Record of Decision and 

Resource Management Plan 

Roseburg District 

Roseburg District December 2008

BLM
As the Nation’s principal 

conservation agency, the Department 

of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public 

lands and natural resources. This 

includes fostering the wisest use 

of our land and water resources, 

protecting our fish and wildlife, 

preserving the environmental and 

cultural values of our national 

parks and historical places, and 

providing for the enjoyment of life 

through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy 

and mineral resources and works to 

assure that their development is in 

the best interest of all our people. 

The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for 

people who live in Island Territories 

under U.S. administration. 
Table of Contents 

Record of Decision 

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

What the Plan Will Provide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

What the Plan Will Not Provide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

Application of the Plan to Existing Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

Valid Existing Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

Approved Changes to the Resource Management Plan between the FEIS and the Record of Decision . . . . . . 6
 

Management Considerations – Rationale for the Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

Meeting the Purpose and Need, Environmental Consequences, and Costs of Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

New Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 

Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 

Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 

Mitigation Adopted in This Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 

Mitigation Not Adopted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

Plan Monitoring and Evaluations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 

Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Recommendation, Concurrence, Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

Resource Management Plan 

Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

Land Use Allocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

National Landscape Conservation System, Congressionally Designated, and Acquired Lands . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 

Administratively Withdrawn Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
 

Late-Successional Management Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
 

Riparian Management Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Deferred Timber Management Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
 

Timber Management Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Resource Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Including Research Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Botany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Including American Indian Traditional Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

Energy and Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Fire and Fuels Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

I 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Lands, Realty, Access, and Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 

Special Forest Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 

Timber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 

Visual Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
 

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
 

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
 

Administrative Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 

ables 

Table 1 BLM districts and Oregon counties included in the planning area of the 

western Oregon BLM Resource Management Plan revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

Table 2 Legal status of lands administered by the BLM in western Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

Table 3 Designated wild and scenic rivers and river segments, Roseburg District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 

Table 4 Eligible wild and scenic rivers and river segments, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 

Table 5 Snag and coarse woody (CWD) debris levels for stands of larger trees
 

in the Late Successional Management Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Table 6 Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) levels for stands of smaller trees 

in the Late Successional Management Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Table 7 Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention for salvaging timber after 

a stand replacement disturbance in the Late-Successional Management Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Table 8 Criteria established for the Riparian Management Area land use allocation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Table 9 Estimated decadal allowable sale quantity offered for sale in the Timber 

Management Area, Roseburg District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Table 10 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Table 11 Areas open or closed to energy and mineral developments, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

Table 12 Fuel treatment emphasis using fire regime and fire regime condition class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
 

Table 13 Acres of land tenure zones, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
 

Table 14 Recreation management areas, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Table 15 Recreation sites, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Table 16 Recreation trails, Roseburg District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Table 17 Backcountry byways, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Table 18 Potential recreation sites and potential recreation trails, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Table 19 Environmental education area, Roseburg District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

Table 20 Recreation and public purpose (R & PP) leases, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

Table 21 Areas closed to off-highway vehicle use, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

Table 22 Off-highway vehicle area designations, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

Table 23 Off-highway vehicle emphasis areas, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

T

II 
Table of Contents 

Table 24 Oregon state scenic waterways, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 

Table 25 Acres of visual resource management (VRM) classes, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 

Figures 

Figure 1 Entire planning area of the western Oregon BLM Resource Management Plan revisions . . . . 27 

Figure 2 Roseburg District’s portion of the planning area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Figure 3 Forest vegetation series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

Figure 4 Wildland urban interface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 

Figure 5 Utility corridors and communication sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 

Figure 6 Potential recreation sites, Roseburg District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

Figure 7 Potential recreation trails, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 

Figure 8 Off-highway vehicle designations, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 

Figure 9 Off-highway vehicle emphasis areas, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 

Figure 10 Habitat management areas for the bald eagle, Roseburg District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 

Maps 

Map 1 South River and Swiftwater Resource Areas: Land Use Allocations and Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Map 2 South River and Swiftwater Resource Areas: Recreation sites and trails, special recreation 

management areas, backcountry byways, environmental education sites, and Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern

 Map 3 South River and Swiftwater Resource Areas: Land tenure 3 locations and visual resource 

management classes 

Appendices 

Appendix A - Guidance for Use of the Resource Management Plan
 

Appendix B - Monitoring
 

Appendix C - Best Management Practices
 

Appendix D - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
 

Appendix E - Energy and Minerals
 

Appendix F - Lands
 

Appendix G - Recreation
 

Glossary 

Index 

III 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

IV 
Record of Decision
 

1 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

2 
Record of Decision 

Summary 

This decision selects the Proposed Resource Management Plan set forth in the October 2008 Proposed

Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Oregon Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) as the Approved Resource Management Plan for BLM-administered lands 

under the jurisdiction of the Roseburg District. The PRMP set forth in the final environmental impact 

statement analyzed management of all BLM-administered lands in the Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay, 

Roseburg, and Medford Districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. This 

decision for the Roseburg District Resource Management Plan is being made consistent with decisions 

for the resource management plans for the Eugene, Salem, Coos Bay, and Medford Districts, and the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. These six coordinated resource management 

plans address management of BLM-administered lands and resources for approximately 2.6 million 

acres, the majority of which are lands under the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon 

Road Grant Land Act (O&C Act). 

The purpose of this plan revision is to adopt a resource management plan that will guide the management 

of the BLM-administered lands for permanent forest production in conformity with the principles of 

sustained yield, consistent with the O&C Act. The plan will also provide direction so that future actions 

taken in accordance with the plan will comply with all other applicable laws including, but not limited to, 

the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

Major decisions in this plan include: 

• Setting objectives for the management of BLM-administered lands and resources; 

• Establishing land use allocations relative to future uses for the purposes of achieving the various 

objectives; and 

• Providing management direction that identifies where future actions may or may not be allowed 

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

objectives set for the BLM-administered lands and resources. 

Five alternatives for the management of BLM-administered lands and resources were analyzed in the 

final environmental impact statement: the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, Alternative 2 (which was 

identified as the preferred alternatives in the draft environmental impact statement), Alternative 3, and the 

Proposed Resource Management Plan. The decision to select the Proposed Resource Management Plan 

as the Approved Resource Management Plan is based on the conclusion that it best meets the purpose and 

need and would have favorable outcomes for various resources and programs and relatively low adverse 

environmental impacts in comparison to the other alternatives. 

The decision identifies a mitigation measure that is adopted as part of the Approved Resource Management 

Plan and explains why other measures are not adopted. 

The effectiveness of future actions implemented in accordance with the Approved Resource Management 

Plan will be monitored in accordance with the approved monitoring plan attached to this document. 

In revising this resource management plan (RMP), the BLM worked with cooperators from four Federal 

agencies, including the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ten state 

agencies, and seventeen county governments. The BLM also worked with nine Federally recognized tribes 

within the planning area or with interests in the planning area in government-to-government relationships. 

Interaction with the public regarding this resource management plan revision began in August 2005 and 

included newsletters, meetings, workshops, comment periods, and a protest period. 

3 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

Decision 

The decision is hereby made to approve the resource management plan for the Roseburg District. This 

decision revises the 1995 Roseburg District Resource Management Plan. This plan revision was prepared 

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

1600). An environmental impact statement was prepared for this plan in compliance with regulations 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR 1500). This plan is nearly identical 

to the one set forth in the October 2008 Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP) and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Districts under the Proposed Resource Management Plan Alternative, with the addition of one mitigation 

measure that is adopted by this decision. 

The PRMP set forth in the FEIS analyzed management of all BLM-administered lands in the Salem, Eugene, 

Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford Districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. 

This decision for the Roseburg District Resource Management Plan is being made consistent with decisions 

for the resource management plans for the Eugene, Salem, Coos Bay, and Medford Districts, and the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. 

What the Plan Will Provide 

Major provisions in this resource management plan include: 

• objectives for the management of BLM-administered lands and resources; 

• land use allocations relative to future uses for the purposes of achieving the various objectives; and 

• management direction that identifies where future actions may or may not be allowed and what 

restrictions or requirements may be placed on those future actions to achieve the objectives set for 

the BLM-administered lands and resources. 

What the Plan Will Not Provide 

The plan does not authorize implementation of on-the-ground projects. Implementation of future 

projects under the resource management plan will be authorized, funded, or carried out subsequently only 

after completion of further appropriate National Environmental Policy Act analysis or documentation, 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and decision-making processes. 

As described in FLPMA, land use plans are tools by which “present and future use is projected.” 43 U.S.C. 

§ 1701(a)(2). The BLM’s planning regulations make clear that land use plans are a preliminary step in 

the overall process of managing public lands, and are “designed to guide and control future management 

actions and the development of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses.” 

43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2. A land use plan therefore is not ordinarily the medium for affirmative decisions that 

implement BLM’s projections; FLPMA provides that “[t]he Secretary may issue management decisions to 

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

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

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

process steps, or decisions under specific provisions of law and regulations.” 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5. 

4 
Record of Decision 

Application of the Plan to Existing Projects 

Revision of a resource management plan necessarily involves a transition from the application of the old 

resource management plan to the application of the new resource management plan. The planning and 

analysis of future projects such as timber sales typically requires at least two years of preparation before 

a site-specific project can be designed and a decision reached. Allowing for a transition from the old 

resource management plan to the new resource management plan avoids disruption of the management 

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

analysis of projects. This section addressed the application of the resource management plan to three 

categories of future projects:

1. projects for which site-specific decisions have been signed prior to the effective date of this Record 

of Decision but which have not yet been implemented; 

2. projects for which site-specific decisions have not yet been signed, but for which preparation of 

National Environmental Policy Act documents has begun prior to the effective date of this Record 

of Decision; and 

3. projects for which site-specific project planning and preparation of National Environmental Policy 

Act documents have not begun prior to the effective date of this Record of Decision. 

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

not limited to timber sales, precommercial thinning, fuels reduction (prescribed fire and mechanical 

treatments), culvert replacements, road renovations, stream bank restoration, tree planting, pruning, and 

construction of fire breaks. Also for this discussion, a decision is considered to be signed for a timber sale 

upon the publication of a notice of sale in a newspaper, consistent with 43 CFR 5003.2. 

Implementation of projects for which a decision has been signed prior to the effective date of this Record 

of Decision is not affected by this Record of Decision. The effects of implementation of these projects were 

factored into the analysis in the FEIS either as an analytical assumption about current land treatment types 

and levels of activity, or were generally considered as part of the current condition of the affected environment. 

For example, the timber stands included in existing sold and unawarded, or awarded and uncut timber sales 

that were planned to be offered in FY 2008 and FY 2009 were assumed in the FEIS as already cut for analytical 

purposes and for identifying where land use allocation boundaries should be drawn. 

Site-specific projects for which a decision has not been signed prior to the effective date of this Record of 

Decision, for which preparation of National Environmental Policy Act documentation began prior to the 

effective date of this Record of Decision, and for which a decision on the project is signed within two years of 

the effective date of this Record of Decision may be implemented consistent with the management direction 

of either the 1995 resource management plan or the Approved Resource Management Plan attached to 

this Record of Decision, at the discretion of the decision maker. In this context, preparation of National 

Environmental Policy Act documentation is considered to have begun upon the earliest of one of the following: 

• public notification that the BLM will be preparing a National Environmental Policy Act document; 

• initiation of external scoping; 

• completion of documentation of a Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy; or 

• completion of documentation of a Categorical Exclusion Review. 

5 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

However, such projects with unsigned decisions may not proceed even within this two-year period of 

transition to the extent that they would: 

• employ regeneration harvest in a late-successional management area allocated by this Record of 

Decision; 

• employ timber harvest in a deferred timber management area allocated by this Record of Decision; or 

• result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat designated for species listed as 

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

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

1995 resource management plans, such projects may include features not consistent with the management 

direction in the Approved Resource Management Plan attached to this Record of Decision. However, 

any difference in the specific effects resulting from implementation of timber sales and other projects 

not consistent with the management direction in the Approved Resource Management Plan would not 

alter the analysis of effects in the FEIS because of the geographic extent of such projects. Additionally, 

any inconsistencies with the management direction in this Record of Decision, in almost all cases, are 

anticipated to result in less change to the current condition of the affected environment than if the timber 

sales and other projects were implemented consistent with the management direction in the Approved 

Resource Management Plan. The primary inconsistency with the Approved Resource Management Plan that 

is likely to occur in these projects is the retention of merchantable material in regeneration harvest units 

for green tree retention, snags, and coarse woody debris where the management direction in the Approved 

Resource Management Plan would direct the removal of all merchantable material. 

Projects for which preparation of National Environmental Policy Act documentation begins after the 

effective date of this Record of Decision or for which a decision is signed more than two years after the 

effective date of this Record of Decision must be consistent with the management direction in the Approved 

Resource Management Plan. 

Valid Existing Rights 

This decision does not alter or extinguish valid existing rights on BLM-administered lands. Valid existing 

rights take precedence over the decisions in this plan. Valid existing rights may be held by other Federal, 

State, or local government agencies; tribes; or by private individuals or companies. Valid existing rights may 

pertain to timber sale contracts, mining claims, mineral or energy leases, leases, easements, permits, rightsof-way, and water rights. 

Approved Changes to the Resource Management Plans between 

the FEIS and the Record of Decision 

The following changes and corrections were made to theRoseburg District RMP. These changes were made 

to correct errors and provide clarifications of existing management direction and objectives. In addition 

to the items noted here, other minor typographical, table, and mapping errors were corrected. The acres 

involved in these corrections are small and mostly reflect slivers and overlaps in data. The changes and 

corrections noted below are relatively inconsequential and would not substantially change the analytical 

conclusions described in the FEIS. Additionally, one management direction (retention of trees in watersheds 

susceptible to peak flow increases) was added to the Timber Management Area Land Use Allocation due to 

the adoption of a mitigation measure as described later in this Record of Decision. 

Management direction was added in the Timber Management Area to “Retain overstory trees 

within regeneration harvest areas when needed to provide protection to the regenerating 

understory and to provide for shade, frost protection, or other silvicultural needs. Harvest these 

trees after such protection is no longer needed.” Although this management direction was 

6 
Record of Decision 

originally intended to respond to unique geophysical circumstances occurring only in the Medford 

District, the Roseburg District requires similar frost considerations. 

The North Bank Ranch Habitat Management Area (6,607 acres) was inadvertently omitted from 

Table 2-29, Areas Close to Off-Highway Vehicle Use, by Alternative (FEIS, Volume I, p. 95). It 

had been correctly included in the Draft EIS. The acres listed in Table 2-28, District-Specific OffHighway Vehicle Designations (FEIS, Volume I, p. 92) reflect this error as well. 

The footnote for Table 2-33, District Specific Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and River 

Segments (FEIS, Volume I, p. 100) was corrected. Acreage calculations are based on BLMadministered lands in a .5 mile wide corridor, not a .05 mile wide corridor. 

The description of the administratively withdrawn area (FEIS, Volume I, p. 27), was clarified to 

state that these areas are withdrawn from the harvest land base and therefore do not contribute 

to the calculation of the allowable sale quantity of timber. In addition, clarifications were made 

regarding sites managed for special status species. These are sites that were withdrawn from the 

harvest land base for designated management such as Bald Eagle Management Areas that have not 

been included in other land use allocations such as Late Successional Management Areas. 

The Riparian Management Area objective to provide for the conservation of special status fish 

species applies to other aquatic special status species as well. 

In Table 2-5, criteria established for the riparian management area land use allocation under the 

PRMP (FEIS, Volume I, p. 33) was modified to distinguish between small and large ponds. Ponds 

greater than 0.25 acres in size would have a riparian management area equal to one site-potential 

tree height from the edge of the water body. Ponds smaller than 0.25 acres would have a riparian 

management area equal to the edge of the body of water to the outer edge of riparian vegetation. 

The language in the management objective for air quality was refined to make it consistent with the 

management direction to avoid rather than prevent smoke intrusions into Class I areas. 

The word “fungi” was removed from the management direction for management of botany 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, because no fungi species are listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

The monitoring requirement for monitoring question M14 (FEIS, Volume II, p. 886) was revised 

to clarify that changes to the acres of Deferred Timber Management Area will be monitored rather 

than the changes to the acres of 160-year-old forest. 

The monitoring requirement for monitoring question M19 (FEIS, Volume II, p. 887) was

revised to require that all completed projects that “may affect” listed species will be reviewed 

after completion, as opposed to monitoring five such projects. A district may not have five such

projects in a single year. 

The monitoring requirement for monitoring question M20 (FEIS, Volume II, p. 887) was

revised to require review of 20% of completed projects in which protection measures are 

implemented to accommodate BLM special status plant and fungi species, as opposed to 

requiring review for five projects. 

The Best Management Practice F-15 (FEIS, Volume III, p. 295) was revised to include a recent 

requirement to keep wildland fire chemicals further than 300 feet from lakes, ponds, seeps, and 

perennial and intermittent streams. 

Edits were made to the locatable and saleable portion of the “Proposed Restrictions and 

Requirements of Mineral and Energy Exploration and Development Activity” in the Energy and 

Minerals Appendix to remove site specific or District specific language and processes. Details 

about the specifics of state regulation processes (costs, addresses, etc.) were deleted. 

7 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

Management Considerations – Rationale for the Decision 

The decision regarding the Approved Resource Management Plan is based on consideration and evaluation of : 

1. how well the purpose and need is met; and 

2. associated environmental consequences and the cost of implementation. 

Because this decision for the Roseburg District Resource Management Plan is being made consistent 

with decisions for the other resource management plans in western Oregon based on the analysis in the 

FEIS, which analyzed management of all BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, the rationale for 

the decision addresses elements that are not applicable in this district (e.g., effects on wild horses). The 

consistent decisions for the western Oregon resource management plans are intended to provide for 

coordinated management of BLM-administered lands across western Oregon. 

The facts found through analysis in the FEIS provide the basis for determining how well the purpose 

and need is met and for considering the environmental consequences and costs of implementing the 

plan. The decision to select the PRMP as the Approved Resource Management Plan is based on the 

conclusion that the management direction in the PRMP best meets the purpose and need, as summarized 

below. The decision is also based on the conclusion that the PRMP has associated with it relatively low 

adverse environmental impacts and relatively favorable outcomes for various resources and programs in 

comparison to the other alternatives. 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of this action is to adopt a resource management plan that will guide the management of the 

BLM-administered lands for permanent forest production in conformity with the principles of sustained 

yield, consistent with the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Land Act 

(O&C Act). The plan will also provide direction so that future actions taken in accordance with the plan will 

comply with all other applicable laws including, but not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean 

Water Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

The need for this action is threefold: 

• Plan evaluations showed the BLM’s timber harvest levels, as directed by the 1995 resource 

management plans, were not being achieved. The BLM now has more detailed and accurate 

information on the effects of sustained yield timber management on other resources. 

• There is an opportunity to coordinate the resource management plan revisions with new recovery 

plans and re-designations of critical habitat. 

• The BLM has re-focused the goal for management of the BLM-administered lands to the statutory 

mandates specifically applicable to these lands. 

Meeting the Purpose and Need, Environmental Consequences, 

and Costs of Implementation 

The conclusions that the PRMP best meets the purpose and need, has relatively low adverse environmental 

impacts, and has relatively favorable outcomes for resources and programs in comparison to the other 

alternatives are supported by the analysis and conclusions in the FEIS. Because this decision for the 

Roseburg District Resource Management Plan is being made consistent with decisions for the other resource 

management plans in western Oregon, this description of the effects of the PRMP and other alternatives 

addresses effects across the planning area analyzed in the FEIS. 

8 
Record of Decision 

The PRMP provides direction that, if implemented in future actions, would be expected to meet the 

purpose of managing the BLM-administered lands for permanent forest production in conformity with the 

principles of sustained yield: 

• The allowable sale quantity would be 502 million board feet, an increase of approximately 87 

percent from the No Action Alternative. 

• The allowable sale quantity is expected to be sustainable on a permanent basis. 

The PRMP provides direction that, if implemented in future actions, meets the purpose of complying with 

the Endangered Species Act by conserving habitat needed for the survival and conservation of species listed 

as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act: 

• Northern spotted owl habitat is expected to increase. 

• Habitat conditions that facilitate spotted owl movement and survival are expected to improve. 

• A network of large blocks of suitable northern spotted owl habitat is expected to develop. 

• Marbled murrelet habitat is expected to increase 60 percent by 2106. 

• Ninety-nine percent of all marbled murrelet nesting habitat in stands greater than 200 years old is 

expected to be retained through 2026. 

• BLM actions are not expected to contribute to an increase in stream temperature that would affect fish. 

• The risk of adverse effects to fish from peak flow increases is expected to be very low. 

• Fine sediment delivery to stream channels is expected to increase less than one percent above 

existing levels and is not expected to decrease fish survival. 

• The potential for large wood delivery to streams for fish habitat is expected to increase. 

In accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, the BLM has analyzed whether the 

adoption of the revised resource management plan "may affect" listed species or critical habitat. As a result 

of this analysis, the BLM has concluded that the adoption of the revised plan will have no effect to listed 

species or critical habitat. The plan is not self-executing and does not authorize any on-the-ground action; 

does not create any legal right or obligation; and does not grant, withhold, or modify any legal license, 

power, or authority. As such, further Federal decision-making is required before the BLM or any third party 

can conduct ground-disturbing activity. 

In determining what the effects of a proposed action are likely to be, agencies are subject to the definition of 

“effects of the action” found in the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act. The regulations 

define “effects of the action” to refer to “the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical 

habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action 

that will be added to the environmental baseline. The environmental baseline includes the past and present 

impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated 

impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early 

section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the 

consultation in process. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in 

time, but still are reasonably certain to occur.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. 

While “direct effects” are not defined in the regulations, they are commonly understood to be the immediate 

effects on a listed species or critical habitat that will result from the carrying out by the Federal agency of 

the proposed action itself or from the carrying out by third parties of the activities authorized or funded by 

the Federal agency. If the agency does what it is proposing to do, the “direct effects” are the effects that are 

the immediate and natural consequences of taking the proposed action. In other words, “direct effects” are 

effects that will inevitably occur if the action is taken and are not dependent upon the occurrence of any 

additional intervening actions for the impact to listed species or critical habitat to occur. 

9 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

“Indirect effects” are defined in the regulations as “those that are caused by the proposed action and are later 

in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. Like “direct effects,” indirect effects 

must be “caused by” the proposed action. Indirect effects are distinguished from direct effects, however, in 

that they typically occur after the taking of actions other than the proposed Federal action, and as such, they 

are not necessarily inevitable. 

Adoption of the PRMP will by itself have no “direct effects” on listed species or critical habitat. This is 

because the PRMP will be implemented only through the approval of future proposed projects and activities 

consistent with the plan’s management direction, and because there are numerous steps that must occur 

before any on-the-ground activities can actually occur. 

The BLM considered if approval of the plan would have indirect effects to threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat. While the BLM acknowledges that it intends to develop and carry out a program 

of work consistent with the management guidance in the future as described in the plan, the specific details 

of the scope and extent of that program of work are unknown at this time. The timing, size, location, 

and design of future actions are too uncertain and so widely variable that it is impossible to conduct an 

assessment of the effects of future actions that would allow the BLM or the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to determine a level of the potential "take" of a 

listed species or changes to the environmental baseline. Before those future actions can take place, many 

things must happen, including appropriations, the design of project proposals, and completion of the 

analysis of environmental consequences under the National Environmental Policy Act for those actions. 

Given the number of steps that must occur between adoption of the plan and implementation of any future 

Federal site-specific actions that involve discretionary decisions by Federal agencies, the action of adopting 

the plan has no indirect effects on listed species or critical habitat. 

In furtherance of the BLM's obligations under Section 7 to cooperate with NMFS and FWS to assure that 

its actions will not jeopardize or adversely modify the habitat of a listed species and consistent with the 

Consultation Handbook, the BLM will consult on projects when they are actually proposed and when 

sufficient information is available at the appropriate scale to identify effects. At that project scale, there will 

be a sufficient level of information to conduct an analysis to conclude with reasonable certainty what effects 

will occur and whether a biological opinion will be necessary. Through this project-level consultation, the 

BLM will ensure that future actions taken to carry out the plan's management guidance will not jeopardize 

the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. 

The PRMP provides direction that, if implemented in future actions, would be expected to meet the purpose 

of complying with the Clean Water Act: 

• Actions are not expected to contribute to any measurable increase in stream temperature. 

• Fine sediment delivery to stream channels is not expected to increase more than 1 percent above 

existing levels. 

• Very few watersheds are expected to be susceptible to peak flow increases. 

The PRMP responds to the need for the action, because it provides a framework that: 

• utilizes the most detailed and accurate information in determining the annual sustainable yield 

capacity of BLM-administered lands; 

• is consistent with the recovery plans and critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, marbled 

murrelet, and other species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act; and 

• provides for the management of lands under the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay 

Wagon Road Grant Land Act (O&C lands) for sustained yield timber production except as limited 

by other statutes. 

10 
Record of Decision 

In addition to analysis related to how well the alternatives meet the purpose and need for the action, the 

FEIS identified five issues for analysis: 

• Vegetation. How should the BLM provide a sustainable supply of wood and other forest products, 

as mandated by the O&C Act, while also meeting all applicable laws and regulations? 

• Habitat for species listed under the Endangered Species Act. How should the BLM manage 

Federal lands in a manner that is consistent with the Endangered Species Act in order to contribute 

to the conservation of species? 

• Watershed management and water quality. How should the BLM manage Federal lands to 

contribute to the goals of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

• Wildland fire and fuels. How should the BLM manage Federal lands to reduce the risk of wildfires 

and integrate fire back into the ecosystem? 

• Off-highway vehicle management (particularly in the Medford District). How should the 

BLM administer Federal lands to meet the demand for off-highway vehicle use while protecting 

other resources? 

The environmental impact of future actions implemented in accordance with the PRMP with regard to the 

identified issues related to vegetation, habitat for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and watershed 

management and water quality are summarized above in how the PRMP meets the purpose of the action. 

The PRMP provides direction that, if implemented in future actions, addresses the issue related to wildland 

fire and fuels: 

• Fire hazard and acres susceptible to high severity fire are expected to be reduced. 

The PRMP provides direction that if implemented in future actions addresses the issue related to offhighway vehicle management: 

• Future actions to redesignate off-highway vehicle areas are expected to improve off-highway vehicle 

opportunities, public safety, and visitor experiences compared to the No Action Alternative. 

• Future plans that will manage off-highway vehicle emphasis areas are expected to improve offhighway vehicle opportunities and would result in fewer visitor conflicts, thereby improving the 

quality of experiences for all visitors compared to the other alternatives. 

• Future plans that will limit off-highway vehicle activity to designated roads and trails are expected 

to improve protection of other resources (e.g., limiting introduction and spread of invasive species, 

reducing disturbance to wildlife, and reducing sediment and contaminant delivery to water-bodies) 

compared to the No Action Alternative. 

There are outcomes or benefits that Congress expected as a result of managing BLM-administered lands 

for permanent forest production in conformity with the principles of sustained yield under the O&C Act. 

These benefits include providing a substantial stream of revenue to the county governments in western 

Oregon from timber management through the revenue sharing provisions of the O&C Act. In addition to 

the benefits to county governments, Congress expected the benefits of sustained yield timber management 

under the O&C Act to provide a permanent source of timber, contribute to the economic stability of local 

communities and industries, as well as benefit watersheds, regulate stream flows, and provide recreational 

use. How the framework set forth in the PRMP is anticipated to provide a permanent source of timber, 

benefit watersheds, and regulate stream flows when future actions are undertaken in accordance with the 

PRMP is summarized above in how the PRMP meets the purpose of the action. 

11 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

Future actions implemented in accordance with the PRMP are forecast to provide benefits to county 

governments across the planning area covered by the six resource management plans: 

• Annual payment to counties is anticipated to be $74 million (65 percent of former Secure Rural 

School funding compared to 37 percent under the No Action Alternative). 

Future actions implemented in accordance with the PRMP are anticipated to contribute to the economic 

stability of local communities and industries: 

• An estimated net gain of approximately 1,184 jobs and a net gain of $52 million in associated 

income compared to a net loss of approximately 3,770 jobs and a net loss of $125 million in 

associated income under the No Action Alternative. 

• It is estimated that the present net value over 50 years of revenues and costs will be approximately 

$465.0 million compared to approximately $107.5 million under the No Action Alternative. 

Future actions implemented in accordance with the goals of the PRMP are expected to provide recreational use: 

• A mix of recreation settings that provide a variety of opportunities and experiences for visitors is 

anticipated to be maintained. 

• Projected recreational demand is anticipated to be met. 

• The quality of recreation visitor experience is anticipated to be improved. 

The FEIS analyzed other potential environmental impacts and outcomes for resources and programs 

beyond those described above. Future actions taken in accordance with the PRMP are expected to have 

favorable outcomes for various resources and programs and relatively low adverse environmental impacts in 

comparison to the other alternatives. Under the management direction of the PRMP: 

• Special status plant and animal species will be managed such that future actions implemented in 

conformance with the PRMP are not anticipated to contribute to the listing of these species under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

• Future actions will be undertaken in such a fashion that no watersheds are expected to be in the 

category of highest risk for introduction of invasive plants; only nine watersheds are expected to be 

in the categories of high or moderately high risk for the introduction or spread of invasive plants; 

and 159 watersheds are expected to be in the categories of moderate, moderately low, and low risk 

for the introduction or spread of invasive plants. 

• The productive capacity of forest and rangeland soils across the planning area is expected 

to be maintained. 

• Opportunities for collection and harvest of special forest products are expected to be maintained. 

• The PRMP is not expected to alter the current level of livestock grazing use. 

• At least ninety-eight percent of cultural and paleontological sites are expected to be undamaged 

from incidental or inadvertent loss of sites or site values per decade. 

• Future actions under the PRMP are not expected to alter the availability and quantity of energy and 

mineral resources on public lands. 

• Almost all lands are expected to remain available for location of mining claims and common 

varieties of rock. 

• The appropriate management level of 30 to 50 head is expected to be maintained through future 

actions for wild horses in the Pokegama Herd Management Area. 

The cost of implementation will be higher under the PRMP than under the No Action Alternative due 

to the higher costs associated with future actions, primarily related to the cost of planning and future 

implementation of higher timber harvest levels and silvicultural treatments. However, the cost of 

future actions is expected to increase under all alternatives, and the proportional increase in the cost of 

implementation of future actions in accordance with the PRMP from the No Action Alternative will be less 

than the proportional increase in the allowable sale quantity of timber. 

12 
Record of Decision 

New Information 

The analysis included in the FEIS was based on the best available Geographic Information System (GIS) data 

available at the time the analysis was conducted. The GIS data is continually being refined and adjusted, and it is 

expected that refinements and adjustments in GIS data will occur during plan implementation. Plan evaluations 

review the land use plan to determine if plan decisions are implemented as expected, and whether the associated 

NEPA analyses are still valid. Changes that do not expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change 

the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan would be accomplished through plan maintenance. 

Changes that would expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and 

decisions in the approved plan would be accomplished through plan amendment or revision. 

Since the release of the FEIS, new information has arisen regarding the BLM Special Status Species Manual, 

Endangered Species Act regulations, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 

2000, and the marbled murrelet critical habitat final rule. As discussed below, this new information would 

not result in significant effects outside the range of effects analyzed in the FEIS and therefore does not 

require supplementation of the FEIS. 

Revision of the BLM Special Status Species Manual 

The BLM revised its 6840 Special Status Species Manual on December 12, 2008. The BLM 6840 Manual is 

the principal policy instrument detailing BLM management of special status species. The manual identifies 

how Field Offices are to meet their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and its implementing 

regulations, as well as how to go about designating and ensuring the conservation of Bureau sensitive species 

on BLM-administered lands. Since the previous 6840 Manual was issued in 2001, a number of regulatory 

agency policy revisions and court decisions have been issued warranting revisions to the current BLM 

policies. The BLM envisions that its revised policies will help to focus the agency efforts on those listed or 

rare species where BLM actions can most effectively contribute to successful conservation. The manual 

revision includes modification of the criteria applied to designation of Bureau sensitive species on BLMadministered lands. The manual revision does not itself alter the list of sensitive species, and therefore does 

not alter the analytical assumptions used in the FEIS. Any future change to the sensitive species list will 

be evaluated to determine if the changes would result in effects outside the range of effects analyzed in the 

FEIS. Because the objectives and management direction relative to special status species that were included 

in the PRMP are consistent with the objectives in the revised BLM special status species manual, the manual 

revision does not constitute a substantial change to the proposed action, as described in 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)

(i). Therefore, supplementation of the FEIS is not required. 

Endangered Species Act Regulations 

The recently published revised Section 7 regulations (73 Fed. Reg. 76272, Dec. 16, 2008) provide discussion 

of the Service’s interpretation of effects cognizable under the Endangered Species Act. Since these 

regulations are not in effect at the time of this decision, they are inapplicable. However, the determination 

that we have made under the current regulations that consultation was not necessary for purposes of Section 

7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act would also be consistent with the guidance provided by these new 

regulations. The discussion in the new regulations reaffirms the approach the BLM is taking here. 

Reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-


Determination Act of 2000
 

On October 3, 2008, President Bush signed into law Public Law 110-343, The Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008. Title VI of the law contains a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and 

Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. The stated purpose of the reauthorization includes stabilizing 

and transitioning payments to counties to provide funding for schools and roads that supplements other 

available funds. This temporary extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination 

Act of 2000, hereinafter referred to as the “county payments program” is intended to provide a financial 

bridge to prepare for the eventual loss of the program. The annual payment amount will decrease each year 

during the re-authorization until 2011 when the reauthorization expires and payments cease. 

13 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

The socioeconomic analysis in the FEIS (FEIS, Volume II, p. 547) acknowledged the possibility of shortterm renewals of the county payments program but predicted there would be no permanent or long-term 

extension. The analysis therefore assumed that the BLM payments to counties would be based on the preexisting formula under which the counties would receive 50 percent of the BLM stumpage receipts. The 

FEIS acknowledged that the organizational transition to the new allowable sale quantities could occur over 

a period of up to five years (FEIS, Volume II, p. 480). Due to the speculative nature of the transition period, 

the analysis of effects assumed full implementation of all alternatives from the date of a decision. 

The analysis of economic effects assumed immediate, full implementation in order to compare and contrast 

the alternatives. Upon the signing of this Record of Decision in December 2008, the BLM will begin to 

implement the Approved Resource Management Plan by ramping up organizational capabilities to produce 

the declared annual sale quantity of timber. Because planning a timber sale project requires approximately 

two years, the BLM could not expect to begin realizing full implementation until at least December 2010. 

The reauthorization of county payments program does not create significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the selected alternatives or its impacts. The 

analysis of socioeconomic effects assumed immediate, full implementation of the Approved Resource 

Management Plan that would provide payments from timber revenues similar to the payments the counties 

will receive from the temporary extension of the Secure Rural Schools Act; recognizing that there could be 

temporary, short-term renewals of the county payments program, and because a gradual ramp up to full 

annual sale quantities of timber will occur over a similar time frame as the reducing county payments. 

Delay of Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat Final Rule 

On July 31, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule that would change critical 

habitat for the marbled murrelet. The proposal would remove approximately 250,000 acres from designated 

critical habitat (in the Northwest Forest Plan management Zone 2) in northern California and Oregon based 

on new information that indicates these areas do not meet the criteria for critical habitat. Approximately 

60,000 of the removed acres fall within BLM-administered lands in western Oregon. A final rule has not yet 

been published. Delay in the publication of the final rule has two potential implications for the FEIS analysis. 

1. Analysis of effects of the alternatives on the marbled murrelet and its critical habitat: The analysis of

the environmental effects of the alternatives on marbled murrelets was based on effects to all nesting 

habitat regardless of whether or not it occurs within critical habitat units. The delay in issuing the final 

rule would therefore have no relevance to this analysis. Appendix H: Wildlife, contains an analysis of 

how nesting habitat would develop under the alternatives within the marbled murrelet critical habitat 

units designated in 1996. The critical habitat units affected by the proposed rule are noted. Again, the 

delay would have no relevance to this analysis, because the analysis was in regard to the critical habitat 

existing at the time, rather than to the proposed change to critical habitat. 

2. Designation of the Timber Management Area Land Use Allocations and resulting levels of Annual 

Sale Quantity of timber: The Timber Management Area land use allocation contains approximately 

23,000 acres in Zone 2 that would be critical habitat under the 1996 rule but would not be critical 

habitat under the proposed rule. Because the BLM had anticipated that the final rule would be 

published prior to this Record of Decision, these acres were included in the harvest land base and 

therefore contributed to sustained yield timber management and the calculation of the annual sale 

quantity. These acres represent approximately 2% of the harvest land base in BLM-administered 

lands in western Oregon. Additionally, about 7,000 of these 23,000 acres occur in the Deferred 

Timber Management Area land use allocation and would not be subject to harvest for 15 years. 

Any future planned timber harvest within the boundaries of critical habitat would include appropriate 

National Environmental Policy Act analysis and Endangered Species Act consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service prior to implementation, which would ensure that any action would not result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Any potential effect on the allowable sale quantity of 

timber if the BLM avoids timber harvest within the harvest land base pending completion of the proposed 

change to marbled murrelet critical habitat is speculative at this time. If no final rule is published, any 

potential effect on the allowable sale quantity of timber of avoiding timber harvest within the harvest land 

base to avoid destruction or adverse modification of marbled murrelet critical habitat would be addressed in 

the 5th-year evaluation of the resource management plan. 

14 
Record of Decision 

Alternatives Considered 

Five alternatives for the management of BLM-administered lands and resources were analyzed in the 

FEIS: the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, Alternative 2 (which was identified as the preferred 

alternatives in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)), Alternative 3, and the PRMP. The FEIS 

provides a detailed description of the land use allocations, objectives, and management direction of each 

alternative. The key features (allocations and management direction) of the alternatives are summarized 

and compared in Table 2-62 in the FEIS. The key impacts of the alternatives are summarized and 

compared in Table 2-63 in the FEIS. 

Because all action alternatives were designed to address the purpose and need for the action, they share a 

relative commonality in their objectives. However, the land use allocations and management direction by 

which the objectives would be achieved through future actions varies substantially among the alternatives. 

All alternatives address water quality and fish habitat through variations of land use allocations and 

management direction centered on streams and riparian habitat. Terrestrial objectives were addressed in 

the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and the PRMP through a mix of land use allocations 

designed to create large blocks of habitat and to provide areas for sustained yield timber management. 

Alternative 3 addressed terrestrial objectives and sustained yield timber management by minimizing land 

use allocations and managing the majority of lands under long timber harvest intervals. 

As a result of the information gained in the analysis in the DEIS, the PRMP was designed so that the PRMP 

would better meet the purpose and need, and that future actions taken in accordance with the PRMP would 

be anticipated to avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts and have favorable outcomes for various 

resources and programs, compared to the other alternatives. 

As described in Chapter 1 of the FEIS, the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need 

for the action. The analysis in the FEIS indicates that the management direction provided in Alternative 1, 

Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 would fail to meet some aspect of the purpose and need and, if implemented 

in future actions, would have resulted in substantive adverse environmental impacts or relatively low 

favorable outcomes for various resources and programs. For example, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would each 

fail to contribute to a landscape that meets all of the conservation needs of the northern spotted owl if 

implemented in future actions; would not be consistent with the recovery plan for the northern spotted 

owl; and would not align land use allocations with critical habitat designated for the northern spotted owl. 

Alternatives 2 and 3, if implemented in future actions, would result in decreases in marbled murrelet habitat 

for at least 50 years and would not align land use allocations with critical habitat designated for marbled 

murrelets. Alternatives 1 and 3, if implemented in future actions, would result in less timber harvest and less 

favorable outcomes for jobs, income, and revenue to counties than the PRMP. 

Of all of the alternatives considered, the PRMP best meets the purpose and need while anticipated to have 

relatively low adverse environmental impacts and favorable outcomes for resources and programs as a result 

of future actions taken consistent with the plan. 

15 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

Environmental preference is judged based on the criteria expressed in the regulations implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The Council of Environmental Quality has stated, “The environmentally 

preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed 

in NEPA’s Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological 

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

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

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

Title 1, Section 101(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act establishes the following goals: 

• fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations; 

• assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings; 

• attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health 

or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 

• preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage; and maintain, 

whenever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; 

• achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of 

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and 

• enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources. 

The effects of future actions consistent with each of the alternatives at the scale of the planning area over 

the time frames analyzed in the FEIS are complex and difficult to summarize into a single statement of 

environmental preference. For many resources, implementation of the management direction of the 

No Action Alternative would cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment of all 

alternatives. However, the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the action and 

therefore is not a reasonable alternative. 

Of all of the action alternatives, the PRMP is the environmentally preferable alternative. The following 

rationale is not intended to provide a complete list of favorable outcomes anticipated under the PRMP but 

to highlight those areas in which favorable outcomes are anticipated to be substantially greater than those 

under the other alternatives. Because this decision for the Roseburg District Resource Management Plan 

is being made consistent with decisions for the other resource management plans in western Oregon, this 

description of the effects for NEPA purposes of the PRMP and other alternatives addresses these anticipated 

effects of future actions across the planning area analyzed in the FEIS. 

More acres are anticipated to be allocated to the non-harvest land base (e.g., late-successional management 

areas, riparian management areas, National Landscape Conservation System, administratively withdrawn) 

under the PRMP than the other action alternatives except for Alternative 1. Although the PRMP would 

allocate less land to the non-harvest land base than Alternative 1, the late-successional management area 

under the PRMP coincides with critical habitat and is specifically designed to meet the conservation needs 

identified in the northern spotted owl recovery plan. 

16 
Record of Decision 

The PRMP is the only alternative the implementation of which would defer for 15 years the harvest of 

substantially all older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests. 

The PRMP is the only alternative the implementation of which would survey for marbled murrelets prior to 

management activities and retain all existing sites and sites found in the future. 

The PRMP is the only alternative the implementation of which would apply the BLM Special Status Species 

Policy on all BLM-administered lands to protect species. 

The PRMP is the only alternative the implementation of which would exclude thinning harvest within 60 

feet of perennial and fish bearing streams and within 35 feet of intermittent non-fish bearing streams to 

protect water quality and fish. 

There would be a greater potential for large wood contribution to streams under the management direction 

of the PRMP than under any of the other alternatives. 

An Uneven-Age Timber Management Area would be established under the management direction of the 

PRMP which is anticipated to reduce fire hazard and increase fire resiliency. 

More Areas of Critical Environmental Concern would be designated under the management direction of the 

PRMP than under any of the other alternatives. 

More acres would be allocated to Visual Resource Management Class II and III under the management 

direction of the PRMP than under any of the other alternatives. 

There would be an anticipated net increase of approximately 1,184 jobs from implementation of future 

actions under the management direction of the PRMP compared to an anticipated net loss of approximately 

3,770 jobs under the No Action Alternative. 

Annual payments to the counties are expected to be $75 million from implementation of future actions 

under the management direction of the PRMP compared to an anticipated $42 million expected under the 

No Action Alternative. 

17 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

Mitigation 

The regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act state that mitigation includes 

avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, eliminating or compensating for adverse environmental impacts. 

The analysis of the PRMP in the FEIS indicated that levels of impacts from implementation of future actions 

for the various resources would be anticipated to be low. This is primarily because almost all measures 

to avoid, rectify or reduce environmental impacts were incorporated into the design of the PRMP where 

practicable and consistent with meeting the purpose and need of the plan revision. Additional site-specific 

project-level mitigation measures that are consistent with approved Resource Management Plan objectives 

and direction may be implemented as determined necessary through site-specific analysis at the time of the 

project, but are not specifically listed in the approved Resource Management Plan. 

Mitigation Adopted in this Decision 

The PRMP has been adopted as the Approved Resource Management Plan with the addition of the 

following, which is incorporated into the management direction for the timber management area: 

In 6th-field watersheds susceptible to peak flow increases in the rain-on-snow hydroregion, where 

regeneration harvest would result in peak flow increases that would cause adverse effects to stream 

form or fish, retain 7 trees per acre greater than 20" diameter breast height so as to reduce wind speed 

across regeneration harvest units. If sufficient noncommercial trees are not available in regeneration 

harvest units to accomplish the purpose, retain additional merchantable trees to provide an average 

over the harvest unit of 7 total trees per acre greater than 20" diameter breast height. 

The analysis in the FEIS identified that the cumulative effect of future actions implemented in accordance 

with the PRMP together with reasonably foreseeable actions of others would lead to some watersheds 

in the rain-on-snow hydroregion being susceptible to peak flow increases, and that retention of trees in 

regeneration harvest units could mitigate this susceptibility. This mitigation measure is anticipated to 

substantially reduce or eliminate the risk of peak flow increases during heavy rainfall by reducing wind 

speeds at the forest floor that contribute to the rapid melt of shallow snowpacks. Because actions on lands 

other than BLM-administered lands can affect susceptibility to peak flow increases, this mitigation measure 

may not eliminate susceptibility in all watersheds. 

This mitigation measure applies in 6th-field watersheds where analysis demonstrates that regeneration 

harvest would result in peak flow increases that would cause adverse effects to stream form or fish. The 

analysis in the FEIS showed that susceptibility to peak flow increases is expected to change over time as 

a result of the cumulative effect of implementation of the PRMP together with other actions. Because 

actions on lands other than BLM-administered lands can affect susceptibility to peak flow increases, the 

susceptibility to peak flow increases may differ over time from the results in the FEIS if future actions on 

other lands differ from the analytical assumptions used in the FEIS. 

This mitigation measure is anticipated to reduce the timber yield from regeneration harvest units where 

applicable. However, the effect on the allowable sale quantity of timber and outcomes of the plan for jobs, 

income, and revenue to counties would be expected to be immeasurably small because of the limited 

geographical application of this mitigation measure. This mitigation measure will only be applied to 

regeneration harvests in watersheds susceptible to peak flow increases in the rain-on-snow hydroregion 

where increases in peak flows would result in adverse effects on stream form or fish. The effect of 

regeneration harvests implemented consistent with this mitigation measure on habitat for species that use 

legacy components would also be immeasurably small because of the limited geographic application of 

the mitigation measure. Because the application of the mitigation measure will be targeted to only those 

future regeneration harvests in which it would effectively reduce the risk of adverse effects from peak flow 

increases, it will have no measurable effects on other resources. 

18 
Record of Decision 

Mitigation Not Adopted 

All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from future actions taken in accordance 

with the PRMP have been adopted in these decisions, except for the following measures: 

• Prohibiting construction of new roads within 200 feet of streams to avoid any increase in sediment 

delivery from current levels was not adopted because it would require either a substantial reduction 

in activities or construction of a substantially greater length of road to avoid the area around 

streams. A reduction in the amount of timber harvest would reduce the favorable outcomes of the 

plan for jobs, income, and revenue to counties. Construction of a substantially greater length of 

road to avoid the area around streams would increase the adverse effects of road construction on 

wildlife and plant habitat; would increase the introduction and spread of invasive plant species; and 

would increase the cost of implementation. 

• Requiring the retention of green trees, snags, and coarse woody debris in all regeneration harvest 

units to reduce the loss of habitat for species that use legacy components was not adopted because 

it would result in a substantial reduction in timber harvest levels and thereby reduce the favorable 

outcomes of the plan for jobs, income, and revenue to counties. 

• Measures to reduce the overall risk of the introduction and spread of invasive plants under the 

PRMP from moderate to low (comparable to the No Action Alternative, for example) were not 

adopted because it would require a substantial reduction in timber harvest and road construction. 

Such a redesign of the PRMP would reduce the favorable outcomes of the plan for jobs, 

income, and revenue to counties. Project-specific measures described in the FEIS to prevent the 

introduction and spread of invasive plants may be implemented as determined necessary through 

site-specific analysis at the time of the project. 

• Measures to reduce the amount of detrimental soil disturbance under the PRMP from 0.6 

percent of soils in the planning area to 0.4 percent were not adopted because it would require 

a substantial reduction in timber harvest activities or a redesign of the plan which would have 

increased adverse effects on other resources. This reduction of impacts to soils would require 

either a substantial reduction in the amount of timber harvest or a substantial shift in timber 

harvest methods, reducing the amount of thinning and increasing the amount of regeneration 

harvest similar to that under Alternative 2 in the FEIS (because regeneration harvest would 

require harvest on fewer acres than thinning to produce the same timber volume). A reduction in 

the amount of timber harvest would reduce the favorable outcomes of the plan for jobs, income, 

and revenue to counties. A shift in timber harvest methods to a design similar to Alternative 

2 would result in increased adverse impacts to other resources, such as northern spotted owl 

habitat, an increase in fire hazard and severity, reduced fire resiliency, and an increased risk of the 

introduction and spread of invasive plants. 

19 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

Plan Monitoring and Evaluations 

The effectiveness of future actions implemented in accordance with the Approved Resource Management 

Plan will be monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan attached to this document. The approved 

monitoring plan details the monitoring strategy to be used, monitoring questions, program reporting items, 

reporting intervals, and an adaptive management process. 

The monitoring plan is designed to focus specifically on monitoring the resource management plan itself 

and is not intended as an overarching plan that addresses all ongoing monitoring and research efforts. 

The monitoring plan does not address science questions or issues of a regional or interagency scale. There 

are many ongoing local, regional, interagency, and research (science-based) efforts in which the BLM 

participates. This includes interagency, regional monitoring efforts such as the Aquatic and Riparian 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP), the Density Management Study, spotted owl demographics, 

old growth and late successional forests, marbled murrelet demographics and habitat, and socioeconomic 

change. It also includes continuing research efforts such as the Watershed Research Cooperative and the 

Forest Science Partnership. These other efforts also have important implications for BLM-administered 

lands and resources in western Oregon. 

Adaptive management will be applied by acting on information found through monitoring. Adaptive 

management associated with monitoring will include corrective actions precipitated by findings of 

non-compliance. Corrective action precipitated by monitoring can range from simple changes in 

administrative procedures, refinements of the plan through plan maintenance, or more substantive 

changes through plan amendments. 

In addition to monitoring results, new information or changed circumstances will be evaluated to determine 

its significance and if changes in resource management plan decisions or changes in supporting NEPA 

analyses would be warranted. Adaptive management tools and procedures that will be used to make changes 

in the plan in response to monitoring information, new information, or changed circumstances include: 

plan maintenance, plan evaluations, plan amendments and plan revisions. 

The Approved Resource Management Plan will be formally evaluated at five-year intervals. In addition to 

the monitoring results, underlying assumptions regarding levels of activities and anticipated environmental 

consequences will be examined at the time of the five-year plan evaluation to determine if plan objectives 

are being met or are likely to be met. The evaluation will also assess whether changed circumstances or new 

information have created a situation in which expected impacts or environmental consequences of the plan 

are significantly different than those anticipated in the FEIS. The plan evaluation will make a finding of 

whether or not a plan amendment or plan revision is warranted. In addition to formal evaluations at fiveyear intervals, a plan evaluation may be conducted to address changed circumstances or new information 

that would substantially call into question the underlying assumptions, anticipated environmental 

consequences, or decisions of the plan. 

20 
Record of Decision 

Collaboration 

Cooperating agency status provides a formal framework for governmental units (including local, State, 

and Federal) to engage in active collaboration with a lead Federal agency to implement requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. For this resource management plan revision and its associated FEIS, 

the BLM worked with cooperators from four Federal agencies, ten state agencies, and seventeen county 

governments. 1 Cooperators provided expertise in much of the subject matter analyzed and provided advice 

based on experiences with similar planning efforts. 

Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, the BLM consulted with NMFS and FWS on proposed programs 

and actions that may affect listed species or critical habitat. In 2005, the BLM began cooperative consultation 

under the Endangered Species Act when NMFS and FWS received cooperating agency status for the 

development of the EIS. 

Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(1), the BLM, in cooperative consultation with NMFS 

and FWS, examined how the RMP revision may affect listed species and designated critical habitat. The 

BLM, NMFS, and FWS cooperated in the development of draft and final recovery plans for the spotted 

owl and marbled murrelet. The BLM, NMFS, and FWS also cooperated to develop proposed and final 

designations of critical habitat for certain listed species within the planning area. The FEIS includes 

modifications made to the preferred alternative in the DEIS based on this interagency cooperation. 

Additionally, the RMP provides planning direction that will guide BLM planners to design future actions 

that avoid jeopardizing listed species or adversely modifying critical habitat. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), citing authority under the National Environmental Policy 

Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, reviewed the FEIS and Proposed Resource Management Plan, 

and provided comments in a letter to the BLM dated November 25, 2008. The EPA supported the proposed 

modifications to the PRMP, but indicated concerns that the BLM’s analysis used in the FEIS would 

overestimate the ability of the PRMP to meet stream temperature water quality standards, based on the EPA’s 

independent analysis. The EPA questioned some of the assumptions regarding sediment contributions and 

offered concerns about the effectiveness monitoring plan. The EPA recommended that the BLM maintain 

the current Northwest Forest Plan-based aquatic strategy, and indicated that if the PRMP were adopted, the 

BLM should provide or commit to the development of a robust effectiveness monitoring plan to help guide 

adaptive management. 

The November 25, 2008, letter from EPA did not include any information not already provided by the EPA 

in their comments on the DEIS. The EPA’s comments on the DEIS were carefully evaluated by the BLM in 

the FEIS. BLM modified some of the water quality analysis and adjusted the RMA allocation based, in part, 

on EPA’s comment on the DEIS. 

Further, the BLM responded to the November 25, 2008 EPA letter and specifically addressed concerns about 

the BLM analysis, the need for effectiveness monitoring and their preference for the Northwest Forest Planbased Aquatic Conservation Strategy. A copy of the BLM response is available on the BLM website at www. 

blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/index.php. 

1

Although there are 18 county governments that are identified as recipients of revenues generated under the O&C Act, 

Multnomah County chose not to participate as a cooperator. 

21 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

The BLM analytical assumptions associated with the water quality analysis in the FEIS constitute the 

reasonably foreseeable conditions typical within the planning area and represent a reasonable and 

appropriate set of assumptions for the analysis documented in the FEIS given the scale and scope of the 

analysis. It is possible that the scenario modeled by the EPA or other variations from the BLM assumptions 

could occur at some locations within the planning areas, although such conditions are not reasonably 

foreseeable at the land use plan level scale of analysis. Therefore, as future projects are planned, the BLM 

will perform project level analysis as needed to confirm compliance with RMP water quality objectives 

and direction consistent with the PRMP. Also, the BLM will continue to assist the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality in developing and implementing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and water 

quality restoration plans to achieve Clean Water Act compliance objectives. These project level analyses and 

planning efforts could include subsequent Analysis and monitoring at the appropriate scale as necessary. 

The BLM will continue to work closely with the EPA and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

to ensure BLM actions maintain and restore water quality and protect source water watersheds. 

For this resource management plan revision and its associated FEIS, the BLM worked with nine Federally 

recognized tribes within the planning area or with interests in the planning area in government-togovernment relationships. One of these tribes, the Coquille Indian Tribe, was directly engaged in the 

planning process, because the management of the Coquille Forest is subject by law (25 U.S.C. § 715c(d)) to 

the standards and guidelines of forest plans for adjacent or nearby Federal forest lands. 

On October 8, 2008, the BLM provided to the Governor of Oregon an analysis of the PRMP for consistency 

with applicable state plans and initiated the 60-day Governor’s consistency review. The purpose of the 

Governor’s consistency review is to ensure consistency of the PRMP with officially approved or adopted 

resource-related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other Federal agencies, State 

and local governments, and Indian Tribes, so long as the guidance and resource management plans are also 

consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public 

lands (43 CFR 1610.3-2(a)). 

In his consistency review comments, dated December 8, 2008, the Governor of Oregon did not identify 

any plans, and the policies or programs therein, of State and local governments with which he found the 

PRMP inconsistent. Therefore, no changes to the plan are warranted based on the Governor’s consistency 

review. However, the Governor did express a number of concerns and offered recommendations regarding 

the planning process and implementation of the plan. The BLM has responded to these concerns and 

recommendations in a letter to the Governor, a copy of which is available on the BLM website at www.blm. 

gov/or/plans/wopr/index.php. 

Since the Governor did not identify specific findings of “inconsistency,” and consequently did not make any 

recommendations for substantive changes to the proposed plan revision itself based on any such findings, 

the BLM’s planning regulations do not require that the BLM provide the public an opportunity to comment 

on the Governor’s recommendations. Furthermore, because the Governor did not identify an inconsistency 

between the PRMP and state or local plans and the policies or programs contained therein, BLM’s response 

to the Governor’s recommendations regarding how best to proceed with implementation are outside the 

scope of the Governor’s consistency review, and thus are not appealable under 43 CFR 1610.3-2(a). 

22 
Record of Decision 

Public Involvement 

Interaction with public regarding this resource management plan revision began with the mailing of a 

newsletter dedicated to the plan revision in August 2005. The BLM subsequently did a total of nine mailings 

of a newsletter dedicated to the plan revision. During the initial phase of public involvement (scoping of 

issues) from September through October 2005, the BLM attended or hosted 75 meetings with community 

groups, special interest groups, elected officials and many others. The BLM received about 3,000 e-mail 

messages, letters, and written and oral suggestions from the public. 

In October 2005, the BLM published and distributed the Analysis of the Management Situation. 

In February 2006, the BLM published a report which detailed what the BLM had heard and learned from 

the public during scoping. In addition, in February 2006, the BLM distributed and solicited comments 

from the public on its Proposed Planning Criteria and State Director Guidance. The BLM hosted six public 

workshops in western Oregon to discuss the range of alternatives and other aspects of the plan revision 

addressed in the Proposed Planning Criteria and State Director Guidance document. A BLM web site was 

established in February 2006 to provide a further avenue of information to the public regarding the resource 

management plan revision. 

In June 2006, the BLM hosted a “State of the Science” workshop held at Oregon State University. The 

workshop brought together scientists, forest managers, interested citizens, interest groups, and plan 

cooperators to discuss a series of state of the science reviews prepared for the BLM to address critical 

information needs related to this resource management plan revision. 

In August 2007, the DEIS for this resource management plan revision was released for public comment. 

During the same month, an On-Line Web Forum for the DEIS was initiated. The 90-day public comment 

period was subsequently extended to January 2008, for a total of 150 days. The BLM received almost 30,000 

submissions through the Web Forum and through e-mail or postal mail. Comments came from across the 

country from private citizens, organized groups, government officials, tribes, and cooperating agencies. 

The FEIS for the PRMP was released in October 2008. On November 7, 2008, a Federal Register notice was 

published announcing the beginning of a 30-day protest period for the PRMP. Resolution of protests is 

delegated to the BLM Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning on behalf of the Director of 

the BLM, whose decision on the protest is the final decision of the Department of the Interior. The Assistant 

Director received 264 protest letters timely filed during the 30-day protest period. The BLM reviewed the 

letters and identified the valid protest issues. 

The main issues raised in the protest letters were related to: 

• compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; 

• compliance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; 

• compliance with the O&C Act; 

• Endangered Species Act consultation; 

• impacts to species listed under the Endangered Species Act; 

• climate change and carbon storage; 

• travel management and Off-Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas; 

• Riparian Management Areas; and 

• departing from the Northwest Forest Plan. 

The BLM has resolved all protest issues and responded to each protesting party for each protest issue that 

was timely raised by a party that had standing to protest, had been previously raised in comments during the 

planning process to the extent it was possible to do so, and was germane to the planning process. 

The BLM has denied all protests of the PRMP. Further, the BLM has determined the PRMP complies with 

applicable law, regulation, and policy. The BLM’s responses to the protest issues are available on the BLM 

website at www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/index.php. 

23 
Roseburg District ROD and RMP 

Recommendation

I have considered how the alternatives analyzed in the environmental impact statement meet the purpose 

Approval

I approve the attached Resource Management Plan for the Roseburg District as recommended and hereby 

declare that the annual productive capacity (allowable sale quantity) of the Roseburg sustained yield unit 

is 69 million board feet. This Record of Decision is effective immediately. 

___________________________________________ ____________ 

C. Stephen Allred Date 

Assistant Secretary 

Land and Minerals Management 

Department of the Interior 

and need, the associated environmental impacts, and public input. Based on these considerations, I 

recommend approval of the attached Resource Management Plan for the Roseburg District. 

__________________________________________ __________ 

Jay Carlson Date 

Roseburg District Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

Concurrence

__________________________________________ __________ 

Edward W. Shepard Date 

Oregon/Washington State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

24