669 4% 

Educational Services 93 7% 848 5% 1,218 10% 2,172 12% 

Finance and Insurance 25 2% 690 4% 149 1% 561 3% 

Health Care and Social 

Assistance 154 11% 3,977 23% 912 7% 3,455 18% 

Information 42 3% 292 2% 27 0% 195 1% 

Management of Companies 

and Enterprises 0 0% 77 0% 44 0% 506 3% 

Manufacturing 103 7% 1,358 8% 3,053 25% 1,497 8% 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1317 | Page

Characteristic Gold Beach Grants Pass Junction City Klamath Falls 

# % # % # % # % 

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil 

and Gas Extraction 0 0% 0 0% 13 0% 1 0% 

Other Services (excluding 

Public Administration) 38 3% 726 4% 448 4% 660 4% 

Professional, Scientific, and 

Technical Services 60 4% 473 3% 251 2% 563 3% 

Public Administration 295 21% 982 6% 202 2% 1,262 7% 

Real Estate and Rental and 

Leasing 15 1% 243 1% 175 1% 201 1% 

Retail Trade 188 13% 2,978 17% 2,055 17% 2,506 13% 

Transportation and 

Warehousing 35 3% 228 1% 397 3% 355 2% 

Utilities 17 1% 76 0% 42 0% 143 1% 

Wholesale Trade 4 0% 878 5% 901 7% 516 3% 

Jobs Distribution Variability 

Compared to Oregon (3) 183% 96% 123% 117% 

Jobs by Earnings

$1,250 per month or less 467 34% 5,043 29% 2,911 24% 5,292 28% 

$1,251 to $3,333 per month 565 41% 8,087 47% 5,538 45% 8,219 44% 

More than $3,333 per month 362 26% 4,086 24% 3,756 31% 5,199 28% 

Income

Median household income 

(dollars) 50,958 32,991 35,067 31,971 

Persons below poverty level 370 14% 7,132 21% 1,239 23% 5,131 24% 

Health Insurance Coverage

Civilian non-institutionalized 

population 2,516 98% 33,614 98% 5,342 98% 20,538 98% 

With health insurance coverage 1,865 73% 28,272 84% 4,320 79% 16,245 78% 

No health insurance coverage 651 25% 5,342 16% 1,022 19% 4,338 21% 

Education (highest level obtained)

High School certificate 1,176 46% 30,251 88% 1,770 33% 5,634 27% 

4 year degree 90 4% 4,617 13% 87 2% 1,173 6% 

Assessed Value of Property

Total assessed value for tax 

year 2013-14 ($) 226,856,877 2,624,936,968 355,651,839 1,264,904,779 

Assessed Value Per Capita ($) 88,512 76,187 65,317 60,397 

Recreation 

Outdoor recreation land in the 

county where the community 

is located (acres per thousand 

population) 

31,208 8,612 5,098 34,321 

 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1318 | Page

Characteristic Lincoln City Molalla Rogue River St. Helens City 

# % # % # % # % 

Population

Total Population, 2012 7,926 8,039 2,265 12,807 

Population, 2000 7,437 5,647 1,847 10,019 

Population Change 2000-2012 489 6% 2,392 42% 418 23% 2,788 22% 

Age Distribution (2012)

Population 19 years and under 1,729 21.8% 2,598 32% 500 22% 3,737 29% 

Population 20 to 64 years 4,575 57.7% 4,654 58% 1,158 51% 8,043 63% 

Population 65 years and older 1,622 20.5% 787 10% 607 27% 1,027 8% 

Totals 7,926 100% 8,039 100% 2,265 100% 12,807 100% 

Median age (years) 44.6 32 45.6 33.3 

Race

White alone, 2012 6,931 87.4% 7,520 94% 2,103 93% 11,512 89.9 

Minority 995 13% 519 6% 162 7% 1,295 10% 

Housing

Total housing units 5,720 5,720 3,010 37% 1,132 50% 5,123 40% 

Occupied housing units 3,932 69% 2,966 99% 997 88% 4,725 92% 

Vacant housing units 1,788 31% 44 1% 135 12% 398 8% 

Owner-occupied 1,929 49% 2,077 70% 567 57% 3,007 59% 

Renter-occupied 2,003 51% 889 30% 430 43% 1,718 34% 

Median housing unit value ($) 233,700 204,600 177,900 186,000 

Median gross rent ($) 717 889 420 1,701 

Employment

Workers 16 years and over 6,500 82% 5,813 72% 1,838 81% 9,842 77% 

In labor force 3,963 61% 4,006 69% 877 39% 6,742 53% 

Unemployed 505 8% 444 8% 100 4% 1,202 9% 

Occupation

Civilian employed population 

16 years and over 3,458 44% 3,562 44% 777 34% 5,540 43% 

Management, business, 

science and arts occupations 649 19% 683 19% 195 25% 1,371 25% 

Service occupations 1,091 32% 696 20% 146 19% 852 15% 

Sales and office occupations 1,268 37% 819 23% 236 30% 1,669 30% 

Natural resources, 

construction, and maintenance 

occupations 

253 7% 650 18% 102 13% 829 15% 

Production, transportation, 

and material moving 

occupations 

197 6% 714 20% 98 13% 819 15% 

Jobs in a Five Mile Radius 

of the Community by Sector 5,709 3,804 1,304 3,729 

Accommodation and Food 

Services 1,721 30% 266 7% 104 8% 358 10% 

Administration and Support, 

Waste Management and 

Remediation 

240 4% 54 1% 58 4% 151 4% 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 

and Hunting 12 0% 710 19% 62 5% 52 1% 

Arts, Entertainment, and 

Recreation 661 12% 66 2% 19 1% 47 1% 

Construction 226 4% 260 7% 117 9% 85 2% 

Educational Services 159 3% 427 11% 202 15% 479 13% 

Finance and Insurance 48 1% 36 1% 19 1% 126 3% 

Health Care and Social 

Assistance 674 12% 253 7% 141 11% 705 19% 

Information 53 1% 47 1% 32 2% 28 1% 

Management of Companies 

and Enterprises 1 0% 5 0% 0 0% 23 1% 

Manufacturing 47 1% 680 18% 198 15% 512 14% 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1319 | Page

Characteristic Lincoln City Molalla Rogue River St. Helens City 

# % # % # % # % 

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil 

and Gas Extraction 0 0% 16 0% 19 1% 0 0% 

Other Services (excluding 

Public Administration) 168 3% 203 5% 52 4% 176 5% 

Professional, Scientific, and 

Technical Services 66 1% 51 1% 49 4% 93 2% 

Public Administration 244 4% 102 3% 40 3% 417 11% 

Real Estate and Rental and 

Leasing 233 4% 24 1% 20 2% 58 2% 

Retail Trade 1,030 18% 385 10% 132 10% 345 9% 

Transportation and 

Warehousing 46 1% 121 3% 25 2% 45 1% 

Utilities 23 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Wholesale Trade 57 1% 98 3% 15 1% 29 1% 

Jobs Distribution Variability 

Compared to Oregon (3) 217% 157% 49% 81% 

Jobs by Earnings

$1,250 per month or less 2,147 38% 1,170 31% 465 36% 799 21% 

$1,251 to $3,333 per month 2,575 45% 1,653 43% 523 40% 2,079 56% 

More than $3,333 per month 987 17% 981 26% 316 24% 851 23% 

Income

Median household income ($) 29,686 52,926 32,426 53,151 

Persons below poverty level 1,616 20% 868 11% 398 18% 2,267 18% 

Health Insurance Coverage

Civilian non-institutionalized 

population 7,886 99% 7,992 99% 2,265 100% 12,621 99% 

With health insurance coverage 6,299 80% 6,664 83% 1,884 83% 10,706 84% 

No health insurance coverage 1,587 20% 1,328 17% 381 17% 1,915 15% 

Education (highest level obtained)

High School certificate 1,745 22% 6,930 86% 695 31% 2,420 19% 

4 year degree 1,119 14% 780 10% 0 0% 1,288 10% 

Assessed Value of Property

Total assessed value for tax 

year 2013-14 ($) 1,521,308,480 490,884,897 135,999,651 815,441,324 

Assessed Value Per Capita ($) 191,939 61,063 60,044 63,672 

Recreation 

Outdoor recreation land in the 

county where the community 

is located (acres per 1,000 

population) 

4,906 1,682 4,416 565 

 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1320 | Page

Characteristic Sublimity Winston 

# % # % 

Population 

Total Population, 2012 2,683 5,352 

Population, 2000 2,148 4,613 

Population Change 2000-2012 535 25% 739 16% 

Age Distribution (2012) 

Population 19 years and under 495 18% 1,674 31% 

Population 20 to 64 years 1,346 50% 3,012 56% 

Population 65 years and older 842 31% 666 12% 

Totals 2,683 100% 5,352 100% 

Median age (years) 51 31.9 

Race 

White alone, 2012 2,623 98% 4,980 93% 

Minority 60 2% 372 7% 

Housing 

Total housing units 1,134 42% 1,927 36% 

Occupied housing units 1,085 96% 1,809 94% 

Vacant housing units 49 4% 118 6% 

Owner-occupied 731 67% 1,074 59% 

Renter-occupied 354 33% 735 41% 

Median housing unit value ($) 247,300 154,400 

Median gross rent ($) 347 723 

Employment 

Workers 16 years and over 2,292 85% 3,961 74% 

In labor force 1,089 48% 2,208 41% 

Unemployed 61 3% 388 7% 

Occupation 

Civilian employed population 16 years and 

over 1,016 38% 1,820 34% 

Management, business, science and arts 

occupations 370 36% 335 18% 

Service occupations 156 15% 337 19% 

Sales and office occupations 276 27% 680 37% 

Natural resources, construction, and 

maintenance occupations 115 11% 183 10% 

Production, transportation, and material 

moving occupations 99 10% 285 16% 

Jobs in a Five Mile Radius of the 

Community by Sector 17,216 4,032 

Accommodation and Food Services 2,012 12% 264 7% 

Administration & Support, Waste 

Management and Remediation 778 5% 72 2% 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 45 0% 136 3% 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 165 1% 45 1% 

Construction 390 2% 252 6% 

Educational Services 848 5% 293 7% 

Finance and Insurance 690 4% 35 1% 

Health Care and Social Assistance 3,977 23% 196 5% 

Information 292 2% 6 0% 

Management of Companies and Enterprises 77 0% 319 8% 

Manufacturing 1,358 8% 1,325 33% 

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas 

Extraction 0 0% 17 0% 

Other Services (excluding Public 

Administration) 726 4% 106 3% 

Professional, Scientific, and Technical 

Services 473 3% 42 1% 

Public Administration 982 6% 48 1% 

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 243 1% 30 1% 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1321 | Page

Characteristic Sublimity Winston 

# % # % 

Retail Trade 2,978 17% 316 8% 

Transportation and Warehousing 228 1% 301 7% 

Utilities 76 0% 89 2% 

Wholesale Trade 878 5% 140 3% 

Jobs Distribution Variability Compared 

to Oregon (3) 96% 174% 

Jobs by Earnings

$1,250 per month or less 5,043 29% 846 21% 

$1,251 to $3,333 per month 8,087 47% 1,542 38% 

More than $3,333 per month 4,086 24% 1,644 41% 

Income

Median household income ($) 58,708 31,627 

Persons below poverty level 150 6% 1,584 30% 

Health Insurance Coverage

Civilian non-institutionalized population 2,432 91% 5,345 100% 

With health insurance coverage 2,229 92% 4,589 86% 

No health insurance coverage 203 8% 756 14% 

Education (highest level obtained)

High School certificate 2,519 94% 1,295 24% 

4 year degree 816 30% 417 8% 

Assessed Value of Property

Total assessed value for tax year 2013-14 ($) 187,046,485 223,555,844 

Assessed Value Per Capita ($) 69,715 41,771 

Recreation 

Outdoor recreation land in the county where 

the community is located (acres per 1,000 

population) 

828 16,069 

Sources:

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

DP05, S1901 and S1701; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (May 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

DP05, S1901 and S1701; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (May 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table DP05; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; 

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

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. OnTheMap Application. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program. 

http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/; generated by Clive Graham July 3, 2014. 

Assessed Property Value derived from individual County Assessors Offices Summary of Assessment and Tax Rolls. 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2011. Oregon Statewide Outdoor Recreation Resource/Facility Bulletin Final Report. 

A Component of the 2013-2017 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

Notes:

(1) All data are for 2012 with the exception of the Coquille Indian Tribe and Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. For 

these two tribes the most recent available data in all categories are the from 2009 five-year estimates. 

(2) The population that is 16 years or older and available to work. 

(3) A measure of difference in the distribution of jobs by sector in the 5-mile radius compared to the distribution of jobs for the 

State. A higher number means a larger difference in distribution. 

The American Community Survey data is derived from a sample of American households that contains a greater level of detailed 

socioeconomic data than the decennial census. Where available, we used American Community Survey data from 2012, which is 

informed by data collected over the prior 5 years and extrapolated for each community (for two tribes, data was only available 

from 2009). Since the American Community Survey uses data derived from a sample of the population, and is not a true count of 

the population like the decennial census, margins of error are associated with the extrapolated data. These margins of error vary 

across the geography sampled; however, smaller populations generally experience larger margins of error when compared to 

more populated geographies. 

 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1322 | Page

Table O-308. Selected socioeconomic characteristics: Federally-recognized Tribes with land in the 

planning area, 2009 and 2012 (1). 

Characteristic Oregon 

Confederated 

Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw 

Indians 

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Grand Ronde 

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Siletz Indians 

# % # % # % # % 

Population 

Population, 2012, 2009 (1) 3,836,628 24 473 476 

Population, 2000 3,421,399 25 55 308 

Population Change 415,229 12% -1 -4% 418 760% 168 55% 

Age Distribution 

Population 19 years and under 967,636 25% 4 17% 164 35% 193 41% 

Population 20 to 64 years 2,328,465 61% 13 54% 278 59% 243 51% 

Population 65 years and older 540,527 14% 7 29% 31 7% 40 8% 

Median age (years) 38 62 28 29 

Race 

White alone 3,272,707 85% 12 50% 92 19% 56 12% 

Minority (Non-white) population 563,921 15% 12 50% 381 81% 420 88% 

Housing 

Total housing units 1,673,593 15 193 173 

Occupied housing units 1,512,718 90% 15 100% 185 96% 160 93% 

Owner-occupied 945,824 57% 3 20% 13 7% 88 55% 

Renter-occupied 566,894 34% 12 80% 172 93% 72 45% 

Vacant housing units 160,875 10% 0 0% 8 4% 13 8% 

Median value owner-occupied units ($) 246,100 91,700 79,100 

Median gross rent ($) 854 450 833 458 

Employment 

Population in the labor force (2) 1,953,903 67% 2 10% 176 56% 224 71% 

Unemployed 210,379 7% 18 90% 139 44% 40 13% 

Occupation 

Civilian employed population 16 years 

and over 1,743,524 57% 0 0% 37 12% 184 58% 

Management, business, science and 

arts occupations 627,719 36% 0 0% 47 35% 55 30% 

Service occupations 315,529 18% 0 0% 58 43% 44 24% 

Sales and office occupations 426,554 25% 0 0% 25 19% 45 25% 

Natural resources, construction, and 

maintenance occupations 164,625 9% 0 0% 2 2% 29 16% 

Production, transportation, and material 

moving occupations 209,097 12% 0 0% 2 2% 11 6% 

Jobs in a 5-Mile Radius of the 

Community by Sector 18,273 100% 2,168 100% 6,642 100% 

Accommodation and Food Services 145,131 9% 2,727 15% 1,331 61% 1,489 22% 

Administration & Support, Waste 

Management and Remediation 84,402 5% 1,347 7% 21 1% 245 4% 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and 

Hunting 40,859 3% 509 3% 107 5% 163 2% 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 26,407 2% 214 1% - 0% 679 10% 

Construction 71,050 4% 609 3% 10 0% 266 4% 

Educational Services 158,758 10% 1,195 7% 50 2% 280 4% 

Finance and Insurance 57,164 4% 415 2% 8 0% 58 1% 

Health Care and Social Assistance 230,433 14% 4,169 23% 26 1% 715 11% 

Information 33,677 2% 331 2% 2 0% 46 1% 

Management of Companies and 

Enterprises 32,692 2% 184 1% - 0% 1 0% 

Manufacturing 167,695 10% 612 3% 77 4% 419 6% 

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas 1,596 0% 27 0% - 0% 4 0% 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1323 | Page

Characteristic Oregon 

Confederated 

Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw 

Indians 

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Grand Ronde 

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Siletz Indians 

# % # % # % # % 

Extraction 

Other Services (excluding Public 

Administration) 60,136 4% 598 3% 17 1% 190 3% 

Professional, Scientific, and Technical 

Services 77,910 5% 427 2% 7 0% 81 1% 

Public Administration 91,242 6% 1,062 6% 370 17% 536 8% 

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 25,259 2% 291 2% 3 0% 160 2% 

Retail Trade 181,165 11% 2,439 13% 86 4% 1,035 16% 

Transportation and Warehousing 52,036 3% 686 4% 35 2% 200 3% 

Utilities 8,692 1% 137 1% 13 1% 13 0% 

Wholesale Trade 74,290 5% 294 2% 5 0% 62 1% 

Jobs Distribution Concentration 

Compared to Oregon (3) 51% 554% 99% 

Jobs by Earnings 

$1,250 per month or less 395,867 24% 5,611 31% 245 11% 2,272 34% 

$1,251 to $3,333 per month 621,915 38% 8,030 44% 1,121 52% 2,728 41% 

More than $3,333 per month 602,812 37% 4,632 25% 802 37% 1,642 25% 

Income 

Median household income ($) 50,036 15,938 24,861 39,000 

Persons below poverty level 584,059 15% 6 25% 130 28% 81 18% 

Health Insurance Coverage 

With health insurance coverage 3,191,034 84% 22 92% 379 80% 335 70% 

No health insurance coverage 605,847 16% 2 8% 94 20% 141 30% 

Education (highest level obtained) 

High School certificate 635,670 17% 7 29% 157 33% 97 20% 

4 year degree 760,816 20% 0 0% 18 4% 25 5% 

Recreation 

Outdoor recreation land in the county 

where the community is located (acres 

per 1,000 population) 

8,605 5,012 18,487 4,906 

 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1324 | Page

Characteristic

Confederated 

Tribes of Warm 

Springs 

Reservation of 

Oregon 

Coquille Indian 

Tribe 

Cow Creek Band 

of Umpqua Tribe 

of Indians

Klamath Tribes 

# % # % # % # % 

Population 

Population, 2012, 2009 (1) 3,960 297 21 17 

Population, 2000 3,314 258 22 9 

Population Change 646 19% 39 15% -1 -5% 8 89% 

Age Distribution 

Population 19 years and under 1,473 37% 103 35% 3 14% 0 0% 

Population 20 to 64 years 2,235 56% 156 53% 12 57% 7 41% 

Population 65 years and older 252 6% 38 13% 6 29% 10 59% 

Median age (years) 27 30 62 70 

Race 

White alone 303 8% 131 44% 21 100% 6 35% 

Minority (Non-white) population 3,657 92% 166 56% 0 0% 11 65% 

Housing 

Total housing units 1,157 112 9 14 

Occupied housing units 1,037 90% 102 91% 9 100% 14 100% 

Owner-occupied 650 63% 52 16% 7 78% 4 29% 

Renter-occupied 387 37% 50 49% 2 22% 10 71% 

Vacant housing units 120 10% 10 9% 0 0% 0 0% 

Median value owner-occupied units ($) 103,200 152,800 387,500 275,000 

Median gross rent ($) 673 483 N/A 371 

Employment 

Population in the labor force (2) 1,748 64% 108 51% 7 33% 5 29% 

Unemployed 474 17% 14 7% 0 0% 1 6% 

Occupation 

Civilian employed population 16 years 

and over 1,274 47% 94 44% 7 33% 4 24% 

Management, business, science and 

arts occupations 267 21% 24 23% 0 0% 2 50% 

Service occupations 433 34% 30 28% 5 71% 0 0% 

Sales and office occupations 287 23% 22 24% 2 29% 0 0% 

Natural resources, construction, and 

maintenance occupations 86 7% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 

Production, transportation, and material 

moving occupations 201 16% 14 15% 0 0% 2 50% 

Jobs in a 5- Mile Radius of the 

Community by Sector 2,250 100% 17,768 100% 27,040 100% 17,418 100% 

Accommodation and Food Services 331 15% 2,661 15% 2,682 10% 1,516 9% 

Administration & Support, Waste 

Management and Remediation 29 1% 1,240 7% 1,377 5% 1,076 6% 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and 

Hunting 189 8% 601 3% 899 3% 222 1% 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 6 0% 136 1% 222 1% 383 2% 

Construction 51 2% 627 4% 954 4% 550 3% 

Information 4 0% 221 1% 299 1% 193 1% 

Educational Services 102 5% 1,205 7% 1,930 7% 1,447 8% 

Finance and Insurance 22 1% 375 2% 760 3% 557 3% 

Health Care and Social Assistance 43 2% 3,891 22% 5,051 19% 3,414 20% 

Information 4 0% 221 1% 299 1% 193 1% 

Management of Companies and 

Enterprises - 0% 164 1% 532 2% 499 3% 

Manufacturing 273 12% 940 5% 3,106 11% 1,419 8% 

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas 

Extraction 1 0% 44 0% 91 0% 1 0% 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1325 | Page

Characteristic

Confederated 

Tribes of Warm 

Springs 

Reservation of 

Oregon 

Coquille Indian 

Tribe 

Cow Creek Band 

of Umpqua Tribe 

of Indians

Klamath Tribes 

# % # % # % # % 

Other Services (excluding Public 

Administration) 11 0% 538 3% 874 3% 620 4% 

Professional, Scientific, and Technical 

Services 31 1% 414 2% 658 2% 552 3% 

Public Administration 890 40% 1,067 6% 2,558 9% 1,404 8% 

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing - 0% 218 1% 339 1% 189 1% 

Retail Trade 39 2% 2,343 13% 3,120 12% 2,523 14% 

Transportation and Warehousing 13 1% 696 4% 887 3% 313 2% 

Utilities 101 4% 83 0% 198 1% 112 1% 

Wholesale Trade 114 5% 304 2% 503 2% 428 2% 

Jobs Distribution Concentration 

Compared to Oregon (3) 267% 55% 39% 117% 

Jobs by Earnings 

$1,250 per month or less 407 18% 5,351 30% 7,077 26% 4,903 28% 

$1,251 to $3,333 per month 1,199 53% 7,779 44% 11,693 43% 7,835 45% 

More than $3,333 per month 644 29% 4,638 26% 8,270 31% 4,680 27% 

Income 

Median household income ($) 47,526 39,346 22,250 6,944 

Persons below poverty level 1,069 28% 67 23% 0 0% 9 53% 

Health Insurance Coverage

With health insurance coverage 2,535 65% N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 82% 

No health insurance coverage 1,369 35% N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 18% 

Education (highest level obtained) 

High School certificate 664 17% 69 23% 7 33% 0 0% 

4 year degree 193 5% 15 5% 2 10% 9 53% 

Recreation 

Outdoor recreation land in the county 

where the community is located (acres 

per 1,000 population) 

1,682 5,012 16,069 34,321 

Sources:

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

DP05, S1901 and S1701; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (May 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

DP05, S1901 and S1701; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (May 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table DP05; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; 

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

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. OnTheMap Application. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program. 

http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/; generated by Clive Graham July 3, 2014. 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2011. Oregon Statewide Outdoor Recreation Resource/Facility Bulletin Final Report. 

A Component of the 2013-2017 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

Notes:

(1) All data are for 2012 with the exception of the Coquille Indian Tribe and Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. For 

these two tribes the most recent available data in all categories are the from 2009 five-year estimates. 

(2) The population that is 16 years or older and available to work. 

(3) A measure of difference in the distribution of jobs by sector in the 5-mile radius compared to the distribution of jobs for the 

State. A higher number means a larger difference in distribution. 

The American Community Survey data is derived from a sample of American households that contains a 

greater level of detailed socioeconomic data than the decennial census. Where available, we used 

American Community Survey data from 2012, which is informed by data collected over the prior 5 years 

and extrapolated for each community (for two tribes, data was only available from 2009). Since the 

American Community Survey uses data derived from a sample of the population, and is not a true count 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1326 | Page

of the population like the decennial census, margins of error are associated with the extrapolated data. 

These margins of error vary across the geography sampled; however, smaller populations generally 

experience larger margins of error when compared to more populated geographies. 

Community Profiles 

The BLM developed brief, introductory geographic and economic profiles of the selected communities to 

have some familiarity with the communities prior to the interviews. For the tribes, the section contains 

profiles only for those that opted to participate in the interviews. 

Coquille 

Coquille is the county seat of Coos County, and is located on Oregon Route 42 along the Coquille River 

approximately 20 miles downstream from the Pacific Ocean. Deriving its name from the Coquille Indian 

Tribe, the city’s primary economic driver is the timber industry. Other economic activities include 

healthcare and tourism. 

Area: 2.80 square miles. 2012 population: 3,874. http://cityofcoquille.org/ 

Drain 

Drain is in Douglas County, approximately 20 miles south of Eugene on Oregon Routes 99 and 38 at a 

pass in the coast range created by Pass Creek, a tributary of the Umpqua River. Drain is named after town 

founder and politician Charles J. Drain. The North Douglas School District is one of the major employers 

in the city, which is home to both the combined elementary/middle school and the high school. 

Area: 0.61 square miles. 2012 population: 1,142. http://www.drainoregon.org/ 

Florence 

Florence is located in Lane County on the Oregon coast at the mouth of the Siuslaw River roughly due 

east of Eugene, is located along U.S. Highway 101. The Siuslaw Tribe of Native Americans formerly 

inhabited the Florence area. The city’s traditional economy was based on timber and fishing, but both 

have declined, and the city now focuses on tourism. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua 

and Siuslaw Indians own the Three Rivers Casino located just east of the city. 

Area: 5.87 square miles. 2012 population: 8,412. http://www.ci.florence.or.us/ 

Gold Beach 

Gold Beach is the county seat of Curry County and is located on the Oregon coast approximately 50 miles 

north of the California border. The community was originally named Ellensburg in the 1850s, but later 

took the name Gold Beach after a beach near the mouth of the Rogue River where placer mines extracted 

gold. Gold Beach is a center for fishing, ocean charters, and outdoor recreation. The primary industries in 

the city are tourism and government. 

Area: 2.76 square miles. Population 2012: 2,563. http://www.goldbeachoregon.gov/ 

Grants Pass 

Grants Pass is the county seat of Josephine County and is located on Interstate 5, northwest of Medford. 

Incorporated in 1887, the city was named in honor of General Ulysses S. Grant. Attractions include the 

Rogue River and the nearby Oregon Caves National Monument. Once a timber-based community, the 

economy is currently a mix of light manufacturing, secondary wood products, retail trade, tourism, 

recreation, and service-based industries. 

Area: 11.03 square miles. Population 2012: 34,454. https://www.grantspassoregon.gov/ 

Klamath Falls 

Klamath Falls is the county seat of Klamath County, and is located on the southeast shore of the Upper 

Klamath Lake, about 25 miles north of California. Founded in 1867 under the name Linkville, the city 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1327 | Page

was renamed Klamath Falls in 1893. Logging was Klamath Falls’ first major industry, while tourism and 

recreation have become current economic mainstays. The nearby Lava Beds National Monument and 

Crater Lake National Park are common tourist destinations. 

Area: 20.66 square miles. Population 2012: 20,943. http://ci.klamath-falls.or.us/ 

Junction City 

Junction City is located in Lane County on U.S. Route 99 west of the Willamette River, approximately 15 

miles northwest of Eugene. Agricultural land surrounds the city, which has a strong manufacturing base 

including historic ties with the recreational vehicle industry. Incorporated in 1872, Junction City is also a 

gateway to Oregon wine country. 

Area: 2.36 square miles. 2012 population: 5,445. http://www.junctioncityoregon.gov/ 

Lincoln City 

Lincoln City is located in Lane County on the Oregon coast approximately 60 miles from Salem and 90 

miles from Portland. Lincoln City incorporated in 1965, uniting the cities of Delake, Oceanlake and Taft, 

and the unincorporated communities of Cutler City and Nelscott. It is a beach and resort community; 

tourism is the city’s primary industry. Lincoln City is also home to the Chinook Winds Casino operated 

by the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz. 

Area: 5.68 square miles. Population 2012: 7,926. http://www.lincolncity.org/ 

Molalla 

Molalla is located in Clackamas County, 30 miles southeast of Portland. The city was named after the 

Molalla River, which in turn was named for the Molalla, a Native American tribe that inhabited the area. 

Descendants of the Molalla tribe are members of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. Historically, 

lumber production was the community’s biggest industry. In recent years, the city has diversified its 

economic base with manufacturing, commercial, tourism, and recreation, with Molalla as the gateway to 

the Molalla River Recreation Corridor. 

Area: 2.26 square miles. Population 2012: 8,039. http://www.cityofmolalla.com/ 

Rogue River 

Rogue River is located in the western edge of Jackson County along U.S. Route 5. Formerly known as 

Woodville the settlement changed to Rogue River. During the 1830s and 1840s, the area had become a 

stopover for trappers and traders traveling from Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River south to 

California along the Siskiyou Trail. Today's Interstate 5 traces the route of that trail. Rogue River was 

closely tied to the timber industry but is now seeing a shift to service and retail jobs. 

Area: 0.97 square miles. Population 2012: 2,265. http://cityofrogueriver.org/ 

St. Helens 

St. Helens is the county seat of Columbia County and is located about 30 miles north of Portland along the 

Oregon-Washington border. Bounded by the Columbia River to the east, St. Helens is named for its view 

of Mount St. Helens in Washington, approximately 40 miles away. The city has a strong focus on business 

development, especially in its Downtown Historic District and through its Main Street Program. St. 

Helens also offers a variety of tourism and recreation activities along the Columbia River. 

Area: 5.51 square miles. Population 2012: 12,807. http://www.ci.st-helens.or.us/ 

Sublimity 

Sublimity is located in Marion County, about 15 miles east of Salem on a plateau on the western foothills 

of the Oregon Cascades. The town incorporated in 1903. Sublimity was a center for the timber industry 

through the 1980s but is now a bedroom community for Salem. 

Area: 0.93 square miles. Population 2012: 2,683. http://www.cityofsublimity.org/ 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1328 | Page

Winston 

Winston is located in Douglas County less than 10 miles south of Roseburg along the South Umpqua 

River. Although separated by the river, Winston is often regarded as part of a single entity with nearby 

Dillard and Willis Creek. Winston experienced significant growth when lumber mills began to open 

towards the middle of the twentieth century, and it remains timber-dependent today. 

Area: 2.65 square miles. Population 2012: 5,352. http://www.winstoncity.org/ 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon 

The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde’s reservation and other owned lands cover approximately 

10,700 acres in Yamhill and Polk Counties. The population on these lands is approximately 470 (2012 

Census), but tribal membership across Western Oregon is 5,000 to 6,000. 

The Tribes’ vision is to be a tribal community providing responsible stewardship of human and natural 

resources http://www.grandronde.org/ikanum/index.html (6-27-14). The Tribes’ sources of income 

include the Spirit Mountain Casino, timber sales from tribal lands, and tourism. The Grand Ronde is 

involved in community building functions such as housing, education, and health care. 

http://www.grandronde.org/ 

Coquille Indian Tribe of Coos County, Oregon 

The Coquille Indian Tribe’s reservation and its tribal service area covers approximately 15,600 square 

miles of Coos, Curry, Douglas, and Lane counties, with its main tribal campus in Southeastern Coos 

County. 

The Tribe is the second largest employer in Coos County, Oregon, with successful business ventures in 

forestry, arts and exhibits, gaming and hospitality, assisted living and memory care, high-speed 

telecommunications, and renewable energy. The Tribe also operates the Mill Resort & Casino in Coos 

Bay and manages the Coquille Forest, comprised of 14 separate parcels of formerly BLM-administered 

timberlands in eastern Coos County, totaling 5,410 acres. http://www.coquilletribe.org/ 

 






































Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1367 | Page

Issue 6 

Would the alternatives result in environmental justice impacts (disproportionally high and adverse effects 

on minority, low-income, or Tribal populations or communities)?

Minority Populations Meeting Environmental Justice 

Criteria 

Table O-324. Minority populations meeting environmental justice criteria. 

Geography Total 

Population 

All minorities Hispanic 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Oregon 3,836,628 563,921 15% 449,888 12% 

Benton County 

Summit CDP 66 33 50% 0 0% 

Clackamas County 

Barlow City 302 24 8% 87 29% 

Canby City 15,770 1,264 8% 3,735 24% 

Happy Valley City 14,050 3,900 28% 697 5% 

Johnson City 657 50 8% 244 37% 

Coos County 

Glasgow CDP 1,057 232 22% 14 1% 

Powers City 890 179 20% 83 9% 

Jackson County 

White City CDP 7,392 1,027 14% 2,301 31% 

Josephine County 

Merlin CDP 1,484 353 24% 65 4% 

Selma CDP 579 56 10% 117 20% 

Klamath County 

Bonanza Town 418 51 12% 76 18% 

Chiloquin City 766 603 79% 44 6% 

Malin City 712 156 22% 555 78% 

Merrill City 805 110 14% 416 52% 

Lincoln County 

Lincoln Beach CDP 1,982 482 24% 358 18% 

Siletz City 1,400 441 32% 42 3% 

Linn County 

Crabtree CDP 308 49 16% 66 21% 

Waterloo Town 320 35 11% 73 23% 

West Scio CDP 163 40 25% 21 13% 

Marion County 315,391 61,715 20% 76,429 24% 

Brooks CDP 665 173 26% 88 13% 

Four Corners CDP 16,472 4,555 28% 6,360 39% 

Gervais City 2,475 754 30% 1,700 69% 

Hayesville CDP 18,224 6,383 35% 6,891 38% 

Hubbard City 3,154 920 29% 1,221 39% 

Keizer City 36,402 4,673 13% 7,015 19% 

Labish Village CDP 195 113 58% 128 66% 

Mount Angel City 3,347 603 18% 953 28% 
Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1368 | Page

Geography Total 

Population 

All minorities Hispanic 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Salem City (1) 154,835 28,403 18% 30,565 20% 

St. Paul City 310 31 10% 73 24% 

Stayton City 7,637 1,234 16% 1,535 20% 

Woodburn City 23,879 9,067 38% 13,444 56% 

Multnomah County 737,110 158,601 22% 79,791 11% 

Fairview City 8,884 1,807 20% 1,268 14% 

Gresham City 105,612 20,891 20% 21,074 20% 

Maywood Park City 1,008 226 22% 4 0% 

Portland City 585,888 131,729 22% 54,420 9% 

Wood Village City 3,870 644 17% 1,160 30% 

Polk County 

Independence City 8,535 1,724 20% 3,271 38% 

Tillamook County 

Bayside Gardens CDP 804 156 19% 0 0% 

Washington County 531,818 122,803 23% 83,085 16% 

Aloha CDP 50,710 15,057 30% 10,664 21% 

Beaverton City 90,254 25,072 28% 14,310 16% 

Bethany CDP 20,505 7,914 39% 960 5% 

Bull Mountain CDP 8,990 1,847 21% 224 2% 

Cedar Hills CDP 9,273 1,919 21% 1,205 13% 

Cedar Mill CDP (1) 15,118 2,919 19% 529 3% 

Cornelius City 11,867 4,039 34% 5,916 50% 

Forest Grove City 21,245 3,609 17% 5,338 25% 

Hillsboro City 91,998 26,243 29% 22,885 25% 

Oak Hills CDP 11,005 3,065 28% 418 4% 

Rockcreek CDP 9,488 1,888 20% 572 6% 

Tualatin City (1) 26,106 3,814 15% 4,852 19% 

Yamhill County 

Dayton City 2,537 820 32% 1,021 40% 

Grand Ronde CDP (1) 1,451 677 47% 115 8% 

Lafayette City 3,709 445 12% 904 24% 

McMinnville City 32,092 5,672 18% 6,324 20% 

Sheridan City 6,086 966 16% 974 16% 

Tribes 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Reservation and OffReservation Trust Land, OR 24 12 50% 0 0%

Coquille Reservation and OffReservation Trust Land, OR (2) 297 166 56% 15 5%

Grand Ronde Community and 

Off-Reservation Trust Land, OR 473 381 81% 7 1%

Klamath Reservation, OR 17 11 65% 0 0% 

Siletz Reservation and OffReservation Trust Land, OR 476 420 88% 19 4%

Warm Springs Reservation and 

Off-Reservation Trust Land, OR 3,960 3,657 92% 372 9%
Appendix O – Socioeconomics 

1369 | Page

Notes: Geographies meeting the 50 percent criterion shown in gray with black border. Geographies meeting the meaningfully 

greater criterion shown in gray. 

(1) Where a city or Census Designated Place (CDP) spans more than one county, the BLM assigned it to the county with largest 

share of population. 

(2) Shows 2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Data since 2012 data not available 

Sources: 

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

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

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

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

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

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

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

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

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

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




Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1374 | Page

References 

Adams, D. M., and R. W. Haynes. 1980. The 1980 softwood timber assessment market model: structure, projections, and policy 

simulation. Forest Science 26(3): a0001-z0001. 

Adams, D. M., and R. W. Haynes. 2007. Resource and market projections for forest policy development: twenty-five years of 

experience with the US RPA Timber Assessment. Vol. 14. Springer Science & Business Media. 589 pp. 

George, P. S., and G. A. King. 1971. Consumer demand for food commodities in the United States with projections for 1980. 

Giannini Foundation Monograph Number 26. http://giannini.ucop.edu/Monographs/26_George_King.pdf. 

Haynes, R. W. 2008. Emergent lessons from a century of experience with Pacific Northwest timber markets. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-747. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 45 pp. 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tKU05Y3F3kC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Emergent+Lessons+from+a+Century+of+Experience+with+Pacific+Northwest+Timb

er+Markets&ots=LLXJY4TNBP&sig=McvaRcO8tN1YOY_45BdnbK10iE4#v=onepage&q=Emergent%20Lessons%20fro

m%20a%20Century%20of%20Experience%20with%20Pacific%20Northwest%20Timber%20Markets&f=false. 

Krumenauer, G., and B. Turner. 2014. Employment projections by industry and occupations 2012-2022, Oregon and regional 

summary. Oregon Employment Department, April 2014. 

https://www.qualityinfo.org/documents/10182/92203/Oregon+Employment+Projections+2012-2022?version=1.0 (accessed 

November 21, 2014). 

MIG, Inc. 2013. IMPLAN version 3 software and Oregon state package data set. Huntersville, NC. http://implan.com/.Oregon 

Forest Resources Institute, 2012 

Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI). 2012. The 2012 Forest Report: An economic assessment of Oregon’s forest and wood 

products manufacturing sector. Portland, OR. Data support provided by Dr. Dan Green of Economic Analysis Systems. 

Moscow, ID. 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). 2011. Oregon Statewide Outdoor Recreation Resource/Facility Bulletin Final 

Report. A component of the 2013-2017 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

U.S. Census Bureau; Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table DP05; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; 

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

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 Census 2000 Summary 

File 3 (SF 3), Table DP-3; American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov; (Sept 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

DP05, S1901 and S1701; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov; (May 2014). 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

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

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

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

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

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

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, 

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

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

DP05, S1901 and S1701; generated by Joan Huston; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov; (May 2014). 

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

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

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. OnTheMap Application. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program. 

http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/; generated by Clive Graham July 3, 2014. 

Zhou, X.. 2013. Production, prices, employment, and trade in northwest forest industries, all quarters 2012. Resource Bulletin 

PNW-RB-265. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 163 pp. 

 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines 

1375 | Page

Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management 

Guidelines 

This section provides off-highway vehicle (OHV) management guidelines that the BLM would 

implement following adoption of the RMP until the BLM completes implementation level transportation 

management plans. The BLM has developed these interim guidelines at the district level, for Recreation 

Management Areas/Travel Management Areas that contain travel management opportunities (i.e., Class I, 

II, III, and IV motorized uses, mechanized, foot, and equestrian travel). 

The BLM will defer travel management planning during this RMP revision process. The RMP will serve 

to document the decision-making process used to develop the initial transportation network, provide the 

basis for future management decisions, and set guidelines for making transportation network adjustments 

through the life of the RMP. 

The BLM has developed these management guidelines consistent with BLM Handbook H-8342- Travel 

and Transportation. This handbook provides specific guidance for preparing, amending, revising, 

maintaining, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating BLM land use and travel management plans. 

Designation of OHV Management Areas 

All public lands are required to have OHV area designations (as defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5 (a). The 

OHV area designations are land use allocations the must be determined in the RMP and classified as 

open, limited, or closed to motorized travel. The BLM bases these designations on protecting natural and 

cultural resources and public safety, limiting visitor conflicts, and providing diverse recreational 

opportunities. Criteria for open, limited, and closed are designations are established in 43 CFR 8340.0-5 

(f, g, h). The OHV area designations are defined as follows: 

x Open: areas where the BLM does not limit off-highway vehicle use since there are no issues 

regarding resources, visitor conflicts, or public safety to warrant limiting cross-country travel 

x Limited: areas where the BLM has restricted off-highway vehicle use in order to meet 

recreational and resource management objectives141 

x Closed: areas that the BLM has closed to all motorized vehicle use to protect resources, ensure 

visitor safety, or reduce visitor conflicts 

Table P-1 displays the current OHV area designations within the decision area. 

 

 

141 Restrictions may include the number or types of vehicles, the time or season of use, permitted or licensed use 

only, or limiting use to existing or designated roads and trails. 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines

1376 | Page

Table P-1. Current OHV area designations within the decision area. 

Travel Management 

Area Designation 

(1995 RMP) 

Coos 

Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals 

Open - - 29,902 139,878 - 160,614 330,394 

Limited to Existing 

Roads and Trails - 320,883 137,154 26,514 416,560 48,771 949,882 

Limited to Existing 

Roads and 

Designated Trails 

- - - - - 87,144 87,144 

Limited to 

Designated Roads 

and Trails 

318,676 - 47,222 661,357 6,731 16,192 1,050,178 

Limited to 

Designated Roads - - - - - 69,508 69,508 

Closed 3,489 3,547 10,702 46,371 3,283 17,197 84,589 

Totals 322,165 324,430 224,980 874,120 426,574 399,426 2,571,695 

Table P-2 displays the OHV area designations by alternative. 

Table P-2. OHV area designations by alternative. 

Trails and Travel Management No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Open 330,394 - - - - 

Limited to Existing Routes 1,037,026 2,339,820 2,319,908 2,290,558 2,315,232 

Limited to Designated Routes 1,119,686 5,755 5,755 5,755 5,755 

Closed 84,589 128,757 148,551 178,001 153,305 

In addition to OHV area designations, the action alternatives include designation of some Recreation 

Management Areas (RMAs) for the exclusion of OHV use (Table P-3). The restrictions identify areas 

that would be designated for more primitive recreation opportunities. Closure acreages correspond 

proportionally to RMA total acreages by alternative. 

Table P-3. OHV recreation opportunities, acres restricted within Recreation Management Areas. 

Recreation Opportunities Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

OHV Recreation Restricted 17,517 49,969 87,261 105,474 

The OHV area designations do not apply to non-motorized uses (hiking, biking, equestrian), though areas 

can be designated for non-motorized transportation systems in the RMP process.142 The designation of 

 

142 To restrict non-motorized travel to specific routes, the BLM must develop supplemental rules through a Federal 

Register process, consistent with 43 CFR 8365.1-6-Supplementary Rules. 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines 

1377 | Page

OHV areas should consider the needs for a variety of road, primitive road, and trail systems tailored to a 

variety of users including non-motorized recreational uses. 

Plan Maintenance and Changes to Route Designations 

The RMP will include indicators that will guide plan maintenance, amendments, or revisions related to 

OHV area designations or the approved road and trail system within “Limited to Existing” areas. Future 

conditions may require the designation or construction of new routes or closure of routes to better address 

resources and resource use conflicts. The BLM will be able to modify actual route designations within the 

“Limited” category without completing an RMP amendment, although compliance with NEPA will still 

be required. 

The BLM will accomplish plan maintenance through implementation-level travel management planning. 

The BLM will collaborate with affected and interested parties in evaluating changes to the existing and 

designated road and trail network in “Limited” area designations and changes to the broader Recreation 

Management Area designations that emphasize motorized OHV recreation. In conducting such 

evaluations, the BLM will consider the following: 

x Routes suitable for various categories of OHVs (e.g., motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, full size 4-

wheel drive vehicles) and opportunities for shared trail use 

x Needs for parking, trailheads, informational and directional signs, mapping and route profiles, 

and development of brochures or other materials for public dissemination 

x Opportunities to tie into existing or planned route networks 

x Measures needed to meet other resource objectives in the RMP (e.g., cultural resources, soil 

resources, special status species, and recreation) 

The BLM will consider public land roads or trails determined to cause considerable adverse effects or to 

continue a nuisance or threat to public safety for relocation or closure and rehabilitation after appropriate 

coordination with applicable agencies and partners. In implementation-level travel management planning, 

areas designated as “Closed” will not be available for new motorized designation or construction without 

an RMP amendment changing the area designation. 

Designated Motorized and Non-Motorized Trails 

The BLM is currently working on an inventory of all user-created motorized and non-motorized routes 

within the decision area. The BLM will use this inventory as a baseline to guide future implementationlevel route designations within the areas that are designated “Limited to Existing Routes.” Table P-4

displays the current designated trails within the decision area. 

Recreation routes (authorized and unauthorized) have been created in response to demand for trail-based 

recreation. As demand for trail-based recreation (especially OHV riding) increased, the number of routes 

increased. The routes developed for administrative and resource uses provide primary access routes 

throughout most of the decision area. These primary access routes were created for administrative and 

resource uses, not for recreation. As a result, the routes are not always providing the recreation experience 

users are looking for. Over time, recreation use extended, connected, or pioneered new routes from the 

administrative and resource use routes. This pattern of route development has resulted in high route 

densities where the administrative and resource use routes provided access for recreation use. 

 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines

1378 | Page

Table P-4. Current designated motorized and non-motorized trails within the decision area. 

District/Field Office Recreation Trail Miles 

Coos Bay

Blue Ridge 10.0 

Doerner Fir 0.5 

Euphoria Ridge OHV Trail System 4.0 

Floras Lake 1.0 

Four Mile Creek 0.3 

Loon Lake Waterfall 0.5 

Lost Lake 1.0 

New River/Storm Ranch 2.0 

New River Water Trails 5.0 

New Fork Hunter Creek 2.0 

North Spit Trail System 9.0 

Subtotal 35.3 

Eugene

Clay Creek Trail 0.6 

Eagles Rest Trail 0.2 

Lake Creek Falls Trail 0.2 

Row River Trail 13.5 

Shotgun Creek Non-Motorized Trails 6.2 

Shotgun Creek OHV Trail System 23.2 

Tyrrell Forest Succession Trail 1.0 

Whittaker Creek Trail 1.0 

Subtotal 45.9 

Klamath Falls

Gerber-Miller Creek Potholes Trail 13.0 

Keno Spencer Snowmobile Trail 6.0 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 1.0 

Pederson Snowmobile Trail 5.0 

Surveyor Peak Snowmobile Trail 3.0 

Wood River Wetland Trail 1.0 

Subtotal 29.0 

Medford

Armstrong Gulch Trail 1.0 

Buck Prairie Cross Country Trails 17.0 

Cathedral Hills Trail System 10.0 

Grayback Mountain Trails 6.5 

Grizzly Peak 5.0 

Hidden Creek 1.0 

Jacksonville Historic Landmark 5.0 

Kelsey Peak 3.0 

Kerby Peak 8.0 

Listening Tree 1.0 

London Peak 1.0 

Lower London Peak 2.0 

Lower Table Rock 2.0 

Mt. Bolivar 1.5 

Mule Creek 3.0 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines 

1379 | Page

District/Field Office Recreation Trail Miles 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 22.4 

Sterling Mine Ditch Trail 10.0 

Tunnel Ridge 41.0 

Upper Table Rock 2.0 

Wolf Gap 4.0 

Subtotal 146.4 

Roseburg

China Ditch Trail 0.4 

Emerald Trail 1.3 

Miner-Wolf Creek WW Trail 0.2 

North Bank Ranch Trail System 8.0 

North Umpqua Trail 12.3 

Sawmill Trail 12.3 

Susan Creek Trails 2.0 

Susan Creek Falls Trails 1.0 

Wolf Creek Falls Trails 1.2 

Subtotal 38.7 

Salem

Alsea Falls Trail System 8.0 

Baty Butte-Silver King Trail 3.4 

Boulder Ridge Trail 0.2 

Eagle Creek Trail 0.5 

McIntyre Ridge Trail 0.5 

Molalla River Trail System 24.6 

Nasty Rock Trail 1.0 

Sandy Ridge Trail System 15.4 

Table Rock Wilderness Trails 20.4 

Upper Nestucca OHV Trail System 25.0 

Valley of the Giants Trail 0.8 

Subtotal 99.8 

Grand Total 395.1 

Delineation of Travel Management Areas 

The BLM will delineate Travel Management Areas to address particular concerns and prescribe specific 

management actions for a defined geographic area. The BLM typically identifies Travel Management 

Areas where travel and transportation management (either motorized or non-motorized) requires 

particular focus or increased intensity of management. While OHV area designations are a mandatory 

land use plan allocations, Travel Management Areas are an optional planning tool to frame transportation 

issues and help delineate travel networks that address specific uses and resource concerns. 

The RMP process provides the opportunity to establish a link between Recreation and Transportation 

Management Areas. To help ensure that that travel decisions support program-specific management 

objectives, the BLM will identify Travel Management Area boundaries that correspond with the 

Recreation Management Areas defined for various outcomes. The RMP will management objectives and 

management direction for non-motorized trails and access. When delineating Recreation Management 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines

1380 | Page

Areas and Travel Management Areas and developing management direction for these areas, the BLM will 

consider the following: 

x Other resource values and uses 

x Primary travelers 

x Emerging uses such as growing recreational-use types 

x Setting characteristics that are to be maintained, including recreation setting characteristics and 

VRM settings 

x Primary means of travel allowed to accomplish the objectives and to maintain the setting 

characteristics 

x Social conflicts between different travel types 

x Social conflicts between public land visitors and adjacent property owners 

x Number and types of access points (motorized vs. non-motorized) 

x Existing right-of-ways (ROWs) and future ROW requests 

x Existing geographic identify and public knowledge of the area 

x Identifiable boundaries of the Travel Management Area based on topography, major roads or 

other easily discernible elements 

Road Maintenance Levels and OHV Use 

BLM road maintenance levels that pertain to limitations on types of OHV use are described below. 

Level 1 – This level is assigned to roads where minimum maintenance is required to protect adjacent 

lands and resource values. Emphasis is given to maintaining drainage and runoff patterns as needed to 

protect adjacent lands. Grading, brushing, or slide removal is not performed unless roadbed drainage is 

being adversely affected, causing erosion. Closure and traffic restrictive devices are maintained as 

needed. 

Level 2 – This level is assigned to roads that are passable by high clearance vehicles. Drainage structures 

are to be inspected within a 3-year period and maintained as needed. Grading is conducted as necessary to 

correct drainage problems. Brushing is conducted as needed to allow access. These are typically low 

standard, low volume, single lane, natural and aggregate surfaced, and are functionally classified as a 

resource road. 

Level 3 – This level is assigned to roads where management objectives require the road to be open 

seasonally or year-round for commercial, recreational, or administrative access. Typically, these roads are 

natural or aggregate surfaced, but may include low use bituminous surfaced road. These roads have a 

defined cross section with drainage structures (e.g., rolling dips, culverts, or ditches). These roads may be 

negotiated by passenger cars traveling at prudent speeds. User comfort and convenience are not 

considered a high priority. Drainage structures are to be inspected at least annually and maintained as 

needed. Grading is conducted to provide a reasonable level of riding comfort at prudent speeds for the 

road conditions. Brushing is conducted as needed to improve sight distance. 

Level 4 – This level is assigned to roads where management objectives require the road to be open all 

year (except may be closed or have limited access due to snow conditions) and which connect major 

administrative features (recreational sites, local road systems, administrative sites, etc.) to County, State, 

or Federal roads. Typically, these roads are single or double lane, aggregate, or bituminous surface, with a 

higher volume of commercial and recreational traffic than administrative traffic. 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines 

1381 | Page

Coos Bay District OHV Area Designations 

Table P-5. Coos Bay District OHV area designations by alternative. 

OHV Area Designation No Action Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Open 160,614 - - - - 

Limited to Existing Routes - 318,500 319,565 319,565 318,469 

Limited to Designated Routes - - 1,401 1,401 1,401 

Closed 17,197 5,191 2,724 2,724 3,821 

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Coos Bay District. See additional 

guidelines for the Blue Ridge OHV Area.

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

x The BLM will manage Limited OHV areas in accordance with all applicable federal and state offhighway vehicle regulations.

x The BLM will limit motor vehicle use to administrative, commercial, and passenger vehicle 

traffic where not specifically signed or gated.

x Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be limited in the 

interim to the existing road and trail network unless closed or restricted under a previous planning 

effort or due to special circumstances as defined below. 

x The BLM may close or limit routes under seasonal or administrative restrictions. These 

restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, special requirements 

for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for public safety. 

x Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet from centerline 

of roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails. 

x Limitations apply to all Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), and 

Class III (motorcycles) vehicle use and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

Closed Area Management Guidelines: All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV 

areas unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for ongoing public collaboration and outreach: 

x The principal venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and scoping during future 

travel management planning efforts, special projects, and local partnership. 

x The BLM will send press releases as needed informing the public of OHV opportunities and 

restrictions. The BLM will post signs where appropriate. 

x Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps, and brochures shall be available 

to the public at the Coos Bay District office illustrating designations, describing specific 

restrictions, and defining opportunities. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM has completed route designations for 

the New River ACEC and the Blue Ridge OHV Area. The BLM will accomplish final route designations 

for the rest of the district in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plan 

scheduled to be completed no later than five years after completion of the RMP revision.

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. The BLM will conduct on-the-ground inventories if roads and trails cannot be 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines

1382 | Page

identified using remote-sensing techniques. The BLM will evaluate proposed designations through public 

scoping and a NEPA analysis. The BLM will consider changes to the designated system during the 

transportation management planning process. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and maintain roads 

and trails in accordance with the standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1(USDI BLM 1987) and other 

professional sources. 

Blue Ridge OHV Travel Management Area 

The BLM will manage the Blue Ridge OHV travel management area in the Coos Bay District as a 

Recreation Management Area with an off-highway vehicle focus. The following management guidelines 

apply to the Blue Ridge OHV area on the Coos Bay District: 

Acres: 1,609

OHV Designation: Limited to designated roads and trails.

Niche: Offers a multiple-use, single-track trail riding experience for hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers, 

and motorcycle riders.

Management Guidelines: 

x The single-track trail system is available to Class III (motorcycles) vehicles with Oregon allterrain vehicle permits and all non-motorized modes of travel. 

x Motorized, mechanized, and equestrian use is prohibited between December and April to prevent 

excessive damage to the trail tread when soil moisture conditions are high. Motorized use on the 

trail system may be restricted during summer months due to fire hazard conditions. 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: The principal venue for public collaboration on the 

trail system is through local partnership relationships. A printed trail map is available to the public at the 

Coos Bay District office and on the Coos Regional Trail Partnership webpage. The trail system is marked 

on the ground with regulatory and directional signage.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM completed route designations through 

the Blue Ridge Multiple Use Trail System environmental assessment (EA OR-125-98-18). The BLM will 

use adaptive management to adjust the system for commercial timber production demands, user needs and 

resource protection. The BLM will accomplish these modifications in collaboration with trail partners and 

users and through changes to the Blue Ridge Trail system plan and an environmental assessment. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and maintain roads 

and trails in accordance with the design features identified in the environmental assessment, standards in 

BLM Manual H-9114-1 (USDI BLM 1987), and other professional sources. Trail maintenance will be a 

priority within this OHV area to ensure a quality riding experience for trail users and to conserve natural 

resource values.
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines 

1383 | Page

Eugene District OHV Area Designations 

Table P-6. Eugene District OHV area designations by alternative. 

OHV Area Designation No Action Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Open - - - - - 

Limited to Existing Routes - 289,796 283,963 281,750 279,757 

Limited to Designated Routes - - 5,728 5,727 5,727 

Closed - 20,601 20,707 22,921 24,915 

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Eugene District. See additional guidelines 

for the Shotgun Creek OHV Area.

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

x Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be limited to the existing 

road and trail network unless closed or restricted under a previous planning effort or due to special 

circumstances as defined below. 

x The BLM may close or limit routes under seasonal or administrative restrictions. These restrictions 

may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, special requirements for wildlife 

species, to protect cultural resources, or for public safety. 

x Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet from centerline of 

roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails. 

x Limitations apply to all Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), and Class 

III (motorcycles) vehicles and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

Closed Area Management Guidelines: All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV 

areas unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: 

x The principal venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and scoping during future 

travel management planning efforts, special projects, and local partnership. 

x The BLM will send press releases as needed informing the public of OHV opportunities and 

restrictions. The BLM will post signs where appropriate. 

x Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures shall be available to 

the public at the main office illustrating designations, describing specific restrictions, and defining 

opportunities. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM has completed route designations for 

the Upper Lake Creek Special Recreation Management Area and the Shotgun Creek OHV Area. The 

BLM will accomplish final route designations for the rest of the district in a comprehensive, 

interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plan scheduled to be completed no later than five 

years after completion of the RMP revision.

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. The BLM will conduct on-the-ground inventories if roads and trails cannot be 

identified using remote-sensing techniques. The BLM will evaluate proposed designations through public 

scoping and a NEPA analysis. The BLM will consider changes to the designated system during the 

transportation management planning process. 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines

1384 | Page

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and maintain roads 

and trails in accordance with the standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 (USDI BLM 1987) and other 

professional sources.

Shotgun Creek OHV Travel Management Area 

Acres: 5,755

OHV Designation: Limited to designated roads and trails

Niche: Offers a multiple-use trail riding experience for motorcycle riders, all-terrain vehicle riders, and 

four-wheel drive enthusiasts.

Management Guidelines: 

x The trail system is available to Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), 

and Class III (motorcycles) motorized vehicles with Oregon all-terrain vehicle permits. 

x The BLM will sign and map routes open to OHV use. 

x Routes available for OHV use may change periodically due to timber harvest activity or trail 

rehabilitation. 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: The principal venue for public collaboration on the 

trail system is through local partnership relationships. A trail map is available to the public at the Eugene 

District Office and will be updated as trail routes change. The trail system is marked on the ground with 

regulatory and directional signs.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM completed route designations through 

two Shotgun OHV Trail System environmental assessments (EA OR 090-00-04 and EA OR 090-06-04). 

The BLM will consider changes to the transportation system during the route designation planning 

process. The BLM will accomplish these modifications in collaboration with trail partners and users.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: Trail maintenance will be a priority within 

this OHV area to ensure quality riding experiences for trail users and to conserve natural resource values.

Klamath Falls Field Office OHV Area Designations 

Table P-7. Klamath Falls Field Office OHV area designations by alternative. 

OHV Area Designation No Action Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Open - - - - - 

Limited to Existing Routes - 213,266 209,559 200,501 202,759 

Limited to Designated Routes - - - - - 

Closed - 494 4,201 13,260 11,001 

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Klamath Falls Field Office. 

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines 

1385 | Page

x The BLM will managed Limited OHV areas in accordance with all applicable federal and state 

off-highway vehicle regulations. 

x The BLM will limit motor vehicle use to administrative, commercial, and passenger vehicle 

traffic where not specifically signed or gated. 

x Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be limited in the 

interim to the existing road and trail network unless closed or restricted under a previous planning 

effort or due to special circumstances as defined below. 

x The BLM may close or limit routes under seasonal or administrative restrictions. These 

restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, special requirements 

for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for public safety. 

x Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet from centerline 

of roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails. 

x Limitations apply to all Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), and 

Class III (motorcycles) vehicles and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

Seasonal restrictions: 

x The Eastside seasonal OHV closure is in effect from November 1 to April 15 and applies to all 

BLM-administered lands within deer winter range cooperative wildlife areas, including the 

majority of Stukel and Bryant Mountain and portions of the Gerber block as mapped. 

x The Pokegema wildlife area seasonal OHV closure is in effect from November 20 to April 1. 

x For designated snowmobile trails, wheeled vehicles are prohibited once grooming of trails begins 

for winter season. 

x 7he OHV use may be limited in other areas on a seasonal basis due to special conditions such as 

temporary fire restrictions, special wildlife requirements, etc. 

Closed Area Management Guidelines: All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV 

areas unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: 

x The principal venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and scoping during future 

travel management planning efforts, special projects, and local partnership. 

x The BLL will send press releases as needed informing the public of OHV opportunities and 

restrictions. The BLM will post signs where appropriate. 

x Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures shall be available 

to the public at the main office illustrating designations, describing specific restrictions, and 

defining opportunities. 

x The BLM will continue to participate with other land managers in the cooperative management of 

the Pokegema wildlife area and deer winter range areas. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM will accomplish final route designations 

for the rest of the district in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plan 

scheduled to be completed no later than five years after completion of the RMP revision.

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. The BLM will conduct on-the-ground inventories if roads and trails cannot be 

identified using remote-sensing techniques. The BLM will evaluate proposed designations through public 

scoping and a NEPA analysis. The BLM will consider changes to the designated system during the 

transportation management planning process. 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines

1386 | Page

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and maintain roads 

and trails in accordance with the standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 (USDI BLM 1987) and other 

professional sources. 

Medford District OHV Area Designations 

Table P-8. Medford District OHV area designations by alternative. 

OHV Area Designation No Action Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Open 160,614 - - - - 

Limited to Existing Routes - 715,439 730,596 734,121 769,047 

Limited to Designated Routes - - - - - 

Closed 17,197 89,889 74,719 71,195 36,246 

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Medford District. 

Limited to Existing Area Management Guidelines: 

x The BLM will manage Limited OHV areas in accordance with all applicable federal and state offhighway vehicle regulations. 

x Paved roads are limited to licensed, street-legal vehicles only. 

x Level 1 and 2 routes are open to Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive 

vehicles), and Class III (motorcycles) vehicles. Trails less than 50 inches in width are restricted to 

all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles. 

x Roads on private property that do not have a secured public right-of-way are not necessarily open 

to public or recreational vehicle traffic, even if they are a “continuation” of the BLM road system 

or a road shown on the preliminary maps. 

x Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be limited in the 

interim to the existing road and trail network unless closed or restricted under a previous planning 

effort or due to special circumstances as defined below. 

x The BLM may close or limit routes under seasonal or administrative restrictions. These 

restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, special requirements 

for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for public safety. 

x In the Butte Falls Resource Area, the Jackson Access and Cooperative Travel Management Area 

closure (32,822 acres) is in effect from mid-October through April 30. Only those roads shown in 

green on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife maps or posted with green reflectors are open 

to motorized vehicles during the period of the restriction. 

x Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, the minimum distance needed 

to allow for safe passage. 

x Limitations apply to all Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), and 

Class III (motorcycles) vehicle use and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

x Non-motorized travel (e.g., horseback riding, hiking, and mountain biking) is allowed on all 

access routes. 

Closed Area Management Guidelines: All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV 

areas unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines 

1387 | Page

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: 

x The principal venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and scoping during future 

travel management planning efforts, special projects, and local partnership. 

x The BLM will send press releases as needed informing the public of OHV opportunities and 

restrictions. The BLM will post signs where appropriate. 

x Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures shall be available 

to the public at the main office illustrating designations, describing specific restrictions, and 

defining opportunities. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM will accomplish final route designations 

for the rest of the district in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plan 

scheduled to be completed no later than five years after completion of the RMP revision.

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. The BLM will conduct on-the-ground inventories if roads and trails cannot be 

identified using remote-sensing techniques. The BLM will evaluate proposed designations through public 

scoping and a NEPA analysis. The BLM will consider changes to the designated system during the 

transportation management planning process. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and maintain roads 

and trails in accordance with the standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 (USDI BLM 1987) and other 

professional sources. 

Roseburg District OHV Area Designations 

Table P-9. Roseburg District OHV area designations by alternative. 

OHV Area Designation No Action Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Open - - - - - 

Limited to Existing Routes - 418,978 412,196 400,259 398,863 

Limited to Designated Routes - - - - - 

Closed - 3,808 10,591 22,528 23,924 

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Roseburg District. 

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

x The BLM will manage Limited to Existing OHV areas in accordance with all applicable federal 

and state off-highway vehicle regulations. 

x Motor vehicle use will be limited to administrative, commercial, and passenger vehicle traffic 

where not specifically signed or gated. 

x Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be limited in the 

interim to the existing road and trail network unless closed or restricted under a previous planning 

effort or due to special circumstances as defined below. 

x The BLM may close or limit routes under seasonal or administrative restrictions. These 

restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, special requirements 

for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for public safety. 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines

1388 | Page

x Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet from centerline 

of roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails. 

x Limitations apply to all Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), and 

Class III (motorcycles) vehicle use and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

Closed Area Management Guidelines: All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV 

areas unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach:

x The principal venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and scoping during future 

travel management planning efforts, special projects, and local partnership. 

x The BLM will send press releases as needed informing the public of OHV opportunities and 

restrictions. The BLM will post signs where appropriate. 

x Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures shall be available 

to the public at the Roseburg District office illustrating designations, describing specific 

restrictions, and defining opportunities. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM will accomplish final route designations 

for the rest of the district in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plan 

scheduled to be completed no later than five years after completion of the RMP revision.

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. The BLM will conduct on-the-ground inventories if roads and trails cannot be 

identified using remote-sensing techniques. The BLM will evaluate proposed designations through public 

scoping and a NEPA analysis. The BLM will consider changes to the designated system during the 

transportation management planning process. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and maintain roads 

and trails in accordance with the standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 (USDI BLM 1987) and other 

professional sources. 

Salem District OHV Area Designations 

Table P-10. Salem District OHV area designations by alternative. 

OHV Area Designation No Action Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Open 160,614 - - - - 

Limited to Existing Routes - 389,595 361,780 346,806 340,067 

Limited to Designated Routes - - 6,684 6,185 10,626 

Closed 17,197 8,774 29,881 45,374 47,672 

Description: Includes all BLM-administered lands within the Salem District. See additional guidelines 

for the Upper Nestucca OHV Area.

Limited to Existing Area Management Guidelines: 

x The BLM will manage Limited OHV areas in accordance with all applicable federal and state offhighway vehicle regulations. 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines 

1389 | Page

x Motor vehicle use will be limited to administrative, commercial, and passenger vehicle traffic where 

not specifically signed or gated. 

x Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be limited in the interim to 

the existing road and trail network unless closed or restricted under a previous planning effort or due 

to special circumstances as defined below. 

x The BLM may close or limit routes under seasonal or administrative restrictions. These restrictions 

may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, special requirements for wildlife 

species, protection of cultural resources, or for public safety. 

x Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet from centerline of 

roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails. 

x Limitations apply to all Class I (all-terrain vehicles), Class II (four-wheel drive vehicles), and Class 

III (motorcycles) vehicles and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) unless authorized 

by the BLM for administrative purposes. 

Closed Area Management Guidelines: All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV 

areas unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: 

x The principal venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and scoping during future 

travel management planning efforts, special projects, and local partnership.

x The BLM will send press releases as needed informing the public of OHV opportunities and 

restrictions. The BLM will post signs where appropriate.

x Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures shall be available to 

the public at the main office illustrating designations, and describing specific restrictions.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: Route designations have been completed for the 

Upper Nestucca OHV Area. The BLM will accomplish final route designations for the rest of the district 

in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plan scheduled to be 

completed no later than five years after completion of the RMP revision.

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. The BLM will conduct on-the-ground inventories if roads and trails cannot be 

identified using remote-sensing techniques. The BLM will evaluate proposed designations through public 

scoping and a NEPA analysis. The BLM will consider changes to the designated system during the 

transportation management planning process. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and maintain roads 

and trails in accordance with the standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 (USDI BLM 1987) and other 

professional sources. 

Upper Nestucca OHV Travel Management Area 

Acres: 9,579 

OHV Designation: Limited to designated roads and trails. 

Niche: Located 20 miles northwest of McMinnville, Oregon, this area provides Class I (all-terrain 

vehicles), and Class III (motorcycles) OHV riding experience along a designated road and trail network. 
Appendix P – Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines

1390 | Page

Management Guidelines:

x Designated trails and maintained roadways are limited to Class I and Class III motor vehicle use 

within the boundaries of the OHV area. 

x All Class I and Class III vehicles must be equipped with approved spark arresters, an Oregon allterrain vehicles sticker for the appropriate vehicle class, and must meet posted noise requirements. 

x Class II vehicle use is only authorized on Level 3 and Level 4 roadways. 

x The BLM may restrict motorized use on the trail system during summer months due to fire hazard 

conditions. 

x The BLM may be permanently or temporarily close areas or trails for administrative use, extreme 

wet conditions, construction/reconstruction requirements, or other environmental concerns. 

Process for ongoing public collaboration/outreach: The principal venue for public collaboration on the 

trail system is through local partnership with the Applegate Rough Riders Motorcycle Club. A trail map is 

available to the public at the Salem District Office and Tillamook Field Office. The trail system is marked 

on the ground with regulatory and directional signage.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: The BLM has completed route designations 

through the Upper Nestucca Motorcycle Trail System Environmental Assessment (EA OR 086-97-05). 

The BLM will use adaptive management to adjust the system for timber management, user needs, and 

resource protection.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: The BLM will construct and maintain roads 

and trails in accordance with the design features identified in the Monitoring and Maintenance Plan for 

the Upper Nestucca OHV Trail System. Trail maintenance will be a priority within this OHV area to 

ensure a quality riding experience for trail users and to conserve natural resource values.

References 

USDI BLM. 2011. BLM Manual Handbook H-8342-1 – Travel and Transportation Management. 146 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/west_mojave_plan_updates.Par.33567.File.dat/Travel%20and%20

Transportation%20Management%20Handbook.pdf. 

USDI BLM. 1987. BLM Manual Handbook H-9114-1 – Trails. Available at BLM district offices. 

 
Appendix Q – Tribal 

1391 | Page

Appendix Q – Tribal 

Biographies and Maps 

The BLM compiled data and text from five of the seven Tribes with Tribal lands and varying interests 

within the planning area, or portions of it. Each Tribe wrote and submitted their individual Tribal 

biography. The BLM did not alter or edit the text in any way. The BLM created the maps using data 

provided by each of the Tribes in order to show those lands of interest to each Tribe. The maps and 

biographies do not reflect a BLM endorsement of tribally stated territories or histories. In addition, the 

nomenclature used on each map came from the tribes as well. The BLM has included these biographies 

and maps as context for the Tribal Interests section as well as to allow the Tribes to state who they are and 

how they define their interest in the lands administered by the BLM in western Oregon. It also provides 

managers and others who implement this RMP with valuable information about the history and interests 

of Tribes within the planning area. All seven tribes listed below are federally recognized Tribes and 

interact with the BLM as sovereign Nations. 

x The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw Indians 

x The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon 

x The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 

x The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation 

o (The BLM did not receive Warm Springs documents in time for the draft.) 

x The Coquille Indian Tribe 

x The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians 

x The Klamath Tribe 

o (The BLM did not receive Klamath documents in time for the draft.) 

The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians 

We, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, are coastal people. We still live on lands that once were 

managed by our ancestors. We have always strived to live in balance with the land and waters, using their 

gracious bounties and sustaining them for future generations. We have always held sacred the land and 

the resources that rely on that land, water, and air. We have always lived using what the Creator has 

provided. We have endured many hardships to our land, people and culture over the last 150 years. 

Thousands of our ancestors lost their lives to relocation, sickness, and moral. Over the last century we 

have worked to sustain our people and culture by protecting the environment, natural resources and trying 

to find ways to balance our traditions and philosophy with the dynamic and developing viewpoints 

communities that share our coasts and lands. 

A Historical Record 

In 1855, members of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes, along with members of the other 

coastal Oregon tribes, signed a treaty with the United States of America. This treaty would have ceded 

lands west of the summit of the Coast Range. This treaty was introduced in the United States Senate and 

read once, but whether through negligence or whether due to concerns arising from what is commonly 

known as the Rogue River War, it was never read a second time nor ratified by the Senate. Despite the 

lack of ratification, the Coos and Lower Umpqua Tribes were held captive beginning in 1856, the Coos 

were confined on the sand spit known as Ki:we’et (now commonly known as Sitka Dock) just south of 

Empire, the Lower Umpqua moved to Fort Umpqua on the north spit of the Umpqua River, then at the 
Appendix Q – Tribal

1392 | Page

Alsea Sub-Agency of the Coast Reservation and the Siuslaw were confined within the Coast Reservation, 

the boundary of which included most of the western portion of their Ancestral Territory. 

In 1871, the federal Appropriations Act ended treaty making between the federal government and tribes. 

The relationship between sovereigns was continued by the United States through “agreements,” statutes, 

and Executive Orders in lieu of treaties. The passage of this act ended the prospects of the Tribes’ treaty 

being ratified. 

In 1875, the Alsea Sub-Agency of the Coast Reservation was opened to Euro-American settlement. This 

occurred against the will and heartfelt testimony of the Coos and Lower Umpqua confined at the subagency. These Tribal Members were ordered to relocate to the remaining portion of the Coast Reservation 

centered around the Siletz Agency. Most if not all of the Coos and Lower Umpqua refused and relocated 

around the remnant Siuslaw population centered around the traditional village of Qa’ich (now commonly 

known as the area around the Hatch Tract, the site of the Confederated Tribes Three Rivers Casino and 

Hotel); centered around the area of Gardner and the confluence of the Smith and Umpqua Rivers, or 

centered around South Slough and other areas around Coos Bay. 

In 1887, the General Allotment (Dawes) Act authorized allotments to Indian People. Most of these passed 

out of Indian tenure due to financial hardship, lack of familiarity of the applicable land tenure laws and 

regulations, and/or due to scheming by non-Indian land investors. Some allotments remain in Tribal 

Member ownership in fee status or have been sold to the Confederated Tribes government. 

In 1917, the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, in reflection of millennia of shared cultural and 

political ties, and in response to sixty years of common adversity, formally confederated to form the 

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. The primary purpose of this 

confederation was to pursue land claims. Since according to United States Law in order to take lands a 

ratified treaty agreement had to take place and there was no such ratified treaty. 

In 1929, the United States government waived its sovereign immunity (45 Stat.1256, as amended by 47 

Stat. 307) and allowed the Confederated Tribes to sue the federal government in the United States Court 

of Claims for settlement of land claims. Testimony from several Tribal Members and members of the 

broader community was taken over the next several years. In 1935, the testimony of George Bundy 

Wasson (of Coos and Coquille descent) in the Court of Claims described the boundary of Ancestral 

Territory as extending from Fivemile Point (Coos County) north to Tenmile Creek (Lane County) thence 

east to the crest of the Coast Range, including the Coos, Umpqua (to the head of tide), Smith, and Siuslaw 

Watersheds. (This description has been carried forward and appears on the enrollment cards of members 

of the Confederated Tribes and was adopted in Tribal Council Resolution No. 90-010.) In 1938, the 

United States Court of Claims ruled against the Confederated Tribes, describing Indian testimony as 

hearsay and self-interested. Later in1938 the United States Supreme Court refused to hear Confederated 

Tribes appeal of this Court of Claims ruling. In 1947, the Confederated Tribes filed claim to the 

reorganized Indian Claims Commission, which in 1952 rejected the Confederated Tribes claim, ruling 

that the matter was res judicata, or a case already decided by the Court of Claims. 

Following World War II, the United States government pursued the goal of Indian assimilation into the 

“melting pot” and promoted the termination of federal recognition of several tribes. In 1951, the 

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians refused to endorse termination of 

federal recognition. In 1954, Public Law 588 terminated federal recognition of forty-three bands and 

tribes in Oregon effective 13 August 1956, including, without consent, the Confederated Tribes of the 

Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. 
Appendix Q – Tribal 

1393 | Page

In 1956, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians petitioned the United 

Nations for membership “to the end that truth and justice may be raised up and accorded their proper 

place.” The petition was ignored. 

The period of termination was a dismal time. Tribal Members continued to know who they were, 

continued to remember their Ancestors, continued to honor their Elders, continued to meet among 

themselves as a Tribe, continued to raise their children to be Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, and 

continued to fight for their rights. Despite the dismissal of their Tribal identity by the United States 

government, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians maintained 

continuous government of, by, and for the Tribes, and exercised the rights and fulfilled the responsibilities 

of any government to its People. 

From 1954 through 1984, the Confederated Tribes expended three decades of human energy, money, and 

political capital working to have federal recognition restored. Through the sacrifices of many who lived 

to see the day, and through the sacrifices of many others who did not, federal recognition was restored to 

the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians through the enactment of 

Public Law 98-481which was signed into law on 17 October 1984. 

Future Directions 

We of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw have lived here since time immemorial. Our culture and 

stories are reminders to show our appreciation for all that we have. We have always taken only what we 

need, and we have always given back. For hundreds of generations we lived in balance with nature. We 

bring back the bones of the first caught Salmon to the ocean to show respect to the Salmon. It is our way 

of celebrating and communicating our appreciation to the Salmon, in recognition of their sacrifice. It is 

also a time to refrain from fishing and give reprieve to the first Salmon as they run upriver. We consider 

ourselves responsible for the survival and health of the fish, forest, waters and all the resources of our 

lands. 

We understand that People are part of the Natural World. We understand that for us to live other parts of 

creation must give us their lives. We understand that our lives depend on the lives of others. We must take 

care of them, as they take care of us. We all must take care of each other. For ten thousand years, for five 

hundred generations, we have returned our Ancestors to the earth. Our Ancestors’ bones are all around us 

– in the earth, in the trees, in the water, in the air. We feel the spirits of our Ancestors accompanying us 

every day as the Tribe continues on. 

Over 150 years ago, we signed a treaty would have exchanged our land for some promises. That treaty 

was never ratified; we were removed from our lands and the promises were not kept. Where once millions 

of salmon returned to our streams, today only thousands return. 

BLM-managed lands are culturally significant to the Tribes. Tribal cultural resources include 

archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties; living cultural resources such as cedar and salmon; 

and spiritually-significant sites including certain promontories and viewsheds. These cultural resources 

contribute to the health of tribal cultures and the persistence of tribal identities. 

Today, we are Tribal members and we are neighbors. Today we sit around the same table. Today we 

face the same issues, and today we work together and create common solutions. We are proud to be 

members of the communities in our Ancestral Watersheds. We greatly respect the accomplishments of 

our partnerships, and we look forward to the continued healing that our partnerships can achieve. 

 

Appendix Q – Tribal 

1395 | Page

The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of 

Oregon 

More than 30 Tribes and Bands were relocated to the Grand Ronde Reservation from western Oregon, 

southwestern Washington, and northern California and removed to the Reservation after signing seven 

treaties from 1853-1855. These include the Rogue River, Umpqua, Chasta, Kalapuya, Chinookan, Molalla 

and Tillamook Indians who had lived in their traditional homelands since time immemorial. Prior to 

removal they lived off the land – fish, game and plant foods were plentiful, and they traded with other 

Tribes and later, with non-Indians. 

The Grand Ronde Reservation was begun by treaty arrangements in 1854 and 1855 and firmly established 

by Executive Order on June 30th, 1857. The original reservation contained more than 60,000 acres and 

was located on the eastern side of the coast range on the headwaters’ of the South Yamhill River, about 

60 miles southwest of Portland and about 25 miles from the ocean. 

In 1887, the General Allotment Act became law. Under the law, 270 allotments totaling more than 33,000 

acres were made to the Tribal members of the reservation. These allotments came with the understanding 

that they would pass from federal trust status into private ownership after 25 years. The purpose of the 

Act was to encourage Tribal people to become farmers and eliminate common ownership of land, 

traditional activities and practices. In 1901 U.S. Inspector James McLaughlin declared 25,791 acres of the 

reservation “surplus” and the U.S. sold it for $1.10 per acre to non-tribal businesses and citizens. 

In 1936 under the Indian Reorganization Act (also known as the Howard-Wheeler Act), the Tribe was 

able to purchase 536.99 acres to provide homes and land for tribal people. The attempt at recovery of land 

was halted on August 13th, 1954, when the Congress passed Public Law 588, the Western Oregon 

Termination Act, which terminated the Tribe’s federal recognition and abolished the treaties that had been 

negotiated in good faith. This act of legislation was aggressively pursued by then Secretary of Interior 

James Douglas McKay. McKay was Oregon’s 25th Governor prior to accepting the position of Secretary 

of Interior. McKay oversaw the implementation of the Western Oregon Termination Act, which went into 

effect on August 13, 1956. For nearly 30 years, the members of the Tribe were landless with the 

exception of the Tribal cemetery and without the Tribe to provide a focal point of community. Irreparable 

damage was done to the Tribal community’s health, education, languages and cultures. In the early 1970s 

efforts began to reverse the Termination Act and to reestablish the Tribe. Tribal leaders worked together 

with no financial backing, only a cemetery, and their desire for the Tribe to restore its federal recognition. 

On November 22nd, 1983, Public Law 98-165, also known as the Grand Ronde Restoration Act, was 

signed into law. After a great deal of negotiations with the local community, local landowners, as well as 

state and federal agencies, the Tribe developed a Reservation Plan. Following this on September 9th, 

1988, Public Law 100-425, also known as the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, was passed, restoring 9,811 

acres of the original reservation. On October 4, 1994, Public law 103-435, added 240 acres to the 

Reservation to compensate the Tribe for a surveying error that was never corrected prior. Today the 

10,052-acre reservation lies just north of the community of Grand Ronde. With Restoration of the Tribal 

government and the re-establishment of the Reservation, the Tribe has focused on rebuilding Tribal 

programs, developing Tribal services and servicing the greater community. The Tribe has provided a 

viable community that contributes to the local economy and provides for the achievement of the Tribal 

members. 

 

Appendix Q – Tribal 

1397 | Page

The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 

The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (CTSI) consists of the many Tribes and Bands who were 

removed to or came to reside on the Siletz/Coast Reservation beginning in 1856 or after. Almost 

exclusively, ancestral Tribal residents resided there by Aboriginal Right and/or Treaty Right (it being 

their designated permanent home under treaty stipulations/approved federal policy). 

Prior to Treaties being signed, the Reservation being established, and the U.S policy that all Western 

Oregon Indians were to confederate and live within its borders, Siletz ancestral peoples maintained about 

20 million acres of ancestral territories, approximately 19 million of those acres were the area of Oregon 

west of the summit of the Cascades. As treaties were signed, our people generally ceded large territories 

to the U.S., while maintaining certain rights. Those rights included: (1) the right to a permanent 

reservation (and adequate land, water, fish wildlife and other resources for the CTSI to sustain itself into 

the future); (2) payment for cession of aboriginal title to those vast territories; and (3) right to a temporary 

reservation or ability to stay within the ceded area until the President of the U.S. selected the permanent 

reservation. 

November 9, 1855, President Pierce signed an Executive Order establishing our permanent reservation at 

about 1.1 million acres. It included approximately 1/3 of what is now the State of Oregon’s coastline. 

Removal of our ancestors to the new reservation began soon after. An encampment was established just 

off the eastern border of the reservation as a staging area for bringing tribes to the reservation. Just after 

most of the tribes had moved from the encampment/staging area to the Siletz Reservation, President 

Buchanan saw fit to re-designate the temporary encampment as the Grand Ronde Reservation. All Tribes 

and individuals who came to reside within the Siletz Reservation became members of the Confederated 

Tribes of Siletz. Those who remained at the encampment became members of the Confederated Tribes of 

Grand Ronde. All Western Oregon Indians were considered to belong to one or the other of the 

confederations. There were individuals, and small family groups who had stayed off-reservation, or 

returned from one or other of the reservation to live in old homelands. 

Many hardships were endured, including starvation, neglect, abuse, forced labor, and violent assaults and 

punishments, sometimes resulting in deaths. Tribes were still being brought onto our Reservation from 

temporary encampments at Fort Umpqua and other places into the early 1860s. At about this time, the 

Coos, Lower Umpqua people who had not previously resided within the reservation were brought to a 

new Sub-Agency of our reservation established at Yachats, referred to as the Alsea Sub-Agency or 

Yachats Sub-Agency. 

Quickly the brutal implementation of federal policy turned our Reservation’s atmosphere into one of a 

harsh prison camp, rather than the Tribal Homeland that had been promised. That perception of our 

population suffering to bend to the will and whims of the U.S. and shifting policy decisions led U.S. 

Administrative and Legislative officials to take actions which grabbed large portions of our permanent 

reservation through illegal means – which did not take into account our peoples’ treaty rights, or their 

own legal responsibilities/lack of authority. 

In 1865, about 200,000 acres of our permanent reservation, around Yaquina Bay were taken by order 

signed by President Johnson. That action left our remaining reservation lands in two detached parcels. In 

1875, another 700,000 acres were ripped from our possession through an Act of Congress. Our people 

were forced to move, instead of being informed that they had to give informed consent in order for the 

Act to legally take effect. 

From 1875-1892 our remaining reservation consisted of about 225,000 acres. In 1892 the General 

Allotment Act took effect both on reservation and for our off-reservation families. Five hundred fifty-one 
Appendix Q – Tribal

1398 | Page

(551) Siletz Reservation Allotments of approximately 80 acres each were assigned to the tribal members 

then present, and before some families could even return to claim an allotment, the allotment rolls were 

closed and the remaining reservation lands declared “surplus”. Our Tribe was forced to agree to cede 

those lands for 74 cents an acre, or they “could be taken just like the 1865 and 1875 reductions – without 

compensation”. Promises that future tribal members could apply for and receive allotments from the open 

and unclaimed areas of the ceded areas remain unfulfilled. 

Quickly, U.S. law and policy began to restrict our ability to hang onto even our allotments. By 1912, over 

half of the Siletz Allotments were non-Indian owned. All of these actions, from treaties, removal, 

reservation reductions, to loss of family allotments were experienced as a constant onslaught, and 

continued as U.S. Court of Claims and Indian Claims Commission cases were brought forward by our 

people. The U.S. Courts generally denied or minimized the U.S.’s responsibilities to our pay for lands 

ceded to the U.S., or maintain the reservation boundaries that had been set according to treaty stipulations. 

A combination of individuals who were of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw descent brought suit for 

taking of aboriginal title without a title. Many enrolled Siletz members participated in the suit, but the 

effort was initiated by off-reservation families not enrolled, so the Court found in part that the group did 

not have standing to bring the suit – because the Confederated Tribes of Siletz, the legal successors in 

interest to those ancestral tribes, had not brought the action. Our Tillamook, Yaquina, Alsea, Tututni, 

Chetco and Coquille people brought suit through the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and seemed to 

be on the verge of a major victory, when the U.S. appealed that claims case to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court decided that descendants of those tribes were only entitled to value at the time of 

taking, no interest accrued, because the U.S had failed to ratify their own treaty. A mere pittance was 

recovered for all of the generations of suffering since removal from those lands. 

Simultaneous with land claims actions proceeding, was Siletz and Grand Ronde being targeted for the 

U.S. Policy of terminating tribal governments in the 1950s. The Western Oregon Termination Act was 

passed in 1954, and named the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and Confederated Tribes of Grand 

Ronde, but no other Tribal governments were really recognized at that time. To ensure that no individuals 

living off-reservation, separate from Siletz or Grand Ronde, or that constituent groups who were members 

of those confederations could step forward later, and claim that they had survived the intended 

termination by not being named in the act – Congress named every western Oregon aboriginal group who 

had ever been named in a federal document, to be sure no chance of any tribal groups asserting status in 

Western Oregon would be possible. In 1956, the Western Oregon Termination Act took full effect. 

Termination was meant to be the final blow to the CTSI and its members. The judgment funds from 

claims decisions were even held-up as insurance that no concerted resistance to the implementation of 

Termination would arise. About 1970, Siletz Indians began calling meetings and asking our people to 

come together and support an effort to get Congress to address our situation. Many of our people were 

living in poverty. Sub-standard housing was too common, healthcare and education access was low. In 

1973, the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin successfully petitioned Congress to reverse their Termination 

Act. The CTSI began working toward the same goal, but as the first landless tribe to regain federal 

recognition after being terminated. In November 1977, Congress passed, and President Jimmy Carter 

signed into law The Siletz Restoration Act. The Restoration Act called for an initial Reservation Plan to 

be submitted to Congress for consideration. The Siletz Tribe was advised to submit a modest request for 

return of lands, which could alter be expanded. The 1980, Siletz Reservation Act included about 3,660 

acres of small scattered BLM administered parcels, primarily east of the town of Siletz. Today the CTSI 

owns about 15,000 acres, mostly timberlands added to our holdings after 1980, through purchase, 

donation, wildlife mitigation agreements, etc. Those lands are held in a variety of status’ (Reservation, 

non-Reservation Trust, and fee) and managed for a combination of resource use/protection/enhancement 

values and revenue generation for member services. 
Appendix Q – Tribal 

1399 | Page

Many places of intense historical, cultural and spiritual significance to our Confederated Tribes of Siletz 

Indians are now owned/managed by the BLM. Among these are ancestral villages such as Umpqua Eden, 

prayer places, treaty signing, and temporary Reservation sites such as Table Rocks in the Rogue Valley, 

battle sites such as Hungry Hill, numerous plant and other resource gathering places tended by our 

ancestors, both within and outside of our 1855 Siletz Reservation boundaries, including Yaquina Head 

Outstanding Natural Area. Because our people do not hold title or control of these places currently does 

not release us from our obligations to maintain our connections to them and recognize them for their 

importance to all generations in the past, present and future. 

 

Appendix Q – Tribal 

1401 | Page

The Coquille Indian Tribe 

The Coquille Indian Tribe is a people that have always shared a strong connection with the land. This 

relationship is evident in the tribe’s name which comes from the Native name for a lamprey eel, or 

“Scoquel,” of which the river it abounded in took its name as well, and was later shortened to, “Coquell.” 

Thus, “Coquille”, pronounced, Ko-kwel, derived from a Chinook jargon word, became the name of a 

place and a people. 

Coquille ancestors lived at South Slough on lower Coos Bay, in all the watersheds of the Coquille River 

system from the ocean to its headwaters, and along the coast as far as Cape Blanco and Port Orford. They 

spoke three distinct local languages; Miluk, Hanis, and Athapaskan, intermixed with Chinook jargon, the 

trade language for Northwest Native Americans. Along the coast, estuary shorelines and sheltered coastal 

bays offered food of all sorts, and canoe travel was easy. In the interior, streams and rivers full of fish and 

valleys where deer and elk wintered, determined where villages were located. Seasonal places in the 

uplands and interior valleys away from the estuaries and coast were often hunting and food gathering 

areas used by many different Native groups. Typically, when Coquille and other groups gathered for 

berry and nut harvesting, root digging, or at hunting and fishing sites, it was also a time of celebration, 

and for renewing old relationships and making new ones. These places were returned to year after year. 

Today, annual events like the Mid-Winter Gathering, Restoration Day Celebration, and Solstice Dances 

all respond to those ancient Coquille practices. 

The Coquille people’s Ancestral Homelands encompassed more than one million acres, all of it ceded to 

the U.S. government in treaties signed by, “Coquille chiefs and head-men,” first in 1851 and again in 

1855. Those treaties were never ratified by the U.S. Senate, thus reservation lands and other 

considerations promised in the treaties never materialized, so the Coquille people and the generations that 

followed were denied permanent Tribal homelands. 

On June 28, 1989, Congress passed public Law 101-42, which re-established the Coquilles as a federally 

recognized Indian Tribe. The Coquille Restoration Act restored the Tribe’s eligibility to participate in 

federal Indian programs and to receive funding to provide health, education, housing assistance, and 

pursue economic development for its members. The Act also reaffirmed the Tribe as a sovereign 

government, and validated the Tribe’s authority to manage and administer political and legal jurisdiction 

over its lands and resources, its businesses, and its Tribal community members. Today, the Tribe, made 

up of over a thousand members, provides services to tribal members throughout the world and especially 

concentrated within the five-county service area of Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Jackson counties in 

Oregon. 

The Coquille Forest was created by enactment of P.L. 104-208, Division B, and Title V on September 30 

1996. This Public Law, passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Clinton, restored 5,410 

acres (5,397 according to GIS) of ancestral homelands to the Coquille Indian Tribe and designated the 

restored lands as the Coquille Forest. 

The Coquille Forest Act allows the Coquille Tribe an opportunity to reaffirm Tribal stewardship over a 

small portion of its ancestral homelands, and to reestablish many of the Tribal cultural traditions that were 

once practiced on these landscapes. 

The purpose for creation of the Coquille Forest was described by Senator Hatfield in his statement before 

the U.S. Senate concerning Amendment No. 5150 to the Oregon Resources Conservation Act of 1996 [S. 

1662]: "It is intended to establish a Coquille Forest for the Coquille Tribe that will mesh into the broader 

forest management of Coos County. Within this context, the Coquille Forest is to provide a basis for 
Appendix Q – Tribal

1402 | Page

restoring the Tribe’s culture as well as providing economic benefits [Congressional Record- Senate, pg. 

S9656, August 2, 1996]. 

The respect the Coquille people have always had for their Ancestral Homelands, much of which is now 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management, is carried on in legacy through the practices of the 

Coquille Indian Tribe today. Annual trips are still made to harvest traditional foods, gather grasses for 

weaving baskets and enjoy celebrations on the land their ancestors had stewardship over for thousands of 

years. The land is, and always will be, an integral part of their identity and heritage as a people. 

 

Appendix Q – Tribal

1404 | Page

The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians 

The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, located in Douglas County, Oregon, signed a treaty 

with the United States of America on September 19, 1853 which was one of the first treaty’s from the 

Pacific Northwest to be ratified by the Senate on April 12, 1854. By that agreement, the Cow Creeks 

became a landless tribe, ceding more than 800 square miles of the Umpqua watershed in Southwestern 

Oregon to the United States. Unfortunately, the Treaty was ignored by the Federal Government for nearly 

a century until the Termination Act in 1956 which terminated federal relations with the Cow Creeks, 

along with 60 other tribes and bands in western Oregon. 

The Cow Creeks received no prior notification of the Termination Act, and because of that were able to 

obtain presidential action in 1980 to take a land claims case to the U.S. Court of Claims. On December 

29, 1982, nearly 125 years after the Treaty was signed, P.L. 97-391 was passed by Congress and the Tribe 

regained federal recognition. 

With federal recognition, the tribe was able to negotiate federal contracts with the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and the Indian Health Service to administer such programs as Housing, Education, and others 

related to health for the enrolled membership of the Tribe within the tribal service area. 

Current enrollment for the Tribe is over 1600 members. Nearly one half of all tribal members reside in the 

tribe’s seven county service area consisting of Coos, Deschutes, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath 

and Lane Counties. These counties were determined by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health 

Service as required by the CFR to define “on or near the reservation” for the tribe. 

In 1985 the Tribe purchased 29 acres in Canyonville, Oregon which was eventually taken into “trust” by 

the federal government and became the Tribal Reservation. This property is only 6 miles from where the 

Treaty was signed in 1853. 

The tribe has maintained strong cultural ties to the area. The traditional Cow Creek Pow-wow is held 

annually at South Umpqua Falls, an area that has tremendous importance to the tribe’s culture and 

tradition. 

Another area of great historical, cultural, and traditional use is an area known as the Huckleberry Patch on 

the Rogue-Umpqua Divide. This area was a traditional use area for the tribe and has great historic 

importance. 

The Tribe has remained steadfast in the realization of tribal economic self-sufficiency. After years of 

planning and financial packaging, the Tribe opened the Cow Creek Bingo Center on April 30, 1992. 

Through careful management of tribal assets, the tribe was able to initiate a series of expansions that 

resulted in the Seven Feather Hotel and Casino Resort. 

With proceeds from the resort, the tribe has developed an aggressive economic development program that 

includes land acquisition and business diversification and development. 

 

Appendix Q – Tribal

1406 | Page

Tribal Listening Sessions 

Overview 

As part of the outreach process for the RMP, the BLM reached out to all nine Federally Recognized 

Tribes located within or holding interests within the planning area, inviting them to participate in listening 

sessions. These invitations initiated coordination and communication with the Tribes in this RMP 

planning process. Several Tribes also have representatives in CAAG, which has been and will continue to 

collaborate with the BLM throughout the duration of the planning process. In addition to these efforts, 

and formal government-to-government consultation, the BLM will continue to be available for meetings 

throughout the planning process with interested and affected Tribes. 

BLM managers and RMP team members conducted listening sessions with five Tribes at local Tribal 

Headquarters (Table Q-1). Cogan Owens Cogan facilitated four of the five meetings with assistance from 

DS Consulting; BLM staff facilitated one meeting. Their notes, combined with BLM staff notes, comprise 

the content of this summary. 

Table Q-1. Alphabetical listing of Tribal listening sessions.1

Tribe Schedule 

The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon* May 22, 2013 

The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians* June 7, 2013 

The Coquille Indian Tribe* May 14, 2013 

The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians* December 18, 2013 

The Klamath Tribes* July 15, 2013 1

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians; The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs; Karuk 

Tribe; and The Quartz Valley Indian Community elected not to have listening sessions. 

* Denotes the Tribal representative serves as a member of the CAAG. In addition to these Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians also serve on the CAAG. 

These listening sessions initiated efforts to ensure that Tribes were involved early in the RMP process and 

that the BLM understands Tribal interests. The listening sessions: 

x Provided Tribal Councils and staff with an update on the planning process and external 

initiatives; 

x Sought input on Tribal issues and concerns and what analytical questions need to be addressed in 

developing Planning Criteria; 

x Identified how Tribes can provide input during future phases of the planning process; and 

x Sought input on the level and mechanisms for participation desired by each Tribe. 

The BLM had not publically released the Purpose and Need at the time the first three listening sessions 

were held. These notes reflect only the listening sessions, and not subsequent discussions that the BLM 

held with the Tribes who expressed interest in follow up discussions on the Purpose and Need. These 

follow up sessions with the Tribes occurred through conversations with Tribal representatives through the 

CAAG. 

At each listening session, materials presented included: 

x Maps of BLM-administered lands in western Oregon (e.g., planning area and administrative land 

designations) 
Appendix Q – Tribal 

1407 | Page

x Draft analytical questions developed with input from the Cooperating Agency Advisory Group’s 

Tribal Work Group 

x A fact sheet on the process and timeline 

Listening sessions ranged from 1.5 to 3 hours in length and covered several common discussion items 

(Table Q-2). 

Table Q-2. Listening session agenda and format. 

Meeting Agenda Items Participants 

Introductions and Background District Manager and Tribal 

Council 

Update on Planning Process and Schedule State Office staff 

Questions/Discussion Tribal Council and staff 

Listening Session 

x What are the areas of Tribal interest? 

x What are Tribal values and concerns to address in the RMP? 

x What are analytical questions that BLM should address? 

Facilitator 

Summary/Closing District Manager 

To help frame the discussion of Planning Criteria for Tribal interests, Heather Ulrich, RMP Tribal 

Liaison, provided a preliminary list of issues and concerns that generally addressed how BLMadministered land management actions would affect the following: 

x Tribal plant collection, management, and use 

x Tribal resource collection of obsidian and other non-biological resources 

x Tribal fishing and hunting resources and practices 

x Tribal access to areas of interest including areas of plant collection, fishing, hunting, sacred sites, 

or places of traditional religious and cultural importance 

x Sacred sites and places of traditional religious and cultural importance 

x Neighboring tribally managed lands 

Because of these listening sessions, the BLM expanded and refined this initial list to address the diverse 

number topics and resources of interest to Tribes more accurately. The Planning Criteria contains a 

section on Tribal Interests that outlines the refined list of analytical questions as gathered from Tribal 

outreach. 

Tribal Listening Session Highlights

The following section summarizes the participants and highlights of each of the listening sessions. 

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde 

May 22, 2013 

Tribal Headquarters, Grand Ronde, Oregon 

Tribal council participants: Toby McClary, Secretary; Jon George, Council Member; June Sherer, 

Council Member; Kathleen Tom, Council Member; Chris Mercier, Council Member 

Tribal staff participants: David Harrelson, Cultural Protection Manager; Eirik Thorsgard, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer; Michael Karnosh, Ceded Lands Program Manager; Michael Wilson, Natural 

Resources Director 
Appendix Q – Tribal

1408 | Page

BLM attendees: Kim Titus, Salem District Manager; Ginnie Grilley, Eugene District Manager; Heather 

Ulrich, RMP Tribal Liaison; Mark Brown, RMP Project Manager; Trish Hogervorst, Salem District 

Public Affairs Officer 

Facilitator: Jim Owens, Cogan Owens Cogan 

General comments and highlights of main Tribal interest topics 

x The Grand Ronde has just signed (2013) a Natural Resources Management Plan that they feel 

may serve as a model for other Tribes. Their timber land is managed for sustained yield. In 

writing their Natural Resources Management Plan, the Tribe met with environmental groups to 

educate them on the plan. The Tribe is very proud of the fact that environmental groups had 

previously predicted the Grand Ronde timber would be gone in 20 years; at 30 years, there is still 

plenty of timber on Tribal lands due to good management. 

x The Tribe asked about gated BLM roads. Could tribes get passes through gated areas to access 

cultural sites? Could BLM let the Tribe know the conditions of the roads? Tribal members could 

serve as eyes/ears for the BLM on BLM-administered lands during their Tribal gathering of 

cedar, huckleberries, etc. Tribal access and public access are not the same. The Tribe expressed a 

need for Tribal access to BLM-administered lands for religious reasons. 

x Private companies are harvesting and punching in roads interrupting fish passage and providing 

no maintenance on the roads for many years. The Tribe is concerned about this happening on 

BLM-administered lands. 

x There is a lot of available timber and our communities and counties are in need; consider 

increased timber production based upon sustainable management principles. 

x Can the BLM add language at the plan level that establishes Tribes as partners for cultural 

resource work such as surveys? 

x Develop a partnership for managing plants of interest, including “take” and the preparation for 

harvest and harvest methods. 

x Could the Grand Ronde be included in all Tribal consultations since all lands on the BLM map 

are Ceded lands with treaty rights? 

x The Tribe is contracting with National Park Service (NPS) and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct traditional cultural landscape studies on 

indigenous landscapes. Could the BLM hire Tribes to work on this on BLM-administered land? 

x There are concerns regarding management of BLM-administered lands bordering the eastside of 

Grand Ronde lands. 

x Could BLM meet regularly with Tribes on new rules coming down and create an memorandum of 

understanding on annual meeting to discuss mutual issues/projects? The Tribe would like to 

finish Tribal memorandum of understanding as cooperating agency on the planning process. 

x Interested in discussion of Purpose and Need at a future date. 

x The Tribe offered a tour of Grand Ronde lands to see work (i.e., fish passages) they are doing in 

natural resources. The Tribe has opened 60+ miles of fish passage. 

Planning considerations 

x Restoration and long-term maintenance of fish passage. Old roads left unmaintained block fish 

passage. 

x Indigenous landscapes and landscape level analysis. 

x Quantifying non-commercial items is not the way to approach it. Cannot compare value of timber 

products versus non-commercial timber products (e.g., items for making baskets and other Tribal 

cultural needs). 

x How BLM manages collection of special forest product to prevent degradation. 

x Tribe would like to provide information to the BLM on restoration efforts (e.g., hazelnut sticks 

for basketry). The Tribe would like to see more lands managed for Tribal cultural resources.
Appendix Q – Tribal 

1409 | Page

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 

June 7, 2013 

Tribal Headquarters, Siletz, Oregon 

Tribal Council participants: Delores Pigsley, Chairman; Lillie Butler, Council Member; Loraine Butler, 

Council Member; Reggie Butler, Sr. , Council Member; Robert Kentta, Council Member 

Tribal staff participants: Mike Kennedy, Natural Resources Manager 

BLM attendees: Kim Titus, Salem District Manager; Ginnie Grilley, Eugene District Manager; Mark 

Brown, RMP Project Manager; Heather Ulrich RMP Tribal Liaison; Richard Hatfield, Mary’s Peak 

Resource Area Field Manager 

Facilitator: Jim Owens, Cogan Owens Cogan 

General comments and highlights of main Tribal interest topics 

x How does the RMP fit into the Wyden Plan? 

x The Tribe expressed concern for air, water, and climate change. 

x The Tribe expressed concern for timber receipts and Secure Rural Schools. 

x The Tribe stated it would like an memorandum of understanding for collecting basketry materials. 

x Tribe has past and ongoing interest in public domain lands in Lincoln County. 

x Look into Tribes’ “right of first refusal” for excess federal lands within original reservation 

boundaries that are designated for disposal. 

o Can Tribes provide input to what lands the BLM can put in Land Tenure Zone 3 (suitable for 

disposal)? 

x First level of interest in BLM-administered lands are those within the original reservation 

boundary. Some interests include: 

o Hazel management 

o Hunting access 

o Spruce root collection 

x The Tribe expressed concern regarding destruction and looting of archaeological sites and 

artifacts as well as public use impacts in certain key areas of interest to the Tribe within the 

planning area. 

x Concern regarding BLM ability to coordinate consultation with other/all Tribes concerned. 

x Plant collection: Where resources are on BLM-administered land, can the Tribe help manage 

them, increase them, and collect them? Specific collection interests include: 

o Beargrass collection 

o Ferns and peeled chittum 

o Sugar pine and ancient oaks; digger pine in Applegate and Rogue valleys 

o Willamette Valley oak savannah, angelica (Lomatium species), scrub oak, and rocky outcrops 

o Acorns and pileated woodpeckers for feathers; want to ensure that the Tribe can obtain forage 

permits for these resources 

x The Tribe identified a need for improved coordination on memoranda of understanding with 

other Tribes when Tribal territory is impacted. 

Planning considerations 

x Protection of historic trail systems. 

x Preserve some type of visible boundary between the historic reservation lands and BLMadministered land, e.g. leave large trees. 

x Management of public domain lands in Lincoln County by the Tribes. 
Appendix Q – Tribal

1410 | Page

x Management for traditionally collected plants (e.g., beargrass, hazel nuts, angelica) on all BLMadministered lands; stand diversity that encourages spruce, other species important for collection; 

adverse effects of overly dense timber stands on sugar pine, ancient oaks. Management should 

include heavy thinning or clearcuts to reopen areas for beargrass collection. 

x Identification/interpretation of battle sites. 

x Management for marbled murrelet. 

x Protection of cemetery sites and other archaeological sites and artifacts impacted by inadvertent 

public use or intentional damage and looting. 

Coquille Indian Tribe 

May 14, 2013 

Tribal Headquarters, North Bend, Oregon 

Tribal participants: Brenda Meade, Chair; Toni Ann Brend, Vice-Chair; Ken Tanner, Chief; George 

Smith, Executive Director; Joan Metcalf, Secretary/Treasurer; Sharon Parrish, Representative; Kippy 

Robbins, Representative; Jason Robison, Natural Resources Director 

BLM attendees: Mark Johnson, Coos Bay District Manager; Ralph Thomas, Coos Bay Associate District 

Manager; Heather Ulrich, RMP Tribal Liaison; Mark Brown, RMP Project Manager; Megan Harper, 

Coos Bay District Public Affairs Officer 

Facilitator: Jim Owens, Cogan Owens Cogan 

General comments and highlights of main Tribal interest topics 

x The Coquille Indian Tribe regained Tribal status in 1989. A 1950’s Court of Claims case 

provided exclusive ancestral territory on BLM-administered lands within the Coos Bay District. 

Other geographic areas outside of this exclusive ancestral territory are of shared interest with 

other Tribes. The Coquille Forest Act of 1996 put 5,400 acres of BLM-administered land into 

trust for the Tribe to manage. They have a huge stake in BLM plan revisions because of statutory 

direction that requires the Coquille Forest to be managed per the standards and guidelines of 

Federal forest plans “on adjacent or nearby Federal lands”.

x The Tribe expressed concern regarding the economic health of the communities that the Coquille 

and other Tribes work in, and how Tribes influence and contribute to the communities they live 

and work in (e.g., Coquille is the second largest employer in Coos County). 

x Tribal approach is to maintain healthy communities that rely upon timber harvest but still only 

take what is needed and managing for the needs of the earth rather than the needs of humans. 

Living in balance; sustainability from a cultural perspective. 

x In regards to the Tribal Cooperative Management Area, consider Adaptive Management Area 

framework with site-specific management prescriptions and intensive monitoring. 

x Tribe desires greater direct involvement in management of Coos Bay Wagon Road lands. Tribe 

has proposed a cooperative management agreement with Coos County; developing a concept 

paper to share with the Congressional delegation. 

x Tribe wants to ensure an ongoing relationship with the BLM beyond this planning process. 

x Interested in discussion of Purpose and Need at a future date. 

Planning considerations 

x Economic values that lead to a sustainable and economically healthy Tribal community. 

x Approach for and addressing management of the Coos Bay Wagon Road and cooperative 

management. 

x Consideration of TCMA in all alternatives based upon Direction from the Secretary of the 

Interior. 
Appendix Q – Tribal 

1411 | Page

x Concerns regarding climate change and impacts on Tribal resources and natural resources. 

x Adjacency issues in the context of the Tribe’s exclusive ancestral territory.

x Management of natural/cultural resources within riparian areas. 

x The Tribe wants to ensure that the planning effort considers provisions of existing agreements 

with the BLM (memoranda of understanding , memoranda of agreement, etc.). If proposed 

planning considerations are in opposition to, or not fully consistent with agreement provisions, 

further discussions with the Tribe should occur prior to moving forward with such considerations. 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians 

December 18, 2013 

Tribal Headquarters, Roseburg, Oregon 

Tribal participants: Robert Van Norman, Treasurer; Lonnie Rainville, Operations Officer; Tim 

Vredenburg, Director of Forest Management; Amy Amoroso, Director of Natural Resources; Jessie 

Plueard, Archaeologist; Rhonda Malone, Cultural Development Coordinator; Kelly Coates, Fisheries 

Biologist; Heather Bartlett, Environmental Specialist; Scott Van Norman, Wildlife Technician 

BLM attendees: Mark Brown, RMP Project Manager; Abbie Jossie, Roseburg District Manager; Heather 

Ulrich, RMP Tribal Liaison; Molly Casperson, Roseburg District Archaeologist 

Facilitator: Cheyne Rossbach, Roseburg District Public Affairs Officer 

General comments and highlights of main Tribal interest topics 

x Purpose and Need Statement seems too broad and that it will be challenging to develop 

alternatives.

x The Tribe is very aware of the politics surrounding the BLM, specifically proposed legislation 

directed toward BLM-administered lands. Specifically, Congressman DeFazio’s O&C Trust, 

Conservation, and Jobs Act and Senator Wyden’s O&C Act of 2013 and Canyon Mountain Land 

Conveyance Act of 2013.

x There was interest in knowing how the RMP planning process was taking into consideration 

proposed legislation.

x Interest in clarification of the differences between the RMP Purpose and Need statement, current 

practices, and what is in the Northwest Forest Plan.

x There was interest in the definition of “old growth.”

x The public perception of old growth as natural is not true. The character of historic forests was a 

direct result of Tribal management. Recognize historic human involvement in “old growth” 

development in the new definition of old growth – that past humans “created” what is old growth 

today. The idea that pristine or untouched are characteristic of old growth is incorrect.

x How will the BLM balance the needs of the county, who says they need a set amount of money, 

versus the other needs (like northern spotted owl recovery, etc.)? Do the perceived needs of the 

counties direct the plan?

x The way the BLM draws lines around resources conflicts with how the Tribe would delineate 

resources and, at times, the BLM and Tribe are not even looking at the same kinds of resources. 

Tribal staffs at the table do not adhere to the silo approach of isolated old growth stands or owls. 

One example where Tribal values and BLM values are in conflict is that old growth is not fire 

resilient like it was 100 years ago because the Tribe is not managing them the way they did 

traditionally (i.e., annual fire cycles). 

x It is problematic that the structural complexity of forests related to fires cannot be mapped. The 

forests are not as they should be because management is not as it was historically (Tribal 

management). Another example of the incongruous nature of federal and Tribal land management 
Appendix Q – Tribal

1412 | Page

strategies is diminishing meadows that are important foraging locales for game. Definitions and 

alternatives should be adaptive enough to protect Tribal resources.

x Early seral habitat is important for foraging and hunting, which has little to do with meeting 

timber targets. The Tribe needs to be able to hunt and regular fire cycles are important to create 

habitat.

x The Tribe expressed interest in the differences in the proposed riparian buffer zones. Two 

important issues to the Tribe are clean water and fish.

x There have been Tribal efforts working on lamprey conservation and the Tribe encouraged the 

BLM to raise the bar on conservation efforts as well. Conservation methods for lamprey are also 

good for salmon.

x Water issues include more than quality. There are more stems than in the past, with less water in 

tributaries. Changes like these create systems that are more compatible for invasive or exotic 

species, which directly harm lamprey. Management of upland systems directly affects lamprey. 

The BLM riparian zones may not align with Tribal values. An example of this from the BLM’s 

pilot project includes finding beargrass in no-touch riparian zones. The presence of beargrass in 

these zones suggests it was open at one time, so a no-touch area conflicts with the way the Tribe 

would manage the beargrass. 

x Think of Tribal concerns when you consult with the National Marines Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

or whoever. Your decisions affect how the Tribe can consult for the next year, which ultimately 

affects how the Tribe can manage its own lands. Think of the federal government’s trust 

responsibility to the Tribe.

x Recreation is important in the new RMP, but off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation creates issues 

for the Tribe’s cultural sites. As this plan develops, the public will put pressure on the BLM to 

open OHV areas that will directly affect cultural sites.

x This area is the ancestral territory of the Tribe. We have been here for thousands of years and 

intend to stay.

x Beyond archaeological sites, recognize that the Tribe has spiritual sites that have visual and 

auditory sensitivity. Address this with future Visual Resource Inventory efforts.

Planning considerations 

x How would land management actions affect resident deer and elk populations? 

x Interest in BLM’s approach to water, fish, and lamprey conservation.

x Concerns for effects to archaeological and other cultural resources. 

x Consider Tribal views of management and resources, which are typically different from BLM 

perspectives. Tribal perspectives are particularly important in respect to land management, fire, 

water, and riparian area management. 

Klamath Tribes 

July 15, 2013 

Tribal Government Office, Chiloquin, Oregon 

Tribal participants: Perry Chocktoot, Jr., Director of Culture and Heritage; Kathleen Mitchell, General 

Manager 

BLM attendees: Mark Brown, RMP Project Manager; Heather Ulrich, RMP Tribal Liaison; Donald 

Holmstrom, Klamath Falls Field Manager; Brooke Brown, Klamath Falls Resource Area Archaeologist 

Facilitator: Robin Gumpert, DS Consulting 

General comments and highlights of main Tribal interest topics 

x The Tribe’s interest area begins at the top of the Cascade Range.
Appendix Q – Tribal 

1413 | Page

x The Tribe expressed concern about splitting the Lakeview District into separate RMPs, requiring 

the Tribe to consult with two offices on two different plans. All of the Lakeview District is part of 

the Klamath Tribes’ aboriginal territory.

x Will the RMP result in more or less timber harvested? 

x Grazing allotments affect cultural resources, mostly near fences and water sources and rock 

features. Desire 100 percent survey on all allotments so that the BLM can say for sure what the 

impacts are to sites. 

x Concern over archaeological contracting firms surveying on BLM-administered lands when they 

have no experience in the area and may not have the background to identify and subsequently 

document sites. 

x Desire for the BLM to listen to what the Tribes have to say at all levels of management and 

engage in meaningful consultation. The Tribe and the BLM need to be allies on projects, and this 

occurs with meaningful consultation. 

x The Tribe identified concern that the Purpose and Need includes no Section 106 responsibilities . 

x Meaningful consultation as part of the planning process needs to be captured in the Purpose and 

Need. Tribes are interested in what is going on elsewhere, even if not on their aboriginal lands. 

x Trees have importance to the Tribe, particularly culturally modified tress (cambium peeled trees 

and bow stave trees). Section 106 needs to protect these important areas of cultural interest. 

Spiritual integrity is first and foremost of importance to the Tribe. Tribal Resolution 92-047 states 

that all sites are sacred. 

x Clean water in the Klamath watershed is of great concern. 

x The Tribe has 22 million acres of aboriginal lands, and they are concerned about grazing, timber 

harvest activities, and protecting their sacred sites. The Tribes would like to see preservation of 

their sacred sites. 

x It is frustrating when Tribes feel like they are sharing information and not heard. 

x BLM has come a long way on meaningful consultation, and needs to do this on all projects. Face 

time (face-to-face meetings) means a lot to the Tribe. 

x All of the BLM-administered lands in Klamath County are of interest to the Tribe. There are 

numerous and diverse archaeological, cultural, and spiritual locations within the BLMadministered lands that are of great importance and interest to the Tribe. 

x Primary impacts to Tribal interests are grazing, timber, OHV, and low water exposing sites. 

x The BLM needs to recognize federal trust responsibilities and talk to the Tribe about closures to 

areas affecting sites. The Tribe expressed a need for a memorandum of understanding for 

government-to-government consultation. 

Planning considerations 

x Grazing allotments that affect cultural resources, mostly near fences and water sources, and rock 

features. 

x Protection of culturally modified trees (cambium peeled trees and bow stave trees). 

x Primary impacts to Tribal interests are grazing, timber, OHV use, water levels in reservoirs. 

Tribal Listening Session Summary 

These five listening sessions provided BLM managers and RMP staff with a greater understanding of 

Tribal histories and their interests in the lands and resources that the BLM manages. As part of the RMP, 

these topics of interest are included as analytical questions in the Planning Criteria and the effects 

analyzed by alternative (Chapter 3). The analysis will inform decision makers on how land management 

actions affect those resources of concern to the Tribes. 

Some of the recurring themes identified during these listening sessions included: 
Appendix Q – Tribal

1414 | Page

x hunting, fishing and plant gathering access 

x plant collection, management and use 

x multiple Tribes with interests (sometimes competing) on the same BLM-administered lands; 

x fish and lamprey 

x archaeological sites and impacts due to land management actions as well as public use and 

vandalism 

x cooperative opportunities 

x climate change 

x air and water quality 

x balancing healthy forests and the need for economic stability for the counties and Tribes 

x land acquisition into Tribal ownership or Tribal management 

x indigenous landscape studies 

x management of BLM-administered lands adjacent to Tribal land 

x land management activities that benefit multiple resources of cultural value 

x memoranda of understanding 

x impacts from recreation and OHV use to cultural sites 

x effects of proposed legislation on the planning process 

Detailed notes captured during these sessions will aid managers as they continue managing the lands that 

hold importance to the Tribes. The BLM collected valuable information from these listening sessions that 

will inform land managers beyond the scope of this RMP in carrying out the BLM mission. 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1415 | Page

Appendix R – Other Wildlife- Not Northern Spotted Owl 

Bald Eagle 

Table R-1. Bald eagle nesting habitat development under the alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 247,608 247,608 247,608 247,608 247,608 247,608 

Alternatives 

2023 239,162 245,926 240,541 237,713 246,257 251,623 

2033 241,217 250,307 248,623 234,618 254,734 260,791 

2043 269,083 284,349 284,691 259,979 290,664 301,812 

2053 283,700 300,363 302,859 273,581 312,466 320,636 

2063 300,862 322,298 325,246 288,660 338,378 345,936 

Table R-2. Bald eagle nesting habitat development under the alternatives in the planning area.

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 1,146,747 1,146,747 1,146,747 1,146,747 1,146,747 1,146,747 

Alternatives 

2023 1,138,301 1,145,065 1,139,680 1,136,852 1,145,396 1,150,762 

2033 1,140,356 1,149,446 1,147,762 1,133,757 1,153,873 1,159,930 

2043 1,168,222 1,183,488 1,183,830 1,159,118 1,189,803 1,200,951 

2053 1,182,839 1,199,502 1,201,998 1,172,720 1,211,605 1,219,775 

2063 1,697,743 1,719,179 1,722,127 1,685,541 1,735,259 1,742,817 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1416 | Page

Columbian White-tailed Deer 

Table R-3. Higher-quality forage habitat development for the Columbian white-tailed deer within the 

range of the Lower Columbia River population in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 295 295 295 295 295 295 

Alternatives 

2023 350 2,436 2,109 3,514 1,600 295 

2033 394 3,030 2,184 4,341 1,365 - 

2043 1,672 1,715 3,278 2,055 441 - 

2053 2,500 1,910 4,000 3,222 1,137 - 

2063 1,400 1,502 3,761 3,228 1,455 - 

Table R-4. Higher-quality forage habitat development for the Columbian white-tailed deer within the 

range of the Lower Columbia River population in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 87,711 87,711 87,711 87,711 87,711 87,711 

Alternatives 

2023 87,766 89,852 89,525 90,930 89,016 87,711 

2033 86,453 89,089 88,243 90,400 87,424 86,059 

2043 87,731 87,774 89,337 88,114 86,500 86,059 

2053 88,559 87,969 90,059 89,281 87,196 86,059 

2063 87,459 87,561 89,820 89,287 87,514 86,059 

Table R-5. Higher-quality forage habitat development for the Columbian white-tailed deer within the 

range of the Douglas County population in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 9,834 9,834 9,834 9,834 9,834 9,834 

Alternatives 

2023 23,745 15,813 15,467 29,767 10,257 6,827 

2033 32,878 17,932 19,068 44,504 10,539 3,332 

2043 27,122 18,307 26,312 36,163 10,810 3,248 

2053 22,616 19,254 31,151 34,474 9,557 3,230 

2063 18,854 21,192 26,802 35,587 8,554 2,964 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1417 | Page

Table R-6. Higher-quality forage habitat development for the Columbian white-tailed deer within the 

range of the Douglas County population in the planning area. 

Year 

No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 133,197 133,197 133,197 133,197 133,197 133,197 

Alternatives 

2023 147,108 139,176 138,830 153,130 133,620 130,190 

2033 148,302 133,356 134,492 159,928 125,963 118,756 

2043 142,546 133,731 141,736 151,587 126,234 118,672 

2053 138,040 134,678 146,575 149,898 124,981 118,654 

2063 134,278 136,616 142,226 151,011 123,978 118,388 

Black-tailed Deer and Roosevelk Elk 

Table R-7. Higher-quality forage habitat development for black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk in the 

decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 46,249 46,249 46,249 46,249 46,249 46,249 

Alternatives 

2023 92,216 91,012 81,747 138,088 69,273 43,016 

2033 101,496 97,831 73,281 180,450 51,793 9,667 

2043 100,324 86,622 105,364 145,343 44,531 12,233 

2053 111,095 79,930 132,251 127,038 47,977 14,105 

2063 110,566 80,089 118,311 131,001 46,001 14,418 

Table R-8. Higher-quality forage habitat development for black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk in the 

planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 1,112,694 1,112,694 1,112,694 1,112,694 1,112,694 1,112,694 

Alternatives 

2023 1,158,661 1,157,457 1,148,192 1,204,533 1,135,718 1,109,463 

2033 1,088,405 1,084,740 1,060,190 1,167,359 1,038,702 996,579 

2043 1,087,233 1,073,531 1,092,273 1,132,252 1,031,440 999,145 

2053 1,098,004 1,066,839 1,119,160 1,113,947 1,034,886 1,001,017 

2063 1,097,475 1,066,998 1,105,220 1,117,910 1,032,910 1,001,331 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1418 | Page

Fisher 

Table R-9. Total fisher habitat (denning, resting, foraging combined) in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 574,219 574,219 574,219 574,219 574,219 574,219 

Alternatives 

2023 540,312 562,929 566,950 556,936 566,614 571,406 

2033 508,448 557,325 564,704 544,409 564,162 570,339 

2043 506,615 579,756 593,507 567,035 591,213 593,899 

2053 514,442 609,830 633,093 600,094 626,542 623,829 

2063 527,502 632,336 662,866 620,639 653,341 644,357 

Table R-10. Fisher denning habitat in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 324,478 324,478 324,478 324,478 324,478 324,478 

Alternatives 

2023 298,161 320,609 317,328 308,951 315,449 326,958 

2033 288,378 333,386 331,912 320,253 332,599 345,024 

2043 277,816 343,220 343,245 329,545 344,426 353,797 

2053 286,468 364,269 360,761 346,072 366,379 376,841 

2063 292,012 387,886 376,867 365,611 389,533 398,633 

Table R-11. Fisher resting habitat in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 153,657 153,657 153,657 153,657 153,657 153,657 

Alternatives 

2023 148,819 148,504 149,972 149,670 154,827 151,470 

2033 125,316 132,781 135,607 130,593 137,631 132,291 

2043 150,131 157,106 163,113 153,280 161,670 164,213 

2053 153,310 168,252 188,158 172,182 178,813 172,239 

2063 143,410 162,066 193,001 167,697 172,961 160,996 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1419 | Page

Table R-12. Fisher foraging habitat in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 96,084 96,084 96,084 96,084 96,084 96,084 

Alternatives 

2023 93,332 93,816 99,650 98,315 96,338 92,977 

2033 94,755 91,157 97,184 93,563 93,932 93,024 

2043 78,668 79,430 87,149 84,210 85,117 75,889 

2053 74,664 77,310 84,173 81,840 81,350 74,748 

2063 92,080 82,384 92,998 87,331 90,847 84,728 

Table R-13. Total fisher habitat (denning, resting, foraging combined) in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 4,484,755 4,484,755 4,484,755 4,484,755 4,484,755 4,484,755 

Alternatives 

2023 4,450,848 4,473,465 4,477,486 4,467,472 4,477,150 4,481,942 

2033 4,519,548 4,568,425 4,575,804 4,555,509 4,575,262 4,581,440 

2043 4,554,018 4,627,160 4,640,911 4,614,438 4,638,616 4,641,302 

2053 4,561,846 4,657,234 4,680,496 4,647,498 4,673,945 4,671,232 

2063 4,574,905 4,679,739 4,710,269 4,668,042 4,700,745 4,691,760 

Table R-14. Fisher denning habitat in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 639,570 639,570 639,570 639,570 639,570 639,570 

Alternatives 

2023 613,253 635,701 632,420 624,044 630,541 642,051 

2033 603,470 648,479 647,005 635,345 647,691 660,117 

2043 592,908 658,313 658,338 644,638 659,518 668,889 

2053 892,611 970,411 966,903 952,215 972,521 982,983 

2063 898,154 994,028 983,009 971,753 995,675 1,004,775 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1420 | Page

Table R-15. Fisher resting habitat in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 825,681 825,681 825,681 825,681 825,681 825,681 

Alternatives 

2023 820,843 820,527 821,996 821,693 826,851 823,494 

2033 797,339 804,805 807,630 802,617 809,654 804,315 

2043 822,155 829,129 835,136 825,303 833,693 836,236 

2053 534,284 549,226 569,132 553,156 559,787 553,213 

2063 1,241,308 1,259,963 1,290,899 1,265,595 1,270,859 1,258,894 

Table R-16. Fisher foraging habitat in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 3,019,504 3,019,504 3,019,504 3,019,504 3,019,504 3,019,504 

Alternatives 

2023 3,016,752 3,017,236 3,023,070 3,021,735 3,019,758 3,016,397 

2033 3,118,739 3,115,142 3,121,169 3,117,548 3,117,916 3,117,008 

2043 3,138,956 3,139,718 3,147,436 3,144,497 3,145,405 3,136,177 

2053 3,134,951 3,137,597 3,144,461 3,142,127 3,141,637 3,135,035 

2063 2,435,443 2,425,748 2,436,361 2,430,694 2,434,211 2,428,091 

Golden Eagle 

Table R-17. Golden eagle nesting habitat development under the alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 789,751 789,751 789,751 789,751 789,751 789,751 

Alternatives 

2023 750,166 779,767 770,310 757,922 786,414 797,483 

2033 729,066 782,249 782,891 737,013 802,040 812,293 

2043 787,103 860,962 866,826 796,427 893,766 909,511 

2053 821,344 911,220 930,695 843,357 964,908 967,010 

2063 848,128 957,588 982,160 878,459 1,026,264 1,018,234 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1421 | Page

Table R-18. Golden eagle nesting habitat development under the alternatives in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 3,225,904 3,225,904 3,225,904 3,225,904 3,225,904 3,225,904 

Alternatives 

2023 3,186,319 3,215,920 3,206,463 3,194,075 3,222,567 3,233,636 

2033 3,165,219 3,218,402 3,219,044 3,173,166 3,238,193 3,248,446 

2043 3,223,256 3,297,115 3,302,979 3,232,580 3,329,919 3,345,664 

2053 3,257,497 3,347,373 3,366,848 3,279,510 3,401,061 3,403,163 

2063 4,612,466 4,721,926 4,746,498 4,642,797 4,790,602 4,782,572 

Marbled Murrelet 

Table R-19. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat development under the alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 493,968 493,968 493,968 493,968 493,968 493,968 

Alternatives 

2023 502,168 507,622 501,865 477,023 518,431 528,310 

2033 565,762 579,509 569,953 515,784 602,023 621,274 

2043 648,814 660,588 647,416 580,062 691,494 716,909 

2053 733,369 739,298 725,624 648,471 779,791 811,704 

2063 773,852 756,794 771,558 654,988 813,721 840,024 

Table R-20. Marbled murrelet high-quality nesting habitat development under the alternatives in the 

decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 233,219 233,219 233,219 233,219 233,219 233,219 

Alternatives 

2023 226,102 231,247 230,737 222,942 232,005 233,448 

2033 252,025 259,411 258,532 244,219 260,620 263,781 

2043 260,610 271,627 271,282 251,518 274,686 277,291 

2053 275,825 286,819 287,764 265,232 290,827 294,382 

2063 294,666 305,620 308,023 276,789 310,055 319,070 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1422 | Page

Table R-21. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat development under the alternatives in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 5,301,635 5,301,635 5,301,635 5,301,635 5,301,635 5,301,635 

Alternatives 

2023 5,309,835 5,315,289 5,309,532 5,284,690 5,326,098 5,335,977 

2033 5,414,289 5,428,036 5,418,481 5,364,311 5,450,550 5,469,801 

2043 5,515,882 5,527,656 5,514,484 5,447,131 5,558,562 5,583,977 

2053 5,600,437 5,606,367 5,592,692 5,515,539 5,646,859 5,678,772 

2063 5,640,921 5,623,862 5,638,627 5,522,056 5,680,789 5,707,093 

Table R-22. Marbled murrelet high-quality nesting habitat development under the alternatives in the 

planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 573,150 573,150 573,150 573,150 573,150 573,150 

Alternatives 

2023 566,033 571,178 570,669 562,874 571,936 573,380 

2033 591,956 599,342 598,464 584,150 600,551 603,712 

2043 600,542 611,559 611,214 591,449 614,617 617,222 

2053 781,686 792,680 793,625 771,094 796,688 800,243 

2063 800,527 811,481 813,884 782,651 815,916 824,931 

Table R-23. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat development in designated critical habitat under the 

alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 273,174 273,174 273,174 273,174 273,174 273,174 

Alternatives 

2023 279,663 287,274 277,165 269,436 286,747 287,761 

2033 316,887 331,494 309,895 288,580 328,915 332,689 

2043 362,224 379,380 354,011 328,535 376,676 381,421 

2053 413,282 428,841 398,366 371,044 427,385 433,432 

2063 434,896 442,991 419,668 380,736 440,396 446,137 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1423 | Page

Table R-24. Marbled murrelet high-quality nesting habitat development in designated critical habitat 

under the alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 154,331 154,331 154,331 154,331 154,331 154,331 

Alternatives 

2023 154,266 154,515 153,559 149,579 154,097 154,522 

2033 173,468 173,730 172,153 164,803 172,237 174,105 

2043 180,766 181,190 179,316 169,448 180,709 181,438 

2053 190,381 190,596 188,469 177,754 189,304 191,014 

2063 197,017 197,646 194,091 180,763 193,961 198,051 

Table R-25. Marbled murrelet high-quality nesting habitat development in designated critical habitat 

under the alternatives in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 344,345 344,345 344,345 344,345 344,345 344,345 

Alternatives 

2023 344,280 344,529 343,573 339,593 344,111 344,536 

2033 363,482 363,744 362,167 354,817 362,251 364,119 

2043 370,780 371,204 369,330 359,462 370,723 371,452 

2053 516,380 516,595 514,468 503,753 515,303 517,013 

2063 523,016 523,645 520,090 506,762 519,960 524,050 

Table R-26. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat in the Harvest Land Base under the alternatives. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 140,848 44,347 39,241 127,550 114,874 

Habitat Capable 292,633 115,374 99,751 307,165 308,078 

Alternatives 

2023 145,174 32,139 36,323 95,992 123,440 

2033 164,573 29,690 43,046 92,166 160,852 

2043 193,032 31,952 47,800 102,398 201,815 

2053 219,139 34,457 58,187 121,136 244,201 

2063 232,374 26,705 65,850 107,051 263,673 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1424 | Page

Non-forest Habitat and Non-BLM Forest Habitat 

For the analyses of non-forest habitat types on both BLM-administered lands and on all other ownerships, 

the BLM used the ecological systems data (ESLF Codes and ESLF Names) available in the 2012 

Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) (LEMMA 2014). There are 64 different ecological systems that are 

present in the planning area. 

For simplicity, the BLM grouped and re-classified these 64 categories into 12 similar non-forest habitat 

groups. Refer to Table R-27 (Re-classification of non-forest habitats from GNN) for a complete list of 

the 64 ecological systems in the planning area and the BLM re-classification used in this analysis. 

The BLM assumes that the non-forest habitats remain static throughout the analysis period (2013-2063). 

Table R-27. Re-classification of non-forest habitats from GNN. 

GNN BLM-reclassification 

ESLF 

Code ESLF Name Code Name 

21 Developed, Open Space 

1 Urban/Developed 22 Developed, Low Intensity 

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 

24 Developed, High Intensity 

61 Orchards Vineyards and Other High Structure Agriculture 

81 Pasture/Hay 2 Agriculture

82 Cultivated Cropland 

3118 North Pacific Alpine and Subalpine Bedrock and Scree 

3 Rock 

3128 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 

3129 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 

3140 North Pacific Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 

3155 North Pacific Montane Massive Bedrock, Cliff and Talus 

3158 North Pacific Coastal Cliff and Bluff 

3167 Mediterranean California Serpentine Barrens 

3169 Central California Coast Ranges Cliff and Canyon 

3170 Klamath-Siskiyou Cliff and Outcrop 

7162 North Pacific Herbaceous Bald and Bluff 

9297 Inter-Mountain Basins Alkaline Closed Depression 

5258 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 4 Desert 5456 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe 

3165 Mediterranean California Northern Coastal Dune 5 Dunes 3177 North Pacific Maritime Coastal Sand Dune and Strand 

5205 North Pacific Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland, Fellfield and Meadow 

6 Grassland/Prairie 

5409 Willamette Valley Upland Prairie and Savanna 

5452 Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland 

7102 California Mesic Serpentine Grassland 

7103 California Northern Coastal Grassland 

7108 Mediterranean California Alpine Dry Tundra 

7109 Mediterranean California Subalpine Meadow 

7110 North Pacific Montane Grassland 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1425 | Page

GNN BLM-reclassification 

ESLF 

Code ESLF Name Code Name 

7112 Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill and 

Valley Grassland 

7157 North Pacific Alpine and Subalpine Dry Grassland 

8404 Introduced Upland Vegetation - Annual Grassland 

8502 Recently burned grassland 

9221 Willamette Valley Wet Prairie 

9265 Temperate Pacific Montane Wet Meadow 

3179 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 

7 Shrubland 

5202 Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland 

5260 North Pacific Avalanche Chute Shrubland 

5261 North Pacific Montane Shrubland 

5305 California Xeric Serpentine Chaparral 

5311 Northern and Central California Dry-Mesic Chaparral 

5457 Northern California Coastal Scrub 

7161 North Pacific Hypermaritime Shrub and Herbaceous 

Headland 

9103 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 

5256 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 

8 Sagebrush 

5257 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

5453 Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 

5454 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 

5455 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 

9321 Columbia Plateau Silver Sagebrush Seasonally Flooded 

Shrub-Steppe 

2201 Open Water (Fresh) 

9 Freshwater/Riparian 

3122 Temperate Pacific Freshwater Mudflat 

9166 North Pacific Bog and Fen 

9173 North Pacific Shrub Swamp 

9219 Temperate Pacific Freshwater Aquatic Bed 

9220 North Pacific Intertidal Freshwater Wetland 

9222 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 

9248 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 

9260 Temperate Pacific Freshwater Emergent Marsh 

9251 Northern California Claypan Vernal Pool 10 Vernal Pool 

2202 Open Water (Brackish/Salt) 11 Marine 9281 Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh 

3130 North American Alpine Ice Field 12 Ice 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1426 | Page

Table R-28. Non-forest habitat within the decision and planning areas. 

Structural Stage Decision Area Planning Area 

(Acres) (%) (Acres) (%) 

Urban/Developed 11,434 12% 1,061,331 24% 

Agricultural 1,951 2% 2,193,206 51% 

Rock 1,710 2% 76,278 2% 

Desert 9 0% 32 0% 

Dunes 1,300 1% 37,611 1% 

Grassland 3,795 4% 290,284 7% 

Shrubland 2,936 3% 59,616 1% 

Sagebrush 63,884 70% 246,644 6% 

Freshwater Riparian 4,164 5% 348,773 8% 

Vernal Pools 307 0% 7,668 0% 

Marine/Tidal 236 0% 16,464 0% 

Ice 27 0% 3,335 0% 

Totals 91,752 100% 4,341,241 100% 

Non-BLM Forest Habitat 

The BLM modeled forest habitat on non-BLM-administered lands within the planning area using the 

2012 GNN structural condition (STRUCCOND) (LEMMA 2014). 

So that the GNN-derived habitat on non-BLM lands could be readily compared with the WoodStockderived forest habitat on BLM-administered lands, the BLM cross-walked the GNN STRUCCOND to the 

WoodStock structural stage categories (Table R-29). 

Table R-29. Cross-walk of GNN STRUCCOND to Woodstock structural stages. 

GNN STRUCCOND WoodStock Structural Stage 

Code Description* Code Structural Stage 

0 Non-forest - Non-forest 

1 Sparse (CANCOV < 10%) 1.1 Early-successional: with Structural Legacies 

1.2 Early-successional: without Structural Legacies 

2 Open (CANCOV 10-40%) 2.1 Stand Establishment: with Structural Legacies 

2.2 Stand Establishment: without Structural Legacies 

3 

and 

4 

Sapling/pole - moderate/closed 

(CANCOV>40, QMD_DOM 

<25cm) 

Small/medium tree - 

moderate/closed (CANCOV >= 40, 

QMD_DOM 25-50) 

3.1 Young: High Density with Structural Legacies 

3.2 Young: High Density without Structural Legacies 

3.3 Young: Low Density with Structural Legacies 

3.4 Young: Low Density without Structural Legacies 

5 

Large tree - moderate/closed 

(CANCOV >= 40, QMD_DOM 50-

75) 

4.1 Mature: Single-layered Canopy 

4.2 Mature: Multi-layered Canopy 

6 

Large/giant tree - moderate/closed 

(CANCOV >= 40, QMD_DOM >= 

75)

5.1 Structurally-complex: Developed Structurallycomplex 

5.2 Structurally-complex: Existing Old Forest 

5.3 Structurally-complex: Existing Very Old Forest 

* STRUCCOND Descriptions from LEMMA 2014. 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1427 | Page

The BLM modeled the structural conditions on non-BLM lands as continuing to provide the same 

distribution of habitat through time as the current condition, except in U.S. Forest Service reserves (i.e., 

Late-Successional Reserves and Congressionally Reserved lands). 

The BLM modeled structural conditions continuing to develop on U.S. Forest Service reserve lands 

through time based on the mean ages of the WoodStock structural stages on the BLM-administered forest 

lands (Table R-30). 

Table R-30. Assumptions for development of structural stages on non-BLM administered lands. 

Code Structural Stage 

Mean 

Age* 

(Years) 

BLM assumption for forest 

habitat development on NonBLM lands 

1.1 Early-successional: with Structural Legacies 10.3 Pixel stays in Early-successional 

1.2 Early-successional: without Structural Legacies group for 1 decade 

2.1 Stand Establishment: with Structural Legacies 24.7 Pixel stays in Stand 

2.2 Stand Establishment: without Structural Legacies Establishment group for 1 decade 

3.1 Young: High Density with Structural Legacies 

66.5 Pixel stays in Young group for 4 

decades 

3.2 Young: High Density without Structural Legacies 

3.3 Young: Low Density with Structural Legacies 

3.4 Young: Low Density without Structural Legacies 

4.1 Mature: Single-layered Canopy 95.6 Pixel stays in Mature group for 3 

4.2 Mature: Multi-layered Canopy decades 

5.1 Structurally-complex: Developed Structurallycomplex 160.4 Once a pixel enters Structurally5.2 Structurally-complex: Existing Old Forest complex group, it remains there 

5.3 Structurally-complex: Existing Very Old Forest 

* Mean age calculated using age on BLM-administered lands. 

This modeling of U.S. Forest Service reserve lands assumed that habitat would not develop on U.S. 

Forest Service reserve lands that experience wildfire in the modeling (see the vegetation modeling section 

in Chapter 3). 

For the purpose of this analysis, the BLM assumed that the future distribution of habitat conditions on 

non-BLM lands and burned, U.S. Forest Service reserves would continue to reflect the current 

distribution of habitat conditions. 

On private lands, the assumption that the future distribution of habitat conditions would remain the same 

as current conditions is likely to be a reasonable approximation. On State and Forest Service non-reserve 

lands, this assumption is likely to be an underestimate of the future development of habitat. The BLM 

acknowledges that the spatial arrangement of structural conditions would change in the future, but lacks 

information to make more specific projections of how structural conditions would change over time on 

non-BLM-administered lands. This assumption is consistent with the assumption used in the analysis of 

forest structure and spatial pattern in the 2008 RMP/EIS, which describes the limitations on analyzing 

future changes on non-BLM lands and is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM 2008, pp. 532-536). 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1428 | Page

North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Red 

Tree Vole 

Table R-31. North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole habitat development under the alternatives in 

the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 174,495 174,495 174,495 174,495 174,495 174,495 

Alternatives 

2023 178,193 180,881 176,827 167,096 183,914 189,994 

2033 214,128 218,570 212,751 189,394 225,827 235,607 

2043 246,181 245,961 241,608 211,800 256,326 268,416 

2053 281,094 278,632 274,507 236,514 293,181 309,872 

2063 289,971 279,899 279,489 236,047 294,208 313,820 

Table R-32. North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole habitat development under the alternatives in 

the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 741,263 741,263 741,263 741,263 741,263 741,263 

Alternatives 

2023 744,961 747,649 743,595 733,864 750,682 756,762 

2033 780,896 785,337 779,518 756,161 792,595 802,375 

2043 812,948 812,729 808,376 778,568 823,094 835,184 

2053 847,862 845,400 841,275 803,282 859,949 876,640 

2063 978,930 968,859 968,448 925,006 983,168 1,002,779 

Table R-33. North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole habitat in the Harvest Land Base under the 

alternatives. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 33,810 21,715 37,846 61,284 58,847 

Habitat Capable 69,758 47,155 83,381 133,847 133,396 

Alternatives 

2023 36,316 17,779 35,739 49,993 62,055 

2033 46,492 18,466 44,670 52,673 79,939 

2043 52,777 17,616 48,865 55,996 93,221 

2053 55,195 15,703 51,687 58,015 109,727 

2063 55,478 12,862 49,519 51,496 108,764 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1429 | Page

Snags and Down Woody Material 

Table R-34. Snag density (trees per acre) in the decision area by structural group. 

Structural Group Diameter Class (Inches DBH) Sub-

<6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 >36 <10 10-20 >20 All Plots 

Early-successional 4.1 6.5 2.2 1.4 0.7 0.6 0.3 9.4 3.7 2.6 15.7 127 

Stand Establishment 1.5 3.4 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 4.4 2.0 1.4 7.8 1,313 

Young 5.0 9.2 2.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 12.9 3.6 1.6 18.1 1,666 

Mature 5.6 15.9 3.1 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.7 18.9 6.3 2.9 28.1 1,527 

Structurally-complex 3.3 8.4 2.7 1.9 1.3 0.9 1.2 10.2 4.8 4.7 19.8 1,617 

Weighted Average 3.9 9.4 2.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.7 11.8 4.2 2.7 18.7 6,250 

Table R-35. Snag density (trees per acre) in the decision area by structural stage. 

Structural Stage Diameter Class (Inches DBH) Sub-

<6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 >36 <10 10-20 >20 All Plots 

Early-successional with 

Structural Legacies - 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.2 2.1 4.1 31 

Early-successional without 

Structural Legacies 5.4 8.3 2.5 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 12.2 4.5 2.7 19.4 96 

Stand Establishment with 

Structural Legacies 4.3 6.1 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 9.9 1.9 1.1 12.8 211 

Stand Establishment without 

Structural Legacies 0.9 2.9 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 3.4 2.0 1.4 6.8 1,102 

Young – High Density, with 

Structural Legacies 3.1 6.6 2.2 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 8.3 4.0 2.2 14.6 417 

Young – High Density, 

without Structural Legacies 5.7 10.1 1.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 14.5 3.5 1.3 19.3 1,144 

Young – Low Density, with 

Structural Legacies 5.4 10.9 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.5 0.1 16.3 0.9 1.4 18.6 31 

Young – Low Density, 

without Structural Legacies 4.4 9.5 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 11.8 5.0 1.9 18.6 74 

Mature, Single-layered Canopy 6.2 19.9 3.6 1.7 1.0 0.5 0.8 22.9 7.6 3.2 33.7 677 

Mature, Multi-layered Canopy 5.2 12.7 2.7 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 15.7 5.3 2.6 23.6 850 

Structurally-complex, 

Developed Structurallycomplex 

3.3 9.5 2.9 1.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 11.4 5.0 4.0 20.4 649 

Structurally-complex, Existing 

Old Forest 3.3 7.8 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.0 1.3 9.6 4.7 5.1 19.3 925 

Structurally-complex, Existing 

Very Old Forest 3.9 5.0 1.7 2.6 1.6 1.2 3.3 7.3 4.2 7.8 19.4 43 

Weighted Average 3.9 9.4 2.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.7 11.8 4.2 2.7 18.7 6,250 

Table R-36. Snag density (trees per acre) in the northern districts (Salem, Eugene, and Coos Bay) by 

structural group. 

Structural Group Diameter Class (Inches DBH) Sub-

<6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 >36 <10 10-20 >20 All Plots 

Early-successional - - 0.9 0.3 - 1.2 - - 0.9 1.6 2.5 17 

Stand Establishment 0.9 2.3 1.9 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.4 2.8 2.9 2.0 7.7 500 

Young 5.7 10.1 2.1 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.5 14.5 3.6 1.9 20.0 847 

Mature 5.8 19.8 3.7 1.8 1.0 0.6 1.1 22.2 7.8 3.8 33.8 849 

Structurally-complex 2.3 7.5 3.2 2.6 1.7 1.3 2.0 8.5 5.4 6.7 20.6 622 

Weighted Average 4.1 11.0 2.8 1.5 1.0 0.6 1.0 13.3 5.1 3.5 22.0 2,835 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1430 | Page

Table R-37. Snag density (trees per acre) in the northern districts (Salem, Eugene, and Coos Bay) by 

structural stage. 

Structural Stage Diameter Class (Inches DBH) Sub-

<6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 >36 <10 10-20 >20 All Plots 

Early-successional with 

Structural Legacies - - 1.3 0.4 - 1.8 - - 1.3 2.2 3.5 12 

Early-successional without 

Structural Legacies - - - - - - - - - - - 5 

Stand Establishment with 

Structural Legacies 4.0 6.0 1.1 1.5 1.2 - - 10.0 1.6 2.2 13.9 24 

Stand Establishment without 

Structural Legacies 0.7 2.1 1.9 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.5 2.4 3.0 2.0 7.4 476 

Young – High Density, with 

Structural Legacies 2.9 4.5 2.5 1.6 0.5 0.7 1.3 6.5 4.0 3.6 14.1 156 

Young – High Density, 

without Structural Legacies 6.4 11.4 2.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 16.5 3.5 1.5 21.5 677 

Young – Low Density, with 

Structural Legacies - 24.1 5.3 - 5.3 - - 24.1 5.3 5.3 34.7 2 

Young – Low Density, 

without Structural Legacies - 6.0 0.9 1.3 - 0.4 1.3 2.0 5.3 2.7 10.0 12 

Mature, Single-layered Canopy 6.7 22.3 4.0 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.9 25.3 8.6 3.7 37.6 531 

Mature, Multi-layered Canopy 4.3 15.6 3.1 1.7 0.7 0.7 1.4 17.1 6.5 3.8 27.5 318 

Structurally-complex, 

Developed Structurally 

Complex 

2.0 8.8 3.9 2.5 1.6 1.3 1.8 9.1 6.5 6.2 21.8 272 

Structurally-complex, Existing 

Old Forest 2.5 6.7 2.6 2.7 1.8 1.2 2.1 8.2 4.6 6.9 19.7 317 

Structurally-complex, Existing 

Very Old Forest 3.7 4.4 1.9 2.3 1.1 1.6 3.9 6.6 4.3 8.0 18.8 33 

Weighted Average 4.1 11.0 2.8 1.5 1.0 0.6 1.0 13.3 5.1 3.5 22.0 2,835 

Table R-38. Snag density (trees per acre) in the southern districts (Roseburg, Medford, and Klamath 

Falls) by structural group. 

Structural Group Diameter Class (Inches DBH) Sub-

<6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 >36 <10 10-20 >20 All Plots 

Early-successional 4.7 7.4 2.4 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.3 10.8 4.1 2.7 17.7 110 

Stand Establishment 1.8 4.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 5.4 1.4 0.9 7.8 813 

Young 4.2 8.4 1.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 11.3 3.6 1.3 16.1 819 

Mature 5.4 11.0 2.4 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 14.8 4.4 1.7 20.9 678 

Structurally-complex 3.9 8.9 2.3 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.7 11.3 4.4 3.5 19.2 995 

Weighted Average 3.8 8.0 1.9 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 10.6 3.5 2.0 16.1 3,415 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1431 | Page

Table R-39. Snag density (trees per acre) in the southern districts (Roseburg, Medford, and Klamath 

Falls) by structural stage. 

Structural Group Diameter Class (Inches DBH) Sub-

<6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 >36 <10 10-20 >20 All Plots 

Early-successional with 

Structural Legacies - 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 1.3 1.1 2.1 4.5 19 

Early-successional without 

Structural Legacies 5.7 8.7 2.6 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 12.8 4.7 2.9 20.5 91 

Stand Establishment with 

Structural Legacies 4.4 6.1 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 9.8 1.9 0.9 12.7 187 

Stand Establishment without 

Structural Legacies 1.1 3.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 4.1 1.3 1.0 6.3 626 

Young – High Density, with 

Structural Legacies 3.1 7.8 2.0 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 9.4 4.0 1.4 14.9 261 

Young – High Density, 

without Structural Legacies 4.6 8.4 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 11.7 3.4 1.1 16.2 467 

Young – Low Density, with 

Structural Legacies 5.8 10.0 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 15.8 0.5 1.2 17.5 29 

Young – Low Density, 

without Structural Legacies 5.2 10.2 2.5 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 13.7 4.9 1.7 20.3 62 

Mature, Single-layered Canopy 4.3 11.2 2.4 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 14.4 3.9 1.4 19.7 146 

Mature, Multi-layered Canopy 5.7 10.9 2.4 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 14.9 4.6 1.8 21.3 532 

Structurally-complex, 

Developed Structurallycomplex 

4.3 9.9 2.2 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 13.0 4.0 2.3 19.3 377 

Structurally-complex, Existing 

Old Forest 3.7 8.4 2.5 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.8 10.3 4.7 4.1 19.2 608 

Structurally-complex, Existing 

Very Old Forest 4.8 7.2 1.1 3.7 3.2 - 1.1 9.6 4.0 7.4 21.1 10 

Weighted Average 3.8 8.0 1.9 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 10.6 3.5 2.0 16.1 3,415 

Table R-40. Down woody material cover in the decision area by structural group. 

Structural Group Decay Class (Percent Cover) Number of 

1 2 3 4 5 All Transects 

Early-successional 0.2% 0.9% 1.5% 0.9% 0.3% 3.8% 254 

Stand Establishment 0.2% 0.4% 1.4% 1.6% 0.4% 4.1% 2,626 

Young 0.2% 0.4% 1.0% 1.4% 0.6% 3.6% 3,332 

Mature 0.3% 0.7% 1.4% 1.8% 0.9% 5.0% 3,054 

Structurally-complex 0.3% 0.7% 1.8% 1.5% 0.6% 4.9% 3,234 

Weighted Average 0.2% 0.6% 1.4% 1.5% 0.6% 4.4% 12,500 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1432 | Page

Table R-41. Down woody material cover in the decision area by structural stage. 

Structural Stage Decay Class (Percent Cover) Transects 1 2 3 4 5 All 

Early-successional with Structural Legacies 0.2% 1.5% 2.4% 1.3% 0.3% 5.6% 62 

Early-successional without Structural Legacies 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 0.8% 0.3% 3.1% 192 

Stand Establishment with Structural Legacies 0.2% 0.3% 0.7% 1.1% 0.8% 3.1% 422 

Stand Establishment without Structural Legacies 0.2% 0.4% 1.6% 1.7% 0.4% 4.3% 2,204 

Young – High Density, with Structural Legacies 0.2% 0.3% 1.1% 1.2% 0.4% 3.2% 834 

Young – High Density, without Structural Legacies 0.3% 0.4% 1.0% 1.5% 0.6% 3.8% 2,288 

Young – Low Density, with Structural Legacies 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.9% 62 

Young – Low Density, without Structural Legacies 0.1% 0.9% 1.3% 0.9% 0.3% 3.3% 148 

Mature, Single-layered Canopy 0.3% 0.9% 1.5% 1.9% 0.9% 5.5% 1,354 

Mature, Multi-layered Canopy 0.2% 0.6% 1.3% 1.7% 0.8% 4.6% 1,700 

Structurally-complex, Developed Structurally-complex 0.2% 0.5% 1.5% 1.5% 0.6% 4.3% 1,298 

Structurally-complex, Existing Old Forest 0.3% 0.8% 1.9% 1.5% 0.6% 5.2% 1,850 

Structurally-complex, Existing Very Old Forest 0.4% 1.2% 5.2% 2.3% 0.9% 10.0% 86 

Weighted Average 0.2% 0.6% 1.4% 1.5% 0.6% 4.4% 12,500 

Table R-42. Down woody material cover in the northern districts (Salem, Eugene, and Coos Bay) by 

structural group. 

Structural Group Decay Class (Percent Cover) Number of 

1 2 3 4 5 All Transects 

Early-successional 0.1% 1.6% 2.1% 1.0% 0.4% 5.3% 34 

Stand Establishment 0.3% 0.4% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 4.1% 1,000 

Young 0.3% 0.5% 1.2% 1.7% 0.7% 4.4% 1,694 

Mature 0.4% 0.8% 1.6% 1.7% 0.9% 5.4% 1,698 

Structurally-complex 0.3% 1.0% 2.7% 1.9% 0.8% 6.8% 1,244 

Weighted Average 0.3% 0.7% 1.7% 1.7% 0.8% 5.2% 5,670 

Table R-43. Down woody material cover in the northern districts (Salem, Eugene, and Coos Bay) by 

structural stage. 

Structural Stage Decay Class (Percent Cover) Transects 1 2 3 4 5 All 

Early-successional with Structural Legacies 0.2% 2.3% 3.0% 1.4% 0.6% 7.5% 24 

Early-successional without Structural Legacies - - - - - - 10 

Stand Establishment with Structural Legacies - 0.2% 0.5% 1.3% 0.8% 2.8% 48 

Stand Establishment without Structural Legacies 0.3% 0.4% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 4.2% 952 

Young – High Density, with Structural Legacies 0.3% 0.4% 1.4% 1.7% 0.5% 4.3% 312 

Young – High Density, without Structural Legacies 0.3% 0.5% 1.1% 1.7% 0.8% 4.4% 1,354 

Young – Low Density, with Structural Legacies 0.8% 2.1% - 1.4% - 4.4% 4 

Young – Low Density, without Structural Legacies - 3.2% 2.3% 1.6% 1.0% 8.1% 24 

Mature, Single-layered Canopy 0.4% 0.8% 1.6% 1.9% 1.0% 5.6% 1,062 

Mature, Multi-layered Canopy 0.3% 0.7% 1.5% 1.5% 0.8% 5.0% 636 

Structurally-complex, Developed Structurally-complex 0.2% 0.7% 1.9% 1.6% 0.7% 5.1% 544 

Structurally-complex, Existing Old Forest 0.3% 1.3% 3.1% 2.1% 0.9% 7.7% 634 

Structurally-complex, Existing Very Old Forest 0.4% 1.5% 6.5% 2.7% 1.0% 12.2% 66 

Weighted Average 0.3% 0.7% 1.7% 1.7% 0.8% 5.2% 5,670 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1433 | Page

Table R-44. Down woody material cover in the southern districts (Roseburg, Medford, and Klamath 

Falls) by structural group. 

Structural Group Decay Class (Percent Cover) Number of 

1 2 3 4 5 All Transects 

Early-successional 0.2% 0.8% 1.4% 0.9% 0.3% 3.5% 220 

Stand Establishment 0.1% 0.5% 1.4% 1.6% 0.4% 4.0% 1,626 

Young 0.1% 0.3% 0.8% 1.0% 0.4% 2.7% 1,638 

Mature 0.1% 0.7% 1.1% 1.8% 0.8% 4.5% 1,356 

Structurally-complex 0.2% 0.5% 1.3% 1.3% 0.5% 3.8% 1,990 

Weighted Average 0.2% 0.5% 1.2% 1.4% 0.5% 3.7% 6,830 

Table R-45. Down woody material cover in the southern districts (Roseburg, Medford, and Klamath 

Falls) by structural stage. 

Structural Stage Decay Class (Percent Cover) Transects 

1 2 3 4 5 All 

Early-successional with Structural Legacies 0.2% 0.9% 2.0% 1.2% - 4.5% 38 

Early-successional without Structural Legacies 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 0.8% 0.3% 3.3% 182 

Stand Establishment with Structural Legacies 0.2% 0.3% 0.8% 1.1% 0.8% 3.2% 374 

Stand Establishment without Structural Legacies 0.1% 0.5% 1.6% 1.8% 0.3% 4.3% 1,252 

Young – High Density, with Structural Legacies 0.1% 0.3% 0.9% 0.9% 0.4% 2.6% 522 

Young – High Density, without Structural Legacies 0.2% 0.3% 0.8% 1.1% 0.5% 2.9% 934 

Young – Low Density, with Structural Legacies - - 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 58 

Young – Low Density, without Structural Legacies 0.1% 0.4% 1.1% 0.7% 0.1% 2.4% 124 

Mature, Single-layered Canopy 0.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.9% 0.5% 4.9% 292 

Mature, Multi-layered Canopy 0.1% 0.5% 1.1% 1.8% 0.8% 4.4% 1,064 

Structurally-complex, Developed Structurally-complex 0.2% 0.4% 1.2% 1.4% 0.5% 3.7% 754 

Structurally-complex, Existing Old Forest 0.2% 0.6% 1.3% 1.3% 0.4% 3.9% 1,216 

Structurally-complex, Existing Very Old Forest 0.1% 0.3% 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% 2.7% 20 

Weighted Average 0.2% 0.5% 1.2% 1.4% 0.5% 3.7% 6,830 














Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1448 | Page

Structural Stage Development 

Table R-52. Early-successional forest habitat development under the alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition 

2013 46,249 46,249 46,249 46,249 46,249 46,249 

Alternatives 

2023 92,216 91,012 81,747 138,088 69,273 43,016 

2033 101,496 97,831 73,282 180,450 51,793 9,667 

2043 100,324 86,622 105,364 145,343 44,531 12,233 

2053 111,095 79,930 132,251 127,038 47,977 14,105 

2063 110,566 80,089 118,311 131,001 46,001 14,418 

Table R-53. Early-successional forest habitat development under the alternatives in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition 

2013 1,112,694 1,112,694 1,112,694 1,112,694 1,112,694 1,112,694 

Alternatives

2023 1,158,661 1,157,457 1,148,192 1,204,533 1,135,718 1,109,463 

2033 1,088,405 1,084,740 1,060,190 1,167,359 1,038,702 996,579 

2043 1,087,233 1,073,531 1,092,273 1,132,252 1,031,440 999,145 

2053 1,098,004 1,066,839 1,119,160 1,113,947 1,034,886 1,001,017 

2063 1,097,475 1,066,998 1,105,220 1,117,910 1,032,910 1,001,331 

Table R-54. Stand establishment forest habitat development under the alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition 

2013 388,767 388,767 388,767 388,767 388,767 388,767 

Alternatives

2023 393,078 393,271 392,762 392,609 392,885 393,698 

2033 261,528 259,790 261,142 260,643 261,162 263,693 

2043 193,516 189,545 142,827 236,987 169,905 144,688 

2053 169,130 158,823 77,038 243,421 118,027 75,210 

2063 139,442 107,771 24,419 170,143 64,048 22,334 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1449 | Page

Table R-55. Stand establishment forest habitat development under the alternatives in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 2,473,304 2,473,304 2,473,304 2,473,304 2,473,304 2,473,304 

Alternatives

2023 2,477,615 2,477,808 2,477,299 2,477,146 2,477,422 2,478,235 

2033 2,277,548 2,275,810 2,277,162 2,276,663 2,277,182 2,279,713 

2043 2,130,000 2,126,029 2,079,311 2,173,471 2,106,389 2,081,173 

2053 2,105,614 2,095,307 2,013,522 2,179,905 2,054,511 2,011,695 

2063 2,075,926 2,044,255 1,960,903 2,106,627 2,000,532 1,958,819 

Table R-56. Young forest habitat development under the alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition 

2013 622,916 622,916 622,916 622,916 622,916 622,916 

Alternatives 

2023 593,429 559,361 582,353 559,043 565,137 563,863 

2033 621,154 553,647 588,635 563,582 560,568 550,334 

2043 542,593 475,991 516,096 502,575 478,273 464,112 

2053 410,984 347,098 395,704 369,961 347,204 331,876 

2063 361,710 335,731 367,900 393,286 324,719 294,265 

Table R-57. Young forest habitat development under the alternatives in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 9,807,038 9,807,038 9,807,038 9,807,038 9,807,038 9,807,038 

Alternatives 

2023 9,777,551 9,743,483 9,766,475 9,743,165 9,749,259 9,747,986 

2033 9,953,329 9,885,822 9,920,810 9,895,757 9,892,743 9,882,509 

2043 9,954,304 9,887,702 9,927,807 9,914,286 9,889,984 9,875,822 

2053 9,822,695 9,758,809 9,807,415 9,781,672 9,758,915 9,743,586 

2063 8,295,651 8,269,672 8,301,841 8,327,227 8,258,660 8,228,205 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1450 | Page

Table R-58. Mature forest habitat development under the alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition 

2013 515,324 515,324 515,324 515,324 515,324 515,324 

Alternatives 

2023 530,495 535,495 528,263 510,523 555,899 570,286 

2033 604,423 623,388 617,535 566,186 659,078 692,423 

2043 748,405 753,999 746,035 671,321 807,110 864,305 

2053 862,653 876,970 864,974 781,688 941,998 1,015,653 

2063 907,043 889,737 916,491 792,794 968,826 1,045,993 

Table R-59. Mature forest habitat development under the alternatives in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 2,431,709 2,431,709 2,431,709 2,431,709 2,431,709 2,431,709 

Alternatives 

2023 2,446,880 2,451,880 2,444,648 2,426,908 2,472,284 2,486,671 

2033 2,520,808 2,539,773 2,533,920 2,482,571 2,575,463 2,608,808 

2043 2,664,790 2,670,384 2,662,420 2,587,706 2,723,495 2,780,690 

2053 2,062,366 2,076,683 2,064,687 1,981,401 2,141,711 2,215,365 

2063 3,584,526 3,567,220 3,593,974 3,470,277 3,646,309 3,723,475 

Table R-60. Structurally-complex forest habitat development under the alternatives in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition 

2013 588,435 588,435 588,435 588,435 588,435 588,435 

Alternatives 

2023 552,481 582,560 576,573 561,435 578,505 591,365 

2033 573,098 627,043 621,105 590,837 629,097 646,110 

2043 576,860 655,541 651,378 605,473 661,880 676,889 

2053 607,836 698,878 691,732 639,592 706,493 725,384 

2063 642,938 748,371 734,577 674,474 758,105 785,217 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl 

1451 | Page

Table R-61. Structurally-complex forest habitat development under the alternatives in the planning area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 1,578,370 1,578,370 1,578,370 1,578,370 1,578,370 1,578,370 

Alternatives 

2023 1,542,416 1,572,495 1,566,508 1,551,370 1,568,440 1,581,271 

2033 1,563,033 1,616,978 1,611,040 1,580,772 1,619,032 1,636,016 

2043 1,566,795 1,645,476 1,641,313 1,595,408 1,651,815 1,666,795 

2053 2,314,443 2,405,485 2,398,339 2,346,199 2,413,100 2,431,962 

2063 2,349,545 2,454,978 2,441,184 2,381,081 2,464,712 2,491,796 

Table R-62. Early-successional, stand establishment, and young stands with structural legacies (1.1, 2.1, 

3.1, 3.3) in the decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition 

2013 223,475 223,475 223,475 223,475 223,475 223,475 

Alternatives 

2023 284,566 225,728 268,316 223,556 253,306 228,516 

2033 301,306 199,160 267,575 196,131 244,514 204,698 

2043 320,868 174,503 277,134 176,150 242,589 175,062 

2053 344,989 149,389 278,851 149,441 235,643 151,473 

2063 367,349 123,248 265,647 124,348 226,262 128,372 

Table R-63. Mature and structurally-complex stands with structural legacies (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3) in the 

decision area. 

Year No Action 

(Acres) 

Alt. A 

(Acres) 

Alt. B 

(Acres) 

Alt. C 

(Acres) 

Alt. D 

(Acres) 

No Timber 

Harvest (Acres) 

Current Condition

2013 862,411 862,411 862,411 862,411 862,411 862,411 

Alternatives 

2023 822,156 850,413 840,454 824,563 859,206 871,438 

2033 808,459 858,389 859,842 806,909 882,385 893,801 

2043 884,185 952,884 962,440 879,988 993,084 1,011,663 

2053 923,935 1,005,188 1,026,964 926,363 1,070,004 1,074,271 

2063 961,980 1,058,410 1,087,349 962,201 1,141,298 1,136,633 

 
Appendix R – Other Wildlife – Not Northern Spotted Owl

1452 | Page

References 

Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping and Analysis (LEMMA). 2014. GNN Structure (species-size) maps. 

http://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/structure-maps. (Accessed 08/05/2014). 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. BLM Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php. 

Altman, B., and J. D. Alexander. 2012. Habitat conservation for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and 

Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 

http://www.orwapif.org/sites/default/files/Western_Conifer_Plan_new.pdf. 

Altman, B. 2000a. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. 

Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 169 pp. http://www.orwapif.org/sites/default/files/western_lowlands.pdf. 

Altman, B. 2000b. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. 

Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight, Corvallis, OR. 131 pp. 

http://www.orwapif.org/sites/default/files/east_slope.pdf. 

 

Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1454 | Page

x The USFS used LandTrendr to examine changes in forest stand conditions during 1996 – 2006 

from timber harvest, insects and disease, and wildfire (Davis et al. 2011, p. 28, 29, 121-125). 

Before the BLM northern spotted owl modeling process began, the BLM decided—for its planning 

process—to use Woodstock to forecast changes in forest stand growth and timber yield variables on its 

administered lands in the planning area (see the Vegetation Modeling Section in Chapter 3). Therefore, 

for the northern spotted owl modeling, the BLM created relative habitat suitability surfaces for its 

administered lands in the planning area, that changed each decade for five decades (see Chapter 3, 

Northern Spotted Owl), using Woodstock variable outputs. In addition, to generate credible range-wide 

simulations of northern spotted owl demographic responses to the BLM alternatives using HexSim, the 

BLM: 

x Created relative habitat suitability surfaces for all “other lands” (i.e., lands other than BLMadministered lands in the planning area) within the northern spotted owl’s range so simulated 

northern spotted owls could move across planning area boundaries and respond to habitat 

conditions on all land ownerships inside and outside the planning area, and; 

x Forecasted changes to those surfaces from forest ingrowth, timber harvest and wildfire at the 

same decadal increments as its Woodstock model, something not done by either the USFS or 

USFWS. 

Thus, to simulate habitat conditions on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, the BLM could not 

use the USFS or USFWS relative habitat suitability surfaces because the BLM needed to vary the relative 

habitat suitability surfaces according to each of its alternatives and over time, using variables derived 

from Woodstock. 

To simulate habitat conditions on other lands within the northern spotted owl’s range, the BLM originally 

hoped to build upon the relative habitat suitability surfaces developed by the USFS because: 

x The similarity of scale between the BLM Woodstock variables and the USFS GNN variables 

potentially made it easier for the BLM to merge its relative habitat suitability surfaces for BLMadministered lands with those generated by the USFS for other lands; 

x Since Woodstock generates individual variable values, instead of compositional variable values, 

the BLM could more-directly compare its MaxEnt models to those created by the USFS, and; 

x Woodstock could generate the same variable values used by the USFS to create its relative habitat 

suitability surfaces, which potentially made the BLM and USFS surfaces more compatible. 

In addition, the BLM determined that unpublished USFS LandTrendr results could help it forecast habitat 

changes on other lands. 

Therefore, the BLM programmed Woodstock to generate the same variables used by the USFS GNN 

MaxEnt models (see Davis et al. 2011, p. 99) and, using those variables, planned to apply the USFS’s 

MaxEnt models to BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The BLM initially hoped that there 

would be sufficient compatibility between the relative habitat suitability surfaces generated from the 

Woodstock and GNN datasets so that the BLM could use the Woodstock variable outputs for BLMadministered lands in the planning area and the GNN variable outputs for all other lands. If the two sets of 

variable outputs were insufficiently compatible, the BLM could add a stand age variable to the 

Woodstock outputs to correlate the two relative habitat suitability surfaces. 

Unfortunately, as described below under Model 1, the BLM found that the USFS MaxEnt models would 

not work in this way. Subsequently, the BLM went through an iterative process to identify and account 

Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1456 | Page

because the BLM knew the general trajectory that would be seen if the model(s) worked reasonably well, 

even though it did not know the specific extent of that change. 

Here, the BLM describes its process to develop relative habitat suitability surfaces that met its three 

assessment criteria. Figure S-1 outlines the process. 

Figure S-1. Flowchart of the BLM MaxEnt modeling sequence. FWS refers to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; ME refers to MaxEnt; USFS refers to the U.S. Forest Service. 

Model 1

The BLM first conducted range-wide comparisons of the USFS (Davis et al. 2011) and USFWS (USDI 

FWS 2011, Appendix C) relative habitat suitability surfaces. The BLM overlaid the geographic range of 

the northern spotted owl with a grid of 86.6-ha hexagons—the grid used by the USFWS’s HexSim model 

(USDI FWS 2012, p. 24)—and compared the relative habitat suitability values of both sets of models in 

each hexagon. As shown in Figure S-2, the two sets of models produced dissimilar results; the USDI 

FWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models estimated more of the landscape to be in the lowest (relative habitat 

suitability values 0 to 10) and highest (values greater than 40) bins, whereas the USDA FS 2006 GNN 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1457 | Page

MaxEnt models estimated more of the landscape to be in the middle (values 11 to 40) bins. These results 

were not unexpected because, as described above, the USFS and USFWS calculated relative habitat 

suitability values at different scales. 

Figure S-2. Distribution of hexagons relative habitat suitability scores among various bins from 2006 

GNN MaxEnt models developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS 2011, Appendix C) 

and the U.S. Forest Service (Davis et al. 2011). 

The correlation between hexagon relative habitat suitability values for the two sets of models was 0.765. 

The BLM sought a stronger relationship as well as greater similarity in the distribution of relative habitat 

suitability scores. The BLM determined that the USFS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models failed assessment 

criterion 1. 

Model 2 

The Model 1 results suggested the influence of an artifact-of-scale; i.e., the correlation would have been 

stronger if the two sets of MaxEnt models had been calculated at the same scale. So, the BLM ran the 

comparison again at the 200-ha scale used by the USFWS because the GNN data in part were derived 

from satellite imagery, the spatial accuracy of which increases with scale. Stated another way, although 

the GNN variable data reasonably describe forest conditions on a landscape, they are less accurate at the 

30 × 30-m pixel-scale used by the USFS (see Ohman and Gregory 2002 and 

http://www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/projects/ohmann.html). Since the BLM intended to use its relative habitat 

suitability surfaces with the USFWS’s HexSim model, in which simulated northern spotted owls “select” 

habitat from a relative habitat suitability surface, and the scale at which northern spotted owls are known 

to strongly select habitat is the 200-ha (i.e., ~ 500 ac) core use area (see Chapter 3, Northern Spotted 

Owl), the BLM chose that scale. 

MaxEnt examines a variety of variables associated with known northern spotted owl nest locations and 

identifies those variables and combinations of variables, and the relative importance of each 

variable/combination, that best discriminate between occupied and available locations. The USFS (Davis 

et al. 2011) divided the northern spotted owl range into six modeling regions and used MaxEnt to identify 

44.0 

14.9 

12.5 11.1 

8.9 

5.8 

2.3 

0.5 0.0 

33.8 

25.0 

18.4 

14.1 

7.5 

1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 >81

Percentage of Hexagons 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

USDI FWS 2011 Davis et al. 2011
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1458 | Page

and weigh the best variables/combinations in each region, creating a unique MaxEnt model for each 

region. To alter the scale of the USFS relative habitat suitability surface, the BLM ran MaxEnt on the 

same modeling regions defined by the USFS, using the USFS 1996 GNN MaxEnt model for each region, 

but at the 200-ha scale. In other words, the BLM created a new set of MaxEnt models (Model 2) by 

running MaxEnt, with the region-specific models developed by the USFS, to calculate new relative 

habitat suitability values for each 30 × 30-m pixel based on the mean of the values of each variable within 

the 200-ha circle around each pixel. 

The correlation between the USFWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt model and the Model 2 estimated relative 

habitat suitability for hexagons was 0.770. To meet assessment criterion 1, the BLM sought a stronger 

relationship. 

Model 3 

Keeping in mind that the USFS (Davis et al. 2011) and the USFWS (USDI FWS 2011) developed their 

MaxEnt models for different purposes, the BLM addressed another difference between the two model 

sets. The USFS MaxEnt models used northern spotted owl nest and pair roost sites from the demographic 

study areas supplemented by a random subset of northern spotted owl pair sites from the 10-year 

monitoring report training data set (Davis and Lint 2005) that were outside of the study area boundaries 

and spaced no nearer to each other than the mean nearest neighbor distance for that modeling region (Ray 

Davis, USFS, personal communication via e-mail to Eric Greenquist, October 21, 2014). In contrast, the 

USFWS MaxEnt models considered a subset of all known sites (USDI FWS 2011, p. C-21). Because 

northern spotted owl known nest sites tend to occur at greater densities in better habitat, and in areas that 

received more survey, when MaxEnt considers all sites, it calculates formulas that can be biased by the 

similarity of the variables around proximal sites. To help control for this, the USFS and USFWS used 

different approaches to limit the number of known sites MaxEnt could consider (i.e., aware of biased 

datasets, the agencies took different steps to reduce the bias). For Model 3, and all subsequent models, the 

BLM used the same northern spotted owl locations used by the USFWS. 

The BLM also used the same MaxEnt feature sets used by the USFWS. Features, in MaxEnt, refer to the 

functional forms or shapes of relationships evaluated in MaxEnt. The BLM did this to determine if it 

could use variables used by the USFS (albeit, at the different scale) and that the BLM could estimate with 

Woodstock, while, at the same time, minimizing other differences between the USFS and the USFWS 

models so that the differences in the respective relative habitat suitability surfaces would not be a function 

of the differences in either training location or MaxEnt specifications (e.g., the features used). 

The correlation between the USFWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models and the Model 3 estimated relative 

habitat suitability for hexagons was 0.815, an improvement from previous models. Although the BLM 

determined that this correlation coefficient was sufficiently strong to meet assessment criterion 1, it 

sought a stronger relationship. 

Model 4 

Model 4 was identical to Model 3 except that the BLM returned to the MaxEnt features used by the USFS 

(Davis et al. 2011). The correlation between the USFWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models and the Model 4 

estimated relative habitat suitability for hexagons was 0.817, nearly identical to that of Model 3, 

indicating that models 3 and 4 were nearly identical in their predictive capabilities. 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1459 | Page

Model 5 

Model 5 was identical to Model 3 except that the BLM added the abiotic variables elevation, curvature, 

and relative slope position index (USDI FWS 2011, p. C-25 and Table C9). The correlation between the 

USFWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models and the Model 5 estimated relative habitat suitability for hexagons 

increased to 0.871. The BLM determined that this correlation coefficient met criterion 1, but it evaluated 

whether a stronger relationship was possible. 

Model 6 

Model 6 was identical to Model 5 except that the BLM redeveloped the variable rasters to match the 

methods used by the USFWS (USDI FWS 2011, p. C-60). The BLM generated GNN variable rasters 

using buffered USFS modeling regions to eliminate edge effect. Because variable values reflect the mean 

of all values within a 200-ha circle, the MaxEnt model for a modeling region can be influenced by the 

lack of data beyond the regional boundary (i.e., up to 800 m beyond the boundary, the area potentially 

within the radius of a 200-ha circle). Buffering the modeling region caused MaxEnt to clip data at the 

regional boundary and calculate mean values from only variable values within the region. 

The correlation between the USFWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models and the Model 6 estimated relative 

habitat suitability for hexagons was 0.873. The BLM evaluated whether a stronger relationship was 

possible. 

Model 7 

Model 7 was identical to Model 6 except that the BLM masked those portions of western Oregon, such as 

the Willamette Valley and Puget Lowlands that, due to limited habitat, support few, if any, northern 

spotted owls. This forced MaxEnt to consider more subtle associations between northern spotted owl sites 

and the habitat variables associated with those sites. In the BLM MaxEnt analyses, masked areas became 

unavailable to be included in the random subset of available locations to which MaxEnt compared 

locations occupied by northern spotted owls. Masking these areas resulted in MaxEnt formulas based on 

forests in which northern spotted owls occurred compared to other, available, forested areas rather than to 

the broader array of habitat types, some of which were unoccupied by northern spotted owls. This 

eliminated major areas of non-potential habitat from the models. 

The correlation between the USFWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models and the Model 7 estimated relative 

habitat suitability for hexagons was 0.875. 

Through the development of Model 7, the BLM had worked to refine the compatibility of the BLM 

regional MaxEnt models with those used by the USFWS in its HexSim model. As stated earlier, the BLM 

saw the opportunity to use the unpublished USFS (Davis et al. 2011) LandTrendr data to help it forecast 

changes in relative habitat suitability values on other lands within the northern spotted owl range (lands 

other than BLM-administered lands in the planning area), and the BLM saw the opportunity to use the 

USFWS’s HexSim model to forecast northern spotted owl population responses. With a 0.875 correlation 

between the Model 7 relative habitat suitability surfaces and those developed by the USFWS (both of 

which used 2006 GNN data), the BLM was confident of its reconciliation. 

Model 8 

Beginning with Model 8, the BLM replaced the 2006 GNN variable values for BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area with those produced by Woodstock for 2013. Because the BLM, at this stage, was 

developing relative habitat suitability surfaces for its administered lands within the planning area, the 

BLM also begin limiting this, and subsequent models, to the three western Oregon modeling regions 

Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1461 | Page

derived from Woodstock. Thus, the BLM began evaluating how the 2006 GNN- and 2013 Woodstockderived variables co-varied. 

Figure S-3 shows scatterplots of the relationship between each pair of the biotic variables from 2006 

GNN data (left) and 2013 Woodstock data (right) for BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The 

BLM did not evaluate abiotic variables because the sources of those variables are the same for both 

models. For the initial comparisons, the BLM evaluated 2006 GNN data (the most recent dataset available 

at the time) and Woodstock’s estimates for 2013 conditions on BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area. It is important to note that the GNN and Woodstock datasets were derived through substantively 

different processes, so the BLM anticipated substantive, albeit undefined, differences between the two 

datasets. 

Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1463 | Page

The comparisons revealed very different relationships between: stand age (AGE in Figure S-3) and 

canopy cover of all conifers (CCC), stand age and stand height (STNDHT), stand age and the number of 

large conifer trees per hectare (TPHC), canopy cover of all conifers and stand height, canopy cover of all 

conifers and stand diameter diversity index (DDI), canopy cover of all conifers and quadratic mean trunk 

diameter of conifers (QMDC), and canopy cover of all conifers and the number large conifer trees per 

hectare. Most disconcerting were the differences in the relationships of conifer canopy cover to stand 

height, diameter diversity index, mean conifer trunk diameter, and the number of large conifer trees per 

hectare. In all cases, Woodstock estimated that, as canopy cover increased beyond approximately 70 

percent, each of these variables would decrease. In contrast, GNN represented these same relationships as 

increasing in all cases, though the rate of increase varied from slight (number of large conifer trees per 

hectare) to rapid (stand height and stand diameter diversity index). 

In accordance with assessment criterion 2 the BLM also compared the models in terms of decadal 

progressions of relative habitat suitability. To this point, the correlations the BLM had calculated were 

between the USFWS’s 2006 GNN MaxEnt models and the BLM 2006 GNN MaxEnt models at both 

modeling region and range-wide scales. For the BLM Woodstock models, the focus of the evaluation was 

the temporal trend in relative habitat suitability and habitat distributions. Given that the first projection of 

habitat change in the BLM’s Woodstock model was the No Timber Harvest scenario, the BLM expected 

that the percentage of BLM-administered land with low relative habitat suitability would decrease while 

the percentage in intermediate and higher relative habitat suitability would increase. The BLM based this 

expectation on its knowledge that northern spotted owls preferentially select areas with larger trees and 

more structural complexity and, as trees get older, they get larger and such forests acquire more structural 

diversity. The BLM did not have a specific expectation on the exact quantity or percentage of BLMadministered land in lower, intermediate, and high relative habitat suitability bins, only of the trends over 

time in each of those bins. The BLM’s evaluations were meant to check on the trends. 

However, as shown in Figure S-4, although the temporal trends in relative habitat suitability showed a 

reduction over time in the percentage of the landscape in the lowest relative habitat suitability categories 

and an increase in the highest relative habitat suitability category, the trend in the intermediate categories 

(40-50, 50-60, 60-70) were in the opposite direction than what was expected, particularity in the Oregon 

and California Cascades Modeling Region (Figure S-4 B). 

 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1464 | Page

Figure S-4. No Timber Harvest: distribution of relative habitat suitability by decade for Model 8, on 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area (A and C), and on BLM-administered lands in the Oregon 

and California Cascades Modeling Region (B). Histograms A and B show the portion of BLMadministered lands in each relative habitat suitability bin at the start of each of six decades. Histogram C 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Landscape 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 8 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Proportion of Landscape 

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 8 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

Oregon and California Cascades Modeling Region 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

1. Strongly Selected

Against

2. Selected Against 3. Selected For 4. Strongly Selected

For

Proportion 

Habitat Class 

Model 8 - Habitat Distribution, BLM Lands, 4 Classes 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

A 

B 

C 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1465 | Page

shows the portion of BLM-administered lands in each strength-of-selection bin at the start of each of six 

decades. 

In part, these trends in variable value with age and relative habitat suitability progression arose because 

the models generated from Woodstock variable data were not always indicative of how forests on BLMadministered lands develop. For example, an existing 140-year-old stand on BLM-administered land does 

not exhibit the structural characteristics that an existing 40-year-old stand would be expected to exhibit in 

one-hundred years. The 40-year old stand might have received commercial thinning and other 

silvicultural practices that would result in different stand metrics when it eventually becomes 140 years 

old. Timber harvests before 1960 tended to be more extensive and intensive than later harvests, and 

subsequent regeneration commonly occurred through natural seeding. In contrast, timber harvests after 

1960 more likely left legacy trees and riparian buffers, and the subsequent regeneration more commonly 

was the result of planting, fertilization, and thinning. Thus, younger stands on BLM-administered lands 

commonly exhibit some structural characteristics, such as canopy cover, that are greater than those of 

some older stands. 

This analysis revealed that the BLM could not simply use Model 8 with the Woodstock-derived variable 

values. For example, as shown in Figure S-3, in the BLM 2013 Woodstock MaxEnt model, stand height 

was very influential. In the 2006 GNN data, stand height increased nearly linearly with stand age (Figure 

S-3, left matrix, STNDHT/AGE). In contrast, according to the 2013 Woodstock data, stand height 

increased rapidly with increasing age for young stands, but then the rate of increase decreased 

dramatically (Figure S-3, right matrix, STNDHT_13/AGE_13). The effect of these many differences was 

that, when the BLM used the Model 8 MaxEnt formulas (which were derived from 1996 GNN data) with 

the 2013 Woodstock variable values, relative habitat suitability decreased as stands got older, or, at least, 

their rate of increase was less than represented by the GNN data. Therefore, the BLM had to further 

modify its MaxEnt model to better reconcile how the 2013 Woodstock and 2006 GNN variables covaried. 

The BLM dealt with the appreciably different forms of relationships between the 2006 GNN and 2013 

Woodstock variables by removing some of those variables, as described below. At this point, the BLM 

questioned whether it could meet model assessment criteria 2 and 3, especially given that age was an 

influential variable in the models. Additionally, similar to previous models, the BLM evaluated whether it 

could find stronger relationships between its newly-developed models and the model developed by the 

USDI FWS (2011). 

Model 9 

Model 9 was identical to Model 8 except that the BLM reduced the variable set of each modeling region 

based on its evaluation of differences in 2006 GNN and 2013 Woodstock variable distributions observed 

in the scatterplots and histograms generated by Model 8. The BLM removed those variables that strongly 

influenced a model’s predictions and co-varied with other variables substantially differently within the 

2006 GNN and 2013 Woodstock data. For the Oregon and California Klamath Region the BLM removed 

canopy cover of all conifers (CCC in Figure S-3) and the number of large conifer trees per hectare 

(TPHC); for the Oregon and California Cascades Region the BLM removed stand height (STNDHT) and 

the number of large conifer trees per hectare; and for the Oregon Coast Range Region the BLM removed 

stand height. Removing these variables allowed other variables to become more influential in the models. 

The reduced sets of variables produced what the BLM interpreted as a more reasonable distribution of 

changes in relative habitat suitability by decade, given the No Timber Harvest habitat change scenario. 

Figures S-5 and S-6 compare the results of Models 9 and 8; Model 9 demonstrated a more-expected 

distribution of relative habitat suitability by decade. 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1466 | Page

Figure S-5. No Timber Harvest: distributions of relative habitat suitability by decade for Model 8 and 

Model 9 on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The histograms show the portion of BLMadministered lands in each relative habitat suitability bin at the beginning of each of six decades. 

 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Landscape 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 8 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Landscape 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 9 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1467 | Page

Figure S-6. No Timber Harvest: distribution of relative habitat suitability by decade for Model 8 and 

Model 9, on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The histograms show the portion of BLMadministered lands in each strength-of-selection bin at the beginning of each of six decades. 

The correlation between the USFWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models and the Model 9 estimated relative 

habitat suitability for hexagons was 0.875, identical to that of Model 7. Nonetheless, the lack of the 

expected increase in the selected-for habitat class in Figure S-6 indicated the need for further refinement. 

The BLM still questioned whether it could meet model assessment criteria 2 and 3, given that age was an 

influential variable in the models. 

Model 10 

Model 10 was identical to Model 8 except that, for those modeling regions and for those variables that 

showed declines with age, the BLM created regression equations to predict each of those variables as a 

function of age. The regression equations that best fit the data always were logarithmic (threshold) 

relationships and had the effect of smoothing the associations. The BLM did this because these variables 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

1. Strongly Selected

Against

2. Selected Against 3. Selected For 4. Strongly Selected

For

Proportion 

Habitat Class 

Model 8 - Habitat Distribution, BLM Lands, 4 Classes 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

1. Strongly Selected

Against

2. Selected Against 3. Selected For 4. Strongly Selected

For

Proportion 

Habitat Class 

Model 9 - Habitat Distribution, BLM Lands, 4 Classes 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1468 | Page

appeared in the original 2006 GNN MaxEnt models, but, for the 2013 Woodstock representation of BLMadministered lands, they sometimes showed counter-intuitive relationships—such as mean tree diameter 

and stand height declining as stands aged—only to sometimes increase at older ages. In part, these 

relationships probably were an artifact of limited data; relatively few BLM inventory plots exist in forest 

stands with very old trees. The BLM developed these regression equations within each of the three 

western Oregon modeling regions. The BLM also removed canopy cover of all conifers from the set of 

modeling covariates because the distribution relative to age, even when regressed, was highly inconsistent 

with GNN canopy cover distributions. 

As shown in Figure S-7, when compared to Model 9, Model 10 generated a more-expected and logical 

trend in relative habitat suitability change over time. The correlation between the USFWS 2006 GNN 

MaxEnt models and the Model 10 estimated relative habitat suitability for hexagons again was 0.875. 

However, the BLM subsequently determined that Model 10 was not viable due to issues with the stand 

age variable. 

 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1469 | Page

Figure S-7. No Timber Harvest: distributions of relative habitat suitability by decade for Model 9 and 

Model 10 on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The histograms show the portion of BLMadministered lands in each relative habitat suitability bin at the beginning of each of six decades. 

Woodstock, when it forecasts the treatment of a stand, does not threat stand age consistently. Instead, 

when Woodstock forecasts a treatment, it retains the original stand age or resets the stand age to 0 

depending on the nature of the treatment (e.g., light thinning versus regeneration harvest). Thus, over 

time, forest stands of the same age value could have substantially different values for other variables. 

Since the BLM was creating relative habitat suitability surfaces for different decadal time steps, it could 

not rely on stand age as a variable. For this reason, Model 10 was not viable. 

Model 11 

Model 11 was identical to Model 8 (using non-regressed covariates) except that the BLM removed age as 

a variable for the reason described under Model 10. Instead, the BLM added the Woodstock “structural 

condition” variable because structural condition is a GNN-defined categorical variable that also can be 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Landscape 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 9 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Landscape 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 10 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1470 | Page

derived from Woodstock data. The GNN structural condition classes included: sparse, open, sapling/pole, 

small/medium tree, large tree, and large/giant tree. 

The correlation between the USFWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models and the Model 11 estimated relative 

habitat suitability for hexagons was 0.876, almost identical to that of Model 9. Nonetheless, as shown in 

Figure S-8, regarding model assessment criterion 2, the modified set of variables resulted in relative 

habitat suitability progressions that the BLM interpreted as less-logical than expected. 

Figure S-8. No Timber Harvest: distributions of relative habitat suitability by decade for Model 8 and 

Model 11 on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The histograms show the portion of BLMadministered lands in each relative habitat suitability bin at the beginning of each of six decades. 

Model 12 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Landscape 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 8 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Landscape 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 11 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1471 | Page

Model 12 was a combination of the refinements implemented in models 9 and 11. The BLM used the 

same reduced set of variables used in Model 9, and removed age (because of the age-related issues 

described under Model 10) and added structural condition as it had in Model 11. 

Figures S-9 and S-10 compare the decadal relative habitat suitability progressions under Models 9 and 

12. Although Model 9 had generated the best previous distribution, it also included stand age as a 

variable, which Woodstock did not treat in a consistent manner. Model 12 was the best set of revised 

variables the BLM was able to develop. The Model 12 relative habitat suitability progressions were very 

similar to those for Model 9 in terms of showing the expected progression of relative habitat suitability by 

decade, but also showed slightly lower relative habitat suitability values overall (as seen in the higher 

suitability bins). 

Figure S-9. No Timber Harvest: distributions of relative habitat suitability by decade for Model 9 and 

Model 12 on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The histograms show the portion of BLMadministered lands in each relative habitat suitability bin at the beginning of each of six decades. 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Landscape 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 9 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Landscape 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

Model 12 - 2013-2063 No Timber Harvest, 10% Bins 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1472 | Page

Figure S-10. No Timber Harvest: distribution of relative habitat suitability by decade for Model 9 and 

Model 12 on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The histograms show the portion of BLMadministered lands in each strength-of-selection bin at the beginning of each of six decades. 

The correlation between the USFWS 2006 GNN MaxEnt models and the Model 12 estimated relative 

habitat suitability for hexagons was 0.874. Based on this correlation coefficient and the progressions 

shown in Figures S-9 and S-10, the BLM determined that Model 12 fulfilled its three model assessment 

criteria. 

Model 13 

Model 13 became the final BLM model. It was identical to Model 12 except that the BLM used floating 

point values, rather than integer values, to conform GNN covariate values to Woodstock output precision; 

i.e., to better reconcile the data going into the 2006 GNN and 2013 Woodstock models. Floating point 

values include decimals; integers are whole numbers. 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

1. Strongly Selected

Against

2. Selected Against 3. Selected For 4. Strongly Selected

For

Proportion 

Habitat Class 

Model 9 - Habitat Distribution, BLM Lands, 4 Classes 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

1. Strongly Selected

Against

2. Selected Against 3. Selected For 4. Strongly Selected

For

Proportion 

Habitat Class 

Model 12 - Habitat Distribution, BLM Lands, 4 Classes 

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1474 | Page

The BLM evaluated relative habitat suitability distributions among eight relative habitat suitability bins 

(the largest bin being greater than 70 because so little of the landscape existed above that value). Thus, for 

the three modeling regions and eight bins there were 24 modeling region by bin comparisons for the two 

sets of models. As shown in Figure S-11, the largest absolute value of difference was 5 percentage points 

and the smallest difference was 0 percentage points. Of the 24 comparisons, the most frequent difference 

was an absolute value of 1 percentage point (nine times), followed by 5 percentage points and 4 

percentage points (four times each), 2 percentage points and 0 percentage points (three times each), and 3 

percentage points (one time). Thus, the two sets of models predicted similar amounts of the landscape (all 

lands within each modeling region or only BLM-administered lands within each modeling region) within 

each of the relative habitat suitability bins. 

 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1475 | Page

Figure S-11. Comparisons of the distribution of relative habitat suitability at the hexagon scale, on BLMadministered lands (left column), and all lands (right column), in the Oregon and California Klamaths, 

Oregon Coast Range and the Oregon and California Cascades modeling regions (described by Davis et al. 

2011). The USFWS relative habitat suitability surfaces are based on the Service’s 2012 GNN MaxEnt 

model. The BLM surfaces are based on the BLM 2013 Woodstock Model 13. 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 >70

Proportion of Hexagons 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

KLAMT RHS Distribution on BLM Lands 

USFWS BLM Model 13

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 >70

Proportion of Hexagons 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

KLAMT Region RHS Distribution on All Lands 

USFWS BLM Model 13

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 >70

Proportion of Hexagons 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

ORCOA RHS Distribution on BLM Lands 

USFWS BLM Model 13

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 >70

Proportion of Hexagons 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

ORCOA Region RHS Distribution on All Lands 

USFWS BLM Model 13

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 >70

Proportion of Hexagons 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

ORCAS RHS Distribution on BLM Lands 

USFWS BLM Model 13

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 >70

Proportion of Hexagons 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bins 

ORCAS Region RHS Distribution on All Lands 

USFWS BLM Model 13

Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1477 | Page

similar. Figure S-14 makes the same comparison of the test sites. The distributions are not as similar as 

for the training sites, which are expected because the models were trained on the training sites. 

Nonetheless, the two distributions in Figure S-14 follow similar trends. 

Figure S-13. Range-wide distribution of relative habitat suitability values among training northern 

spotted owl sites for the USFWS’s 1996 GNN MaxEnt model and BLM’s 1996 GNN Model 13. 

0.01 

0.04 

0.07 

0.11 

0.15 

0.22 0.23 

0.13 

0.04 

0.00 

0.01 

0.04 

0.07 

0.11 

0.17 

0.25 

0.26 

0.08 

0.01 0 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Nesting/Roosting Sites 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bin 

USFWS BLM

0.02 

0.03 

0.07 

0.11 

0.19 

0.21 

0.23 

0.12 

0.03 

0.00 

0.01 

0.04 

0.05 

0.09 

0.17 

0.25 

0.27 

0.12 

0.01 0

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Nesting/Roosting Sites 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bin 

USFWS test BLM test
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1478 | Page

Figure S-14. Range-wide distribution of relative habitat suitability values among test northern spotted 

owl sites for the USFWS’s 1996 GNN MaxEnt model and BLM’s 1996 GNN Model 13. 

The BLM made similar comparisons for BLM-administered lands in the planning area, this time using the 

USFWS 2012 GNN MaxEnt models and the BLM 2013 Woodstock Model 13. Figure S-15 shows the 

distributions for training sites on BLM-administered lands in the planning area; Figure 16 shows the 

distributions for test sites on the same lands. As expected, the distributions are less similar than the rangewide distributions shown in Figures S-13 and S-14 because of the smaller numbers of sites associated 

with BLM-administered lands in the planning area and because of substantive differences in the origins of 

the 2012 GNN and 2013 Woodstock data. Because the Woodstock variables were derived from forest 

stand exam and Current Vegetation Survey plot data (i.e., on-the-ground examination and measurement), 

the BLM is confident of the accuracy of the Woodstock variables for BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area. Nonetheless, Figures S-13 to S-16 suggest that Model 13, as used by the BLM, inflates 

relative habitat suitability values. As explained below, this almost certainly is an artifact of truncating 

Model 13 to BLM-administered lands. 

 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1479 | Page

Figure S-15. Distribution of relative habitat suitability values among training northern spotted owl sites 

on BLM-administered lands in the planning area for the USFWS’s 2012 GNN MaxEnt model and BLM’s 

2013 Woodstock Model 13. 

Figure S-16. Distribution of relative habitat suitability values among test northern spotted owl sites on 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area for the USFWS’s 2012 GNN MaxEnt model and BLM’s 

2013 Woodstock Model 13. 

0.02 

0.04 

0.10 

0.12 

0.19 

0.23 

0.18 

0.11 

0.02 

0.00 

0.01 

0.02 

0.05 

0.08 

0.17 

0.24 0.24 

0.17 

0.02 

0.00 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Nesting/Roosting Sites 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bin 

USFWS BLM

0.01 

0.05 

0.07 

0.14 

0.21 

0.17 

0.20 

0.12 

0.02 

0.01 0.01 0.01 

0.02 

0.11 

0.12 

0.17 

0.26 

0.24 

0.05 

0.00 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Proportion of Nesting/Roosting Sites 

Relative Habitat Suitability Bin 

USFWS test BLM test
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1480 | Page

As described above, MaxEnt calculates relative habitat suitability based on variable values within a 200-

ha circle. GNN data, used in the USFWS MaxEnt models, were available for all lands within the northern 

spotted owl’s range. However, the BLM developed Woodstock data only for BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area. The BLM uses Woodstock data because it is the most accurate data for BLMadministered lands. However, an artifact arises when the BLM applies Model 13 to BLM-administered 

lands that abut other lands (i.e., lands within 800 m of BLM-administered lands, the radius of a 200-ha 

circle). In this case, the BLM could use Model 13 to calculate relative habitat suitability values for 2013 

based on 2013 Woodstock data for BLM-administered lands and 2012 GNN data for other lands. 

However, the BLM cannot do this for subsequent decades because there are no reliable data on how 

individual GNN values vary and co-vary over time. As described below, the BLM simulated changes in 

relative habitat suitability values on other lands by developing a 2012 relative habitat suitability surface 

for each modeling region, and then changing relative habitat suitability values according to the calculated 

effects of ingrowth, wildfire, and timber harvest on those values at decadal increments. But the BLM 

could not do the same for the underlying GNN variable values used to calculate relative habitat 

suitability. Stated another way, Woodstock generates new variable values for BLM-administered lands at 

decadal increments. But, after 2012, there are no comparable GNN values available for other lands 

abutting BLM-administered lands. Thus, after 2013, Model 13 must calculate relative habitat suitability 

values for BLM-administered land using only Woodstock data. Since forest conditions on BLMadministered lands commonly support northern spotted owls better than those on adjacent lands, which 

frequently are industrial timber lands, the BLM method appears to inflate relative habitat suitability 

values on its-administered lands. 

This is not a weakness of Model 13. Instead, it is an artifact of data limitations for other lands within 800 

m of BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Although the BLM is exploring options to evaluate 

and, if necessary, adjust its modeling to mitigate any inflation before preparing its Final EIS, preliminary 

evaluation by the BLM indicates that the current relative habitat suitability surfaces are valid for the Draft 

EIS because the inflation appears to be minor and consistent among all alternatives and No Timber 

Harvest reference analyses. Thus, inflation would not prejudice the analytical results, and it would be less 

of a factor in areas of BLM-administered land that are blocked up or adjacent to USFS reserves or 

Congressional Withdrawals, which are more important to BLM contributions to the conservation needs of 

the northern spotted owl. 

Forecasting Change in Relative Habitat Suitability on Other 

Lands in Washington, Oregon and California 

The BLM forecasted changes in relative habitat suitability from ingrowth, wildfire, and timber harvests 

for all lands within the U.S.-portion of the northern spotted owl range. Modifications in forest structure 

and composition at decadal increments on BLM-administered lands in the planning area were 

incorporated in the Woodstock models and reflected in the BLM’s Model 13 relative habitat suitability 

surfaces. The BLM based its forecasted magnitudes of change on all other lands on differences between 

the USFWS’s 1996 and 2006 GNN-based relative habitat suitability surfaces. That is, BLM assumed that 

the decadal change in relative habitat suitability from 1996 to 2006 would be realized during subsequent 

decades. 

To estimate rates-of-change from forest ingrowth in decadal increments, the BLM calculated the mean 

difference between 1996 and 2006 for each integer relative habitat suitability value (i.e., the analysis 

determined the mean value in 2006 for all pixels with the same value in 1996). The BLM generated ratesof-change statistics separately for each physiographic province and, within each province, further 

stratified by congressionally withdrawn lands (e.g., wilderness areas), federal reserved lands (e.g., Latesuccessional Reserves), federal non-reserved lands (e.g., general forest management areas), and non-
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1481 | Page

federal lands. The BLM excluded pixels from the analysis within Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity 

(http://www.mtbs.gov/) fire perimeters and unpublished USFS LandTrendr harvest patches (see Davis et 

al. 2011) to minimize the influence of other agents of change on the ingrowth rates. 

Initially, the BLM included only pixels showing positive or no change between 1996 and 2006 in the 

calculations. The BLM did this because negative change does not reflect forest ingrowth. The BLM used 

those derived rates-of-change to generate projected decadal relative habitat suitability surfaces for other 

lands, combined with the decadal Woodstock projections for BLM-administered lands. However, after 

examining the results, the BLM determined that the rate of ingrowth for forests in the drier portion of the 

northern spotted owl’s range (i.e., most of California, and the eastern Cascades of Washington and 

Oregon) appeared to exceed observed rates. After additional consideration and testing, the BLM truncated 

all negative changes to 0 and all positive changes to 10 because negative changes in relative habitat 

suitability were not indicative of ingrowth and, knowing how habitat develops, rates higher than 10 were 

unrealistic. Although relatively few values exceeded 10, they were sufficiently high to affect mean ratesof-change. The final results were sets of range-wide ingrowth forecasts for strata within each 

physiographic province150. 

The BLM used results from Davis et al. (2014) to forecast changes in relative habitat suitability values 

following wildfires. The BLM applied changes only for moderate and high severity fires by habitat class 

because Davis et al. (2014) determined that low severity fires have a negligible effect on northern spotted 

owl habitat. These findings are supported by Manley’s (2014) descriptions of the effects of fire on 

northern spotted owls. The BLM modeled the spatial locations, extents, and severity of future wildfires 

using the same predicted wildfire dataset included in the Woodstock models, which extends over the nonBLM portions of the northern spotted owl’s range (see Appendix D). 

Expanding on the methods described by Davis et al. (2011, pp. 28-30), the BLM used the unpublished 

USFS LandTrendr change detection data to develop range-wide forecasts of decadal rates of negative 

change in relative habitat suitability values following timber harvests. To create potential timber harvest 

patches on other lands, the BLM segmented the USFS 2006 GNN-based relative habitat suitability model 

using eCognition Developer 8 (Trimble Navigation Ltd., Westminster, CO). The BLM parameterized the 

software’s segmentation routine to iteratively group neighboring pixels with similar relative habitat 

suitability values into discrete patches until the mean patch size ± 1 SD within each physiographic 

province and strata most closely approximated those observed in the LandTrendr dataset between 1996 

and 2006 (Tables S-2 and S-3). Segmenting the USFS 2006 GNN-based surface resulted in more realistic 

representations of harvest treatment patch shapes and dimensions than those created using the smoother, 

200-ha-scale USFWS relative habitat suitability surfaces. 

 

150 The BLM is testing methods to refine its forecasts. Because the USFS LandTrendr analysis was based on a 200-

ha scale relative habitat suitability surface—i.e., relative habitat suitability values are based on the means of variable 

values within 800 m of each pixel, the radius of a 200-ha circle—any negative change in burn and timber harvest 

areas would affect the relative habitat suitability values within 800 m, and not just within the treatment or burn area. 

The BLM tested masking areas within 800 m of burn and treatment areas, and recalculating relative habitat 

suitability change, and found that this eliminated much of the negative change the BLM had detected outside burn 

and harvest areas. However, the degree of change did not cause the BLM to replace its analyses for the Draft EIS. 

The BLM will test additional methods to refine its relative habitat suitability surfaces during its preparation of the 

Final EIS. 


Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1484 | Page

Table S-3. Changes, calculated from data developed by Davis et al. (2011), in relative habitat suitability 

values from timber harvests occurring in northern spotted owl habitat between 1996 and 2006 by 

physiographic province and Northwest Forest Plan land-use allocation. 

Physiographic 

Province

Federal Reserved Lands† Federal Non-Reserved 

Lands†† Non-Federal Lands 

Selected 

Against 

Selected 

For 

Strongly 

Selected 

For 

Selected 

Against 

Selected 

For 

Strongly 

Selected 

For 

Selected 

Against 

Selected 

For 

Strongly 

Selected 

For 

Washington

Eastern Cascades -2 -2 - -2 -4 -2 -3 -6 -10 

Olympic Peninsula 4 3 - 5 -8 4 -7 -12 -13 

Western Cascades 4 2 4 3 -1 -1 -9 -15 -19 

Western Lowlands - - - - - - -7 -12 -16 

Oregon

Coast Range 2 -2 - -3 1 1 -5 -10 -13 

Eastern Cascades 1 1 -4 - -1 -2 -3 -7 -16 

Klamath -1 1 -10 - -1 - -3 -5 -4 

Western Cascades - -2 -5 1 - -1 -7 -9 -6 

Willamette Valley - - - - - - -6 -7 -27 

California

Cascades 4 -6 -4 -5 -13 -13 -3 -7 -13 

Coast Range -2 -3 - -2 - - 1 1 -1 

Klamath 0 1 -1 -1 - 1 -1 -1 -3 

† Congressionally reserved and BLM-administered lands in the planning area not included

†† BLM-administered lands in the planning area not included 

Starting with the 2012 relative habitat suitability surface (i.e., the surface the BLM created using 2012 

GNN data with the USFWS 1996 GNN MaxEnt models), the BLM forecasted changes on other lands 

from ingrowth, wildfire, and timber treatments before advancing in decadal increments for five decades 

(2013-2063). Modeling each decade in sequence was necessary because estimating change in future 

decadal intervals depended on adjusted values from the previous decade. 

At the beginning of each decade, the BLM applied the rates-of-change in relative habitat suitability value 

from ingrowth and categorized the results into the four habitat suitability classes using the previously 

derived strength-of-selection class breaks: strongly-selected-against, selected-against, selected-for, and 

strongly-selected-for. Next, the BLM adjusted pixel values within the wildfire perimeters predicted to 

occur within the decade depending on the fire severity and corresponding relative habitat suitability class. 

The BLM categorized the resulting continuous surface into habitat classes a second time before adding 

the effects of timber harvests. Finally, the BLM calculated the median habitat class within each candidate 

harvest treatment patch (i.e., the results of the image segmentations described above), and randomly 

selected treatment patches in each province and strata until the area harvested approached, but did not 

exceed, the total decadal treatment area calculated from the LandTrendr data. The BLM then repeated the 

process for the next and subsequent decades. 

The BLM applied four selection criteria when selecting timber harvest patches. 

x All modeled harvest patches had to exceed 10 acres in size because the BLM anticipated smaller 

timber harvests would be commercially inviable. 

x The BLM did not allow the selection of patches that were more than 500 m from a road because 

of anticipated limitations to commercial access. 

x Patches classified as “strongly-selected-against” were not considered because such stands 

generally would be too young for commercial timber harvest. 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1485 | Page

x The BLM did not allow a patch to be selected for treatment twice during the 50-year forecast 

period. Once selected, the rates of change from harvest were applied to the relative habitat 

suitability values within each patch. After harvesting a patch, ingrowth within modeled harvests 

was allowed to progress, uninterrupted for the remainder of the planning horizon. 

The BLM applied changes in relative habitat suitability to all lands before updating the pixel values on 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area with the results from Model 13 for the same decade. 

The BLM created only one set of decadal relative habitat suitability surfaces for non-BLM lands across 

the northern spotted owl’s range. The BLM used this single set of surfaces for all evaluations of the 

alternatives and the No Timber Harvest reference analyses (i.e., only the relative habitat surfaces for 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area changed by alternative). The BLM used this final set of 

relative habitat suitability surfaces, one for each decade between 2013 and 2063, for the HexSim 

population dynamics models. 

Developing and Calibrating the BLM HexSim Model 

As described above, the BLM determined that the HexSim model developed by the USFWS to inform its 

decisions on northern spotted owl recovery and critical habitat (USDI FWS 2011, Appendix C; and USDI 

FWS 2012), with specific changes, could help the BLM meet its planning needs. Therefore, the BLM 

took the Service’s northern spotted owl HexSim model, fully parameterized, and modified it as necessary. 

The BLM made the following changes: 

x As described above, the BLM developed different range-wide relative habitat suitability surfaces that 

reflected spatially-explicit estimates of how forest stands would respond over time to forest ingrowth, 

timber harvest and wildfire on all lands, and also to forest restoration treatments on BLMadministered lands in the planning area. 

x Although the BLM altered relative habitat suitability values by decade on all lands, as described 

above, the BLM did not otherwise augment or suppress those values. In effect, unlike some USFWS 

simulations that limited northern spotted owl nesting to potential critical habitat units, the BLM 

always allowed simulated northern spotted owls to move, forage and establish nest territories on all 

lands according to local relative habitat suitability values. 

x Because the BLM required both stochastic and non-stochastic simulations of northern spotted owl 

response for the reasons described in Chapter 3 (Northern Spotted Owl, Issue 4), the BLM completed 

500 replicate simulations of each alternative. In contrast, after its Phase 1 modeling, the USFWS used 

only stochastic simulations, with 100 replicates per alternative (USDI FWS 2012, p. 29). 

x Although the BLM calibrated the BLM model using the same method used by the USFWS (USDI 

FWS 2011, pp. C-71 – C-74), the BLM calibration, described below, yielded unique numbers and 

locations of female northern spotted owls to begin each of the replicate simulations. 

x The BLM used observed barred owl encounter rates (Forsman et al. 2011, Appendix B; and USDI 

FWS 2011, p. C-66 and Table C-25) for reasons described in Chapter 3 (Northern Spotted Owl Issue 

4). 

x Also for reasons described in Chapter 3 (Northern Spotted Owl Issue 4), the BLM simulated 50 years 

(2013-2063) with relative habitat suitability values changing every 10 years according to the BLM 

forecasts, and then held habitat values constant for an additional 50 years. 

The northern spotted owl HexSim model developed by the USFWS (see USDI FWS 2011 and Schumaker 

et al. 2014) is an individual-based, spatially-explicit, population simulation model. The Service 

parameterized the model based on empirically-derived estimates of age-specific survival, fecundity, 

territory and home-range size, and dispersal (USDI FWS 2011 and Schumaker et al. 2014). The Service 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1486 | Page

used its relative habitat suitability surface in HexSim to represent resource quality (higher values were of 

greater quality than lower values). Each of the eleven modeling regions (USDI FWS 2011, p. C-13) had 

different resource targets for northern spotted owls, and resource targets varied in relation to home range 

size (larger targets in areas with larger home ranges). For home range size variation, many empirical 

studies existed and the Service used them to guide its decisions in the development of HexSim (USDI 

FWS 2011, Appendix C and Schumaker et al. 2014). However, other than variation in home range size, 

no empirical information existed to guide specific decisions on resource targets. Because resource 

targets—as represented by relative habitat suitability—are not real, on-the-ground, quantities, they can 

have no empirical basis; they only can be associated with on-the-ground resources. Thus, the authors of 

the Service’s northern spotted owl HexSim models varied resource targets until resulting simulated 

population sizes were similar to empirically-estimated populations of northern spotted owls (USDI FWS 

2011, Appendix C and Schumaker et al. 2014). This model calibration happened by “tuning” (i.e., 

varying) resource targets by modeling region. The Service (USDI FWS 2011, Appendix C) also calibrated 

its HexSim model for dispersal such that simulated northern spotted owls that dispersed did so in a way 

that resulted in similar dispersal distance profiles to those estimated from empirical studies. For this 

portion of the calibration, the Service tuned the model by varying the attraction/repulsion of various 

habitats (relative habitat suitability values) as well as the maximum number of 86.6-ha hexagons a 

dispersing owl could move through while attempting to find a territory (see USDI FWS 2011 and 

Schumaker et al. 2014). 

The BLM initially intended to use the 2012 GNN version of Model 13 for other lands within the northern 

spotted owl’s range. However, as the BLM evaluated how Model 13 would be use for HexSim population 

dynamics modeling, it evaluated a range of factors that, instead, suggested using the USFWS MaxEnt 

model projected to newly-available 2012 GNN variables for other lands: 

x The USFWS HexSim model had been developed to work with and calibrated to the USFWS 2006 

GNN MaxEnt relative habitat suitability model, and had been demonstrated to be well-calibrated 

to those data (USDI FWS 2011, Appendix C). 

x The BLM’s 2006 GNN version of Model 13 demonstrated a high degree of correlation to the 

Service’s 2006 GNN model (correlation coefficient of 0.867). 

x BLM-administered lands in the planning area account for about 4 percent of lands in the northern 

spotted owl’s range. As such, relative habitat suitability values on BLM-administered lands 

would likely have a proportionally small effect on overall population response. 

x The USFWS initially calibrated its HexSim model by adjusting model parameters (i.e., resource 

targets) separately for each of its eleven modeling regions. BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area are constrained to four of those regions. This meant that, by using the Service’s 

2006 GNN MaxEnt relative habitat suitability surface, five of the eleven modeling regions would 

require no recalibration at all. And, because of the high degree of correlation between the 

Service’s model and Model 13, the other modeling regions probably would require only minor 

recalibration. 

Given these conditions, BLM determined that using the USFWS’s 2012 GNN model for other lands was 

reasonable and would require less calibration and re-development of HexSim than would be required 

using the BLM 2012 GNN Model 13 relative habitat suitability surfaces for those lands. 

The USFS released its 2012 GNN data at about the same time the BLM reached this phase in the project; 

up to this point, the latest release of these data was for 2006. To create the new 2012 version of the 

USFWS MaxEnt model, the BLM generated a full set of model variable surfaces from the 2012 GNN 

data, using the same GNN attributes and methods used by USFWS to generate the original 1996 and 2006 

covariate rasters (USDI FWS 2011, Appendix C). The BLM then projected the original USFWS 1996 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1487 | Page

MaxEnt model to the 2012 covariate rasters separately for each of the eleven USFWS modeling regions, 

and merged them into a single, seamless range-wide relative habitat suitability surface. 

To derive the relative habitat suitability surface needed to calibrate HexSim, the BLM then replaced the 

pixels in the USFWS 2012 GNN model for BLM-administered lands in the planning area with data from 

the final BLM 2013 Woodstock Model 13 raster. 

Because the BLM created new MaxEnt surfaces for its-administered lands in the planning area, before 

running population simulations it sought to evaluate whether the “default settings” of HexSim, as used by 

USFWS, would work well for the BLM, or whether further calibration (fine tuning) were needed. In their 

calibration/tuning of the spotted owl HexSim model, the Service (USDI FWS 2011, Appendix C) found 

that time-step 50 represented a reasonable approximation of the present (at the time the Service did its 

work). The only differences between the data feeding into the northern spotted owl HexSim models 

between the Service and this effort by the BLM are that: 

x The USFWS and the BLM used different MaxEnt relative habitat suitability surfaces for BLMadministered lands in the planning area, and; 

x For BLM-administered lands in the planning area the relative habitat suitability surface was 

estimated for 2013, and for other lands the BLM projected the USFWS 1996 GNN MaxEnt 

models using GNN data from 2012 (as opposed to 2006, as used by the Service). 

Thus, this new “base” relative habitat suitability surfaces used by the BLM used the identical MaxEnt 

models for all lands except BLM-administered lands in the planning area and, for those lands, the BLM 

developed a new MaxEnt model (Model 13). Since the correlation between the relative habitat suitability 

surfaces developed by the USFWS and Model 13 was so high, the BLM anticipated that its HexSim 

model would require minor, or no, recalibration. 

The BLM began recalibration by using the USFWS default HexSim settings, and evaluated population 

estimates for the same eight demographic study areas for which the Service had data (USDI FWS 2011, 

pp. C-71 – C-75). The BLM ran 20 replicates of HexSim (without environmental stochasticity; see 

Northern Spotted Owl Chapter 3) for 70 time-steps. Replicates refer to the number of distinct simulations 

that are run. Because HexSim is not a deterministic model, several replicates are needed to get an estimate 

of mean responses (different replicates will almost always vary in their specific population responses). 

The BLM chose 70 time-steps because it initially wanted to evaluate whether, using default settings, 

simulated demographic study area population sizes were more/less similar to empirically-estimated 

populations before, during, or after time-step 50, the time-step that USFWS (USDI FWS 2011, pp. C-71 –

C-75) found to be a good approximation of “now.” The BLM used the mean population among the 20 

replicates to estimate simulated population size. For the eight demographic study areas, the BLM used the 

mean of the three years with the largest population to estimate population size (see USDI FWS 2011, pp. 

C-71 – C-75). 

Using default parameters in the northern spotted owl HexSim model, the BLM found that mean 

population size of territorial owls on the eight demographic study areas at time-step 59 corresponded most 

closely with the empirical population estimates. For the demographic study areas, empirical estimates of 

populations ranged from 30 to 130, with the total population on the eight study areas being 756. At timestep 59, mean simulated estimates of populations ranged from 32 to 145, with a total population of 763. 

The pairwise percent differences between empirical and simulated populations on each of the study areas 

varied from 0.54 percent to 41.75 percent, with a mean percentage difference of 4.7 percent. Time-step 55 

had the smallest mean percent difference (-2.3 percent) but the estimate of total population size on the 

eight study areas was 6 percent higher than the empirical estimates. In contrast, the time-step 59 estimated 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1488 | Page

total population size on the eight study areas was 0.95 percent larger than the empirical estimate. Figure 

S-17 compares empirical and time-step 59 population estimates in each of the study areas. 

Figure S-17. Comparison of the mean of estimates of territorial northern spotted owls on eight 

demographic study areas estimated in the field (empirical estimates, n = mean of three highest years 

between 1996 and 2006) and estimated using the BLM northern spotted owl HexSim model (mean from 

20 replicates of HexSim at time-step 59). 

Because the default parameters worked well, the BLM did not further attempt to fine-tune any parameter 

settings and used the default settings. The only difference between the USFWS’s (2011) and BLM’s 

current use of the spotted owl HexSim model is that the e Service used time-step 50 to represent the 

current year and the BLM used time-step 59. 

References 

Davis, R. J., K. M. Dugger, S. Mohoric, L. Evers, and W. C. Aney. 2011. Status and trends of northern 

spotted owl populations and habitats. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-850. USDA FS, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 147 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr850.pdf.

Davis, R., L. Evers, Y. Gallimore, and C. Belongie. 2014. Modeling large stochastic wildfires and fire 

severity within the northern spotted owl’s range to support the western Oregon plan revision 

modeling effort. Unpublished manuscript. 8 pp. 

Manley, P. 2014. Declaration of Patricia Manley in support of federal defendants’ opposition to plaintiffs’ 

motion for preliminary injunction, dated October 1. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

California, Sacramento Division. 12 pp. 

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 

43 

120 

130 

30 

121 122 

111 

78 

32 

135 

141 

18 

122 

88 

145 

82

0

40

80

120

160

Cle Elum Coast

Ranges

HJ

Andrews

Hoopa Klamath Olympic South

Cascades

Tyee

Group Members 

Demographic Study Area 

Empirical Estimate HexSim Estimate
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1489 | Page

Forest Research 32(4): 725-741. 

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/clams/download/pubs/CJFR_ohmann_gregory.pdf. 

Phillips, S. J., R. P. Anderson, and R. E. Schapire. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species 

geographic distributions. Ecological Modeling 190: 231-259. 

http://web.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~anderson/publications/PhillipsAndersonSchapire2006EcologicalModel

ling.pdf. 

Schumaker, N. H. 2011. HexSim (version 2.3). U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, 

OR. http://www.epa.gov/hexsim. 

Schumaker, N. H., A. Brookes, J. R. Dunk, B. Woodbridge, J. A. Heinrichs, J. Lawler, C. Carroll, and D. 

LaPlante. 2014. Mapping sources, sinks, and connectivity using a simulation model of northern 

spotted owls. Landscape ecology 29(4): 579-592. 

USDI FWS. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 258 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf. 

---. 2012. Modeling and analysis procedures used to identify and evaluate potential critical habitat 

networks for the northern spotted owl, submitted to the Federal Register November 21, 2012. 

Unpublished manuscript 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/data/northernspottedowl/Documents/MODEL_SUPP_Dunk2

012AppC.pdf. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 48 pp. 

Section S-B 

Simulated Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal Flux During 

2053-2063 Under Each Alternative and According to the No 

Timber Harvest Reference Analyses 

Shown are simulated northern spotted owl dispersal flux during 2053 – 2063, based on 100 replicate, nonstochastic simulations, under each alternative and according to the No Timber Harvest. When compared 

to dispersal flux under current habitat conditions (Northern Spotted Owl Figure 3-191), each image 

shows a decrease due to the decline in the northern spotted owl population. All of the alternatives yield 

results that are comparable to those for the No Timber Harvest, indicating that none of the alternatives 

would appreciably limit northern spotted owl movement and survival in any part of western Oregon. 

However, there are subtle differences among the alternatives, many of which appear to conflict with the 

projections of the dispersal-capable landscape in 50 years, shown in Northern Spotted Owl Figure S-18. 

The circled areas in northern spotted owl Figure S-18 suggest that, among the alternatives, the No Action 

alternative, Sub-alternative B and Alternative D best would support northern spotted owl east-west 

movement between the Coast Range and the western Cascades through the area south of the Willamette 

Valley. However, these simulations of dispersal flux indicate that the other alternatives support northern 

spotted owl movement and survival through this area better than the No Action Alternative, Subalternative B and Alternative D, and support movement and survival at levels comparable to that of the 

No Timber Harvest. Other curious results: 

x Under Alternative A (yellow circle), which has the largest network of Late-Successional 

Reserves, simulated dispersal flux in the southern Coast Range is more limited than under the 

other alternatives. 

x The only difference between Alternative B and Sub-alternative B is that Sub-alterative B reserves 

more forest stands associated with northern spotted owl known sites. Yet, simulated dispersal flux 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1490 | Page

through the area south of the Willamette Valley is slightly higher under Alternative B (green 

circle) than under Sub-alternative B. 

x The only difference between Alternative C and Sub-alternative C is that all forest stands 80 years 

old and older are reserved under Sub-alternative C. But, simulated dispersal flux is slightly higher 

under Alternative C in the southern Coast Range and a portion of the Rogue River Valley 

(Alternative C, red circles). 

These differences, although subtle, reflect simulations of how northern spotted owls would move through 

habitat under each alternative. Whereas the dispersal-capable landscape, shown in northern spotted owl 

Figure S-18, reflects a forecast of habitat condition under each alternative, independent of northern 

spotted owl use or occupancy, dispersal flux, shown here, reflects habitat condition and how northern 

spotted owl might occupancy such habitat. Thus, dispersal flux is more dynamic than dispersal-capability, 

and less able to define slight differences between alternatives, suggesting that these differences might not 

be real. That said, dispersal flux is valuable for evaluating the ability of a landscape to support northern 

spotted owl movement and survival. Taken collectively, the analyses of dispersal flux and the dispersalcapable landscape indicate that all alternatives would support northern spotted owl movement and 

survival at comparable levels, but that the No Action alternative, Sub-alternative B and Alternative D best 

would support northern spotted owl movement between the Coast Range and the western Cascades. 




Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1495 | Page

Section S-C 

Summary of Population Risks under the Alternatives and 

According to the No Timber Harvest Reference Analyses 

North Coast and Olympic Modeling Region 

Under all alternatives, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the 

northern spotted owl population will decline to 250 or fewer females is above 90 percent in 2013, reaches 

100 percent within 30 years, and remains at 100 percent. There are no discernable differences among the 

alternatives. 

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analyses using both current and modified barred owl encounter 

rates, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the northern spotted owl 

population will decline to 250 or fewer females is above 90 percent in 2013, reaches 100 percent within 

30 years, and remains at 100 percent. There are no discernable differences between the reference analyses 

or between the reference analyses and the alternatives. 

Figures S-19 and S-20 show mean probabilities over time, by alternative and for the No Timber Harvest 

reference analyses, of the northern spotted owl population declining to 100 females. 

Figure S-19. Extinction risk as a function of time, by alternative, using a quasi-extinction level of 100 

females. This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 simulated stochastic 

populations declined to 100 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NSO Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent) 

Simulation Year 

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest 50% Threshold
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1496 | Page

Figure S-20. A comparison of extinction risk as a function of time, under the No Timber Harvest 

reference analyses—using both current (blue) and modified (red) barred owl encounter rates—based on a 

quasi-extinction level of 100 females. This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 

500 simulated stochastic populations declined to 100 females. 

Table S-4. Year (after 2013) that the northern spotted owl population reached a 50-percent probability of 

declining to 100 females, based on 500 stochastic simulations. 

Alternative Simulation Year 

No Action 38 

Alt. A 33 

Alt. B 36 

Sub. B 35 

Alt. C 33 

Sub. C 35 

Alt. D 37 

No Timber Harvest (with Current 

Barred Owl Encounter Rate) 35 

No Timber Harvest with Modified 

Barred Owl Encounter Rate 60 

Oregon Coast Modeling Region 

Figures S-21 and S-22 show mean probabilities over time, by alternative and for the No Timber Harvest 

reference analyses, of the northern spotted owl population declining to 250 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NSO Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent) 

Simulation Year 

No Timber Harvest

No Timber Harvest with Modified BO Encounter Rate

50% Threshold
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1497 | Page

Figure S-21. Extinction risk as a function of time, by alternative, using a quasi-extinction level of 250 

females. This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 simulated stochastic 

populations declined to 250 females. 

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NSO Quasi-Extinction Risk (Percent) 

Simulation Year 

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest 50% Threshold
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1498 | Page

Figure S-22. A comparison of extinction risk as a function of time, under the No Timber Harvest 

reference analyses—using both current (blue) and modified (red) barred owl encounter rates—based on a 

quasi-extinction level of 250 females. This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 

500 simulated stochastic populations declined to 250 females. 

Table S-5. Year that the northern spotted owl population reached a 50-percent probability of declining to 

250 females, based on 500 stochastic simulations. 

Alternative Simulation Year 

No Action 3 

Alt. A 2 

Alt. B 3 

Sub. B 2 

Alt. C 3 

Sub. C 2 

Alt. D 3 

No Timber Harvest (with Current 

Barred Owl Encounter Rate) 3 

No Timber Harvest with Modified 

Barred Owl Encounter Rate 2 

Figures S-23 and S-24 show mean probabilities over time, by alternative and for the No Timber Harvest 

reference analyses, of the northern spotted owl population declining to 100 females. 

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NSO Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent) 

Simulation Year 

No Timber Harvest

No Timber Harvest with Modified BO Encounter Rate

50% Threshold
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1499 | Page

Figure S-23. Extinction risk as a function of time, by alternative, using a quasi-extinction level of 100 

females. This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 500 simulated stochastic 

populations declined to 100 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent) 

Simulation Year 

No Action Alt. A Alt. B

Sub. B Alt. C Sub. C

Alt. D No Timber Harvest 50% Threshold
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1500 | Page

Figure S-24. A comparison of extinction risk as a function of time, under the No Timber Harvest 

reference analyses—using both current (blue) and modified (red) barred owl encounter rates—based on a 

quasi-extinction level of 100 females. This graph shows the mean probability, by year (0 = 2013), that 

500 simulated stochastic populations declined to 100 females. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Quasi-extinction Risk (Percent) 

Simulation Year 

No Timber Harvest

No Timber Harvest with Modified BO Encounter Rate

50% Threshold
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl 

1501 | Page

Table S-6. Year that the northern spotted owl population reached a 50-percent probability of declining to 

100 females, based on 500 stochastic simulations. 

Alternative Simulation Year 

No Action 35 

Alt. A 35 

Alt. B 36 

Sub. B 35 

Alt. C 33 

Sub. C 34 

Alt. D 34 

No Timber Harvest (with Current 

Barred Owl Encounter Rate) 36 

No Timber Harvest with Modified 

Barred Owl Encounter Rate - 

West Cascades-South Modeling Region 

Under all alternatives, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the 

northern spotted owl population will decline to 250 or fewer females begins at 0 percent in 2013 and 

remains below 5 percent for 50 years. There are no discernable differences among the alternatives. 

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analyses using both current and modified barred owl encounter 

rates, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the northern spotted owl 

population will decline to 250 or fewer females is 0 percent in 2013 and remains below 5 percent for 50 

years. There are no discernable differences between the reference analyses or between the reference 

analyses and the alternatives. 

Under all alternatives and reference analyses, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic 

simulations—that the northern spotted owl population will decline to 100 or fewer females begins at 0 

percent in 2013 and remains at 0 percent for 50 years. There are no discernable differences among the 

alternatives. 

East Cascades-South Modeling Region 

Under all alternatives, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the 

northern spotted owl population will decline to 250 or fewer females is above 85 percent in 2013 and 

reaches 90 percent within 20 years. There are no discernable differences among the alternatives. 

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analyses using both current and modified barred owl encounter 

rates, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the northern spotted owl 

population will decline to 250 or fewer females is above 85 percent in 2013 and reached 90 percent within 

20 years. There is slight differentiation between the reference analyses using the current and modified 

rates, with the current rate performing 4 percent better over 100 years. There are no discernable 

differences between the reference analysis using the current rate and the alternatives. 

Under all alternatives and reference analyses, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic 

simulations—that the northern spotted owl population will decline to 100 or fewer females is below 5 

percent in 2013 and remains at or below 5 percent for 50 years. There are no discernable differences 

among the alternatives. 
Appendix S – Northern Spotted Owl

1502 | Page

Klamath-Siskiyou-West Modeling Region 

Under all alternatives, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the 

northern spotted owl population will decline to 250 or fewer females begins at 0 percent in 2013 and 

remains below 2 percent for 50 years. There are no discernable differences among the alternatives. 

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analyses using both current and modified barred owl encounter 

rates, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the northern spotted owl 

population will decline to 250 or fewer females is 0 percent in 2013 and remains below 2 percent for 50 

years. There are no discernable differences between the reference analyses or between the reference 

analyses and the alternatives. 

Under all alternatives and reference analyses, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic 

simulations—that the northern spotted owl population will decline to 100 or fewer females begins at 0 

percent in 2013 and remains at 0 percent for 50 years. There are no discernable differences among the 

alternatives. 

Klamath-Siskiyou-East Modeling Region 

Under all alternatives, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the 

northern spotted owl population will decline to 250 or fewer females begins at 0 percent in 2013 and 

remains below 2 percent for 50 years. There are no discernable differences among the alternatives. 

Under the No Timber Harvest reference analyses using both current and modified barred owl encounter 

rates, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic simulations—that the northern spotted owl 

population will decline to 250 or fewer females is 0 percent in 2013 and remains below 2 percent for 50 

years. There are no discernable differences between the reference analyses or between the reference 

analyses and the alternatives. 

Under all alternatives and reference analyses, the mean probability—based on 500 replicate stochastic 

simulations—that the northern spotted owl population will decline to 100 or fewer females begins at 0 

percent in 2013 and remains at 0 percent for 50 years. There are no discernable differences among the 

alternatives. 

Section S-D