CASCADE-SISKIYOU

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Record of Decision 

and 

Resource Management Plan

Medford District OfficeBLM

August 2008
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.

BLM/OR/WA/PT-08/018+1792
United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument

Record of Decision

and

Resource Management Plan

Prepared by:

Bureau of Land Management

Medford District Office

3040 Biddle Road

Medford, OR 97504
ii Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP iii
iv Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP v
vi Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Acronyms

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP vii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABA Architectural Barriers Act

ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AMP Allotment Management Plan

AQMA Air Quality Management Act

AUM Animal Unit Month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSEEA Cascade Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area

CSNM Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument

CWA Clean Water Act

CWD Coarse Woody Debris

DEA Diversity Emphasis Area

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DOI Department of Interior

DRMP Draft Resource Management Plan

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FMP Fire Management Plan

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

GIS Geographic Information System

I-5 Interstate 5

LSR Late-Successional Reserve

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAGPRA National American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFP Northwest Forest Plan

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NLCS National Landscape Conservation System

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NTSA National Trails System Act

O&C Oregon and California Railroad Company Revested Lands

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODF Oregon Department of Forestry

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OGEA Old-Growth Emphasis Area

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

ONHP Oregon Natural Heritage Program

OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department

PCT Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

PM 10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns 
Acronyms

viii Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

PRMP Proposed Resource Management Plan

RMP Resource Management Plan

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD Record of Decision

RUP Recreation Use Permit

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SRP Special Recreation Permit

TID Talent Irrigation District

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geologic Service

VER Valid Existing Right

VRM Visual Resource Management

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan

WQRP Water Quality Restoration Plan

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
Table of Contents

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP ix

table of contents

record of decision.............................................................................................................. 1

record of decision.............................................................................................................. 3

introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3

What the Decision/Resource Management Plan Will Provide....... 3

What the Decision/Resource Management Plan Will Not

Provide.................................................................................................................................... 3

Land Use Plan Decisions .............................................................................................. 3

Implementation Decisions ........................................................................................ 3

public involvement in the planning process ............................................. 4

Scoping......................................................................................................................................... 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement.............................. 4

Public Meetings on the Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement .................................................................................................................................... 4

Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement ........................ 4

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory ............................................................................................... 5

Public Meetings on the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement .................................................................................................................................... 5

alternatives considered .......................................................................................... 5

Overview Of Alternatives............................................................................................................ 5

Alternative A—No Action.......................................................................................................... 5

Alternative B—Primitive, Hands-Off Approach ....................................................................... 5

Alternative C—Moderate, Active Management......................................................................... 6

Alternative D—Intense, Active Management............................................................................ 6

Proposed Resource Management Plan........................................................................................ 6

Environmentally Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................ 6

management considerations for selecting the resource

management Plan........................................................................................................... 7

Continuity of Previous Decisions ........................................................................ 7

Plan Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 8

Consistency Review ....................................................................................................... 9

mitigation measures..................................................................................................... 9

Plan Monitoring.............................................................................................................. 9

Implementation.............................................................................................................. 10

availability of the resource management plan................................... 10

manager’s recommendations............................................................................... 10

state director approval.......................................................................................... 10

resource management plan ...........................................................................................11

chapter 1 ...............................................................................................................................13

purpose and need ...............................................................................................................13

introduction ................................................................................................................... 13

Plan Maintenance ...................................................................................................................... 13

Setting........................................................................................................................................ 14

purpose and need for action................................................................................ 17

general direction ....................................................................................................... 20

overall vision ................................................................................................................. 20

public participation and collaberation..................................................... 20

chapter 2 .............................................................................................................................. 23

resource management plan .......................................................................................... 23

introduction ................................................................................................................... 23
Table of Contents

x Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Overview.................................................................................................................................... 23

Primary Management Concerns................................................................................................ 23

Primary Management Objectives............................................................................................... 23

Primary Management Tools....................................................................................................... 23

Management .............................................................................................................................. 23

Implementation Considerations................................................................................................. 23

MANAGEMENT ZONES AND AREAS............................................................................. 24

North and South Management Zones....................................................................................... 24

Plant Community Emphasis Areas............................................................................................ 24

old-growth emphasis area ................................................................................... 27

Overview.................................................................................................................................... 27

Primary Management Concerns in the OGEA......................................................................... 27

Habitat Fragmentation.............................................................................................................. 27

Fire Exclusion ........................................................................................................................... 27

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)............................................................................................ 28

Road Density ............................................................................................................................ 28

Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants................................................................................................ 28

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Connectivity................................................................................ 28

Primary Management Objectives for the OGEA...................................................................... 31

Primary Management Tools for the OGEA.............................................................................. 31

Forest Thinning......................................................................................................................... 31

Prescribed Fire .......................................................................................................................... 33

Road Closures........................................................................................................................... 33

Noxious Weed Treatments........................................................................................................ 33

Treatment Priorities in the OGEA............................................................................................ 33

Reduced Forest Habitat Connectivity (Map 8)......................................................................... 33

Young Stands (Map 9) .............................................................................................................. 33

Pine Forest Communities and Mixed Conifer with a Pine Component (Map 10)................... 35

High Fire Hazard within 1⁄4 Mile of Old-Growth/Late-Successional Habitat (Map 11) ........ 35

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) (Map 12)............................................................................ 35

Priority Areas (Map 13)............................................................................................................ 35

Habitat Types 1 and 2.............................................................................................................. 35

Habitat Type 3 ......................................................................................................................... 36

Habitat Type 5 ......................................................................................................................... 36

Management in the OGEA....................................................................................................... 36

Priority 1: Treatments in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) ............................................ 36

Priority 2: Treatments in the Connectivity Area ..................................................................... 37

Priority 3: Treatments in Young Stands................................................................................... 38

Implementation Considerations in the OGEA.......................................................................... 38

diversity emphasis area ........................................................................................... 45

Overview.................................................................................................................................... 45

Primary Management Concerns in the DEA............................................................................ 45

Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants................................................................................................ 45

Riparian Areas.......................................................................................................................... 45

Fire-Dependent Plant Communities ........................................................................................ 45

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)............................................................................................ 48

Wildlife Habitat........................................................................................................................ 48

Primary Management Objectives for the DEA ......................................................................... 48

Primary Management Tools for the DEA ................................................................................. 49

Weed Treatments...................................................................................................................... 49

Plant Community Restoration.................................................................................................. 49

Prescribed Fire .......................................................................................................................... 49
Table of Contents

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP xi

Thinning in Shrublands and Oak Woodlands.......................................................................... 49

Management in the DEA .......................................................................................................... 49

Weed Abatement ...................................................................................................................... 50

Restoration and Protection of Riparian Areas and Wetland Plant Communities.................... 50

Pilot Studies in Fire-Dependent Plant Communities............................................................... 50

Grasslands................................................................................................................................ 51

Shrublands............................................................................................................................... 52

Woodlands............................................................................................................................... 53

Reduce Fire Hazard in the Wildland-Urban Interface............................................................ 54

Implementation Considerations in the DEA............................................................................. 54

riparian areas and aquatic resources.......................................................... 55

Overview.................................................................................................................................... 55

Primary Management Concerns in Riparian Areas................................................................... 55

Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Fragmentation .......................................................................... 56

Past Management Activities.................................................................................................... 56

Road Density ........................................................................................................................... 56

Dams and Irrigation Diversions............................................................................................... 56

Loss of Floodplain Connectivity ............................................................................................. 56

Beaver Extirpation................................................................................................................... 56

Changes in Plant Community Structure and Composition...................................................... 56

Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants............................................................................................... 56

Livestock Utilization................................................................................................................ 56

Loss of Riparian Habitat for Terrestrial and Aquatic Species .................................................. 57

Increased Stream Temperatures............................................................................................... 57

Sediment.................................................................................................................................. 58

Livestock.................................................................................................................................. 58

Lack of Large Wood................................................................................................................ 58

Primary Management Objectives for Riparian Areas................................................................ 58

Primary Management Tools for Riparian Areas........................................................................ 59

Survey/Inventory....................................................................................................................... 59

Planting/Seeding of Native Species.......................................................................................... 59

Thinning in Riparian Areas...................................................................................................... 59

Reducing Road Density ............................................................................................................ 59

Fencing...................................................................................................................................... 59

Livestock Management............................................................................................................. 59

Management in Riparian Areas................................................................................................. 59

Surveys...................................................................................................................................... 60

Restoration and Protection Measures ....................................................................................... 60

Aquatic Habitat........................................................................................................................ 60

Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 60

Former Box O Ranch Restoration ........................................................................................... 62

Weed Abatement ..................................................................................................................... 62

Thinning .................................................................................................................................. 62

Prescribed Fire ......................................................................................................................... 62

Partnerships ............................................................................................................................. 62

Implementation Considerations in Riparian Areas.................................................................... 62

Livestock grazing........................................................................................................ 63

Overview.................................................................................................................................... 63

Current Active Grazing Allotments......................................................................................... 63

Laws and Regulations Related to Livestock Grazing ................................................................ 63

The Presidential Proclamation .................................................................................................. 66

Current Grazing Regulations ................................................................................................... 66
Table of Contents

xii Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Primary Management Concerns Related to Livestock Grazing ................................................ 67

Noxious Weeds ......................................................................................................................... 67

Riparian and Wetland Areas .................................................................................................... 67

Wildlife Habitat........................................................................................................................ 68

Ecological Succession and Plant Community Composition..................................................... 68

Special Status Species ............................................................................................................... 68

Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 68

Primary Management Tools for Livestock Grazing................................................................... 68

Adjust Grazing Systems............................................................................................................ 68

Pasture Divisions ...................................................................................................................... 69

Season-of-Use Adjustments...................................................................................................... 69

Distribution............................................................................................................................... 69

Adjustments to Turn-Out and Take-Off Dates........................................................................ 69

Adjustments to AUM Authorizations ...................................................................................... 69

Special Use Permits................................................................................................................... 69

Rangeland Improvements ......................................................................................................... 69

Allotment Management Plans.................................................................................................. 69

Primary Management Objectives for Livestock Grazing........................................................... 70

Management for Livestock Grazing .......................................................................................... 70

Programmatic and Site-Specific Decisions ............................................................................... 70

Authorized Livestock Operations............................................................................................ 70

Livestock Facilities................................................................................................................... 70

Access....................................................................................................................................... 70

Existing Vacant Allotments..................................................................................................... 70

Lease Renewals........................................................................................................................ 70

Allotment Retirement.............................................................................................................. 70

Lands Not Currently Included in Existing Allotments and Lands Not Currently Under 

Lease ........................................................................................................................................ 72

Newly Acquired Lands............................................................................................................ 72

Framework for Making Future Decisions Regarding Livestock Grazing and Complying 

with the Presidential Proclamation........................................................................................... 72

Step 1: Livestock Impacts Study .............................................................................................. 73

Step 2: Conduct Rangeland Health Assessments, Evaluate Current Livestock Grazing 

Practices and Determine Rangeland Health and Impacts to Objects...................................... 73

Step 3: Follow the NEPA Process for Lease Renewals or Allotment Retirements.................. 75

Step 4: Determine Grazing Compatibility, Issue Decision and Implement Grazing Lease 

Issuance/Renewal or Retire Allotments .................................................................................. 75

transportation and access ................................................................................... 77

Overview.................................................................................................................................... 77

Primary Management Concerns for Transportation.................................................................. 80

Terrestrial Wildlife and Associated Habitats............................................................................ 80

Hydrologic Function and Water Quality .................................................................................. 80

Key Watershed.......................................................................................................................... 81

Aquatic Species, Riparian Areas and Water Quality................................................................ 81

Exotic Species/Noxious Weeds................................................................................................. 81

Fire Ignition and Suppression................................................................................................... 82

Human Impacts Associated with the Presence of Roads.......................................................... 82

Livestock Operations ................................................................................................................ 82

Primary Management Objectives for Transportation ................................................................ 82

Primary Management Tools for Transportation ........................................................................ 83

Road Closures........................................................................................................................... 83

Road Decommissioning............................................................................................................ 83
Table of Contents

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP xiii

Road Obliteration ..................................................................................................................... 83

Drainage Improvement............................................................................................................. 83

Road Stabilization..................................................................................................................... 84

Maintenance ............................................................................................................................. 84

Best Management Practices...................................................................................................... 84

Law Enforcement...................................................................................................................... 84

Management for Transportation................................................................................................ 84

Access........................................................................................................................................ 84

Valid Existing Rights............................................................................................................... 84

Public Access ........................................................................................................................... 84

Access for Livestock Operations.............................................................................................. 84

Road Construction................................................................................................................... 87

Administrative Access and Service Roads............................................................................... 87

Emergency/Fire Suppression Access........................................................................................ 87

Off-Highway Vehicle Access ................................................................................................... 87

Road Density ............................................................................................................................ 88

Site-Specific Management........................................................................................................ 88

Schoheim Road........................................................................................................................ 88

Pilot Rock Road....................................................................................................................... 88

Randcore Pass Road................................................................................................................. 88

Skookum Creek Road.............................................................................................................. 88

Road 41-2E-9.0........................................................................................................................ 88

Soda Mountain Lookout Road ................................................................................................ 88

Lone Pine Ridge Road............................................................................................................. 88

Road 41-4E-7.0 ........................................................................................................................ 88

Road 41-2E-12.0...................................................................................................................... 90

Roads 39-4E-6.0, 39-3E-11, 40-3E-35 and 40-3E-3 .............................................................. 90

Implementation Considerations for Transportation................................................................... 90

Implementation Procedures for Transportation ......................................................................... 90

recreation and visitor services ........................................................................ 91

Overview.................................................................................................................................... 91

Primary Management Concerns Related to Recreation............................................................. 91

Mixed Ownership..................................................................................................................... 91

Increased Visitation................................................................................................................... 91

Trail Proliferation...................................................................................................................... 91

Illegal Motorized Use ............................................................................................................... 92

Primary Management Objectives for Recreation....................................................................... 92

Primary Management Tools for Recreation............................................................................... 92

Site Improvement...................................................................................................................... 92

Education.................................................................................................................................. 93

Limit or Prohibit Use................................................................................................................ 93

Seasonal Closures...................................................................................................................... 93

Road Closures........................................................................................................................... 93

Law Enforcement...................................................................................................................... 93

Management for Recreation....................................................................................................... 94

Animal Stock Use ..................................................................................................................... 94

Bicycles...................................................................................................................................... 94

Campfires.................................................................................................................................. 94

Climbing ................................................................................................................................... 94

Collections/Special Forest Products.......................................................................................... 94

Dispersed Camping .................................................................................................................. 96

Access to Dispersed Camping Areas ....................................................................................... 96
Table of Contents

xiv Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Hang Gliding and Para-Sailing/Gliding .................................................................................. 97

Hiking....................................................................................................................................... 97

Hunting and Fishing................................................................................................................. 97

Hyatt Lake Recreation Area ..................................................................................................... 97

Motorized and Mechanized Recreation.................................................................................... 97

Paint Ball .................................................................................................................................. 98

Parking...................................................................................................................................... 98

Pilot Rock ................................................................................................................................. 98

Technical Climbing on Pilot Rock .......................................................................................... 98

Hiking on Pilot Rock .............................................................................................................. 98

Recreation Use Permits............................................................................................................. 99

Snowmobiles............................................................................................................................. 99

Special Recreation Permits ....................................................................................................... 99

Special Areas............................................................................................................................. 99

Trails....................................................................................................................................... 101

Visitor Facilities....................................................................................................................... 101

Interpretive Sites/Signs.......................................................................................................... 101

Visitor Education .................................................................................................................... 101

Implementation Considerations for Recreation........................................................................ 102

general management.............................................................................................. 103

CSNM Property Boundary and Ownership............................................................................ 103

Land Tenure Adjustments........................................................................................................ 103

Management of Newly Acquired Lands.................................................................................. 103

Federal Reserved Water Rights................................................................................................ 103

Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA)...................................................................... 104

Research Natural Areas (RNAs).............................................................................................. 104

Mariposa Lily Botanical Area.................................................................................................. 104

Northwest Forest Plan ............................................................................................................. 104

Aquatic Conservation Strategy ............................................................................................... 104

Special Status Species .............................................................................................................. 104

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Species ................................................................................. 105

Bureau Sensitive, Assessment and Tracking Species .............................................................. 105

Fish And Wildlife Populations................................................................................................ 105

Air Quality Management ........................................................................................................ 105

Best Management Practices (BMPs) ....................................................................................... 106

Water Quality Management .................................................................................................... 106

Water Quality Standards ........................................................................................................ 106

Public Water Systems.............................................................................................................. 106

Native American Uses.............................................................................................................. 107

Archaeological and Cultural Site Protection............................................................................ 108

Archaeological Sites................................................................................................................ 108

Cultural Resource Sites........................................................................................................... 108

Research and Education.......................................................................................................... 108

Historic Trails......................................................................................................................... 108

Applegate Trail .......................................................................................................................110

Oregon-California Wagon Trail.............................................................................................110

National Scenic Trails...............................................................................................................110

Science and Research ................................................................................................................110

Monitoring................................................................................................................................111

Collections/Special Forest Products..........................................................................................111

Off-Highway Vehicular (OHV) Travel.....................................................................................111

Hazards to Facilities, Visitors and Public Safety...................................................................... 112
Table of Contents

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP xv

Public Outreach and Education............................................................................................... 112

Adjacent Landowners and Local Communities...................................................................... 112

Wildland Fire Suppression....................................................................................................... 112

Stabilization, Rehabilitation and Restoration Following Wildland Fire.................................. 113

Fuel Hazard Reduction............................................................................................................ 113

Visual Resource Management...................................................................................................114

Valid Existing Rights................................................................................................................114

Linear Rights-of-Way ..............................................................................................................114

Withdrawals............................................................................................................................ 115

Communication Sites...............................................................................................................117

Minerals....................................................................................................................................117

Supplemental Rules...................................................................................................................117

chapter 3 .............................................................................................................................119

implementation, monitoring and adaptive management framework...........119

introduction ..................................................................................................................119

timeframes for implementation......................................................................119

REFINING LANDSCAPE DECISIONS AND INFORMATION TO 

SITE-SPECIFIC LEVELS......................................................................................................119

FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING, EVALUATION AND 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................ 120

Monitoring............................................................................................................................... 120

Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 121

Adaptive Management............................................................................................................. 121

Role of CSNM Staff ................................................................................................................ 122

consultation, Coordination and collaboration............................... 122

list of preparers.............................................................................................................. 123

Appendices

appendix a: Presidential Proclamation 7318 (June 9, 2000)..................................A-1

appendix b: Antiquities act of 1906 .............................................................................B-1

appendix c: conservation measures for endangered species act species..... C-1

appendix d: wildland fire occurance and risk assessment...............................D-1

appendix e: prescribed fire ............................................................................................ E-1

appendix f: strategy for controlling the spread of noxious

weeds and other invasive grasses in the cascade-siskiyou 

national monument ........................................................................................................ F-1

appendix g: Old-Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA) Treatment Design based 

on Ecoregion Characteristics and Individual Stand Structures...................G-1

appendix h: Standards for Rangeland Health andGuidelines for

Livestock Grazing Management .................................................................................H-1

appendix I: Monitoring Strategy and Projects ....................................................... I-1

appendix j: memorandum of understanding between the bureau of land 

management and friends of the cascade-siskiyou national monument ......J-1

appendix K: Management Plan for Scotch Creek Research Natural Area..... K-1

appendix l: management plan for oregon gulch research natural area ....L-1

appendix m: special status species ............................................................................. M-1

appendix n: fire suppression tactics ..........................................................................N-1

appendix o: Existing withdrawals, linear and site authorizations in

the cascade-siskiyou national monument..............................................................O-1
Table of Contents

xvi Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

glossary of terms.....................................................................................................Glos-1

references.......................................................................................................................Ref-1

Index..................................................................................................................................Ind-1

maps

Map 1: vicinity map..............................................................................................................15

map 2: Existing Designations.......................................................................................... 16

Map 3: ecoregions of oregon and washington....................................................... 18

map 4: management zones and level 6 subwatersheds ........................................ 25

map 5: Plant community emphasis areas ................................................................... 26

map 6: laminated root rot presence ........................................................................... 29

map 7: insect incidence 1995-2003 .................................................................................. 30

map 8: Reduced forest habitat connectivity............................................................ 39

map 9: Young stands (Habitat type 3)........................................................................... 40

map 10: pine forest communities and mixed conifer with 

a pine component................................................................................................................41

map 11: High fire hazard within 1/4 mile of old-growth and 

Late-successional habitat.............................................................................................. 42

map 12: wildland-urban interface .............................................................................. 43

map 13: priority areas ...................................................................................................... 44

map 14: Distribution of plant communities .............................................................. 46

map 15: noxious weed populations.............................................................................. 47

map 16: priority areas for restoration of aquatic habitat.................................61

map 17: livestock grazing allotments....................................................................... 64

map 18: permitted interim livestock management access ................................... 71

map 19: road system .......................................................................................................... 78

map 20: reciprocal Agreements .................................................................................... 79

map 21: Desired easements for public access ........................................................... 85

map 22: approved road treatments............................................................................. 86

map 23: roads identified for possible decommissioning under a

future planning action .................................................................................................. 89

map 24: areas where roads are closed to bicycle access .................................... 95

map 25: snowmobile routes.......................................................................................... 100

map 26: historic trails ................................................................................................... 109

map 27: utility corridors ...............................................................................................116

tables

Table 2-1: Acres Identified as Priorities for Treatment by Habitat Type .......... 36

Table 2-2: Acres Proposed for Management Activities in the OGEA................... 37

Table 2-3: Grassland Objectives and Pilot Studies................................................. 51

Table 2-4: Shrubland Objectives and Pilot Studies ................................................ 52

Table 2-5: Woodland Objectives and Pilot Studies................................................. 53

Table 2-6: Water Quality Limited Streams on the 2002 

303(d) List (ODEQ 2004)........................................................................................................ 57

Table 2-7: Active Grazing Allotments ......................................................................... 63

Table 2-8: Allotment Use within the CSNM ................................................................. 65

Table 2-9. Road Densities within the Cascade-Siskiyou National

Monument (Includes Open and Closed Roads, but Excludes Previously 
Table of Contents

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP xvii

Decommissioned Roads)................................................................................................... 77

Table 2-10: Road Densities within Special Areas and Reserves

(Excluding Previously Decommissioned Roads) ...................................................... 80

Table 2-11: Road Densities by Watershed and Subwatershed within the 

Greater CSNM Boundary.................................................................................................. 81

Table C-1: Conservation Measures for Listed Species............................................ c-2

Table D-1: Hazard Rating Classes.................................................................................D-2

Table D-2: Fire Hazard Ratings for the CSNM............................................................D-2

Table G-1: Historic Crown Closure for Ecoregions in the OGEA 

(OWEB 2004) ..........................................................................................................................G-2

Table G-2: Dry Douglas-Fir/Pine Community (xeric) – Habitat Types 1 & 2 ........g-3

Table G-3: Mixed Conifer Plant Community (mesic) – Habitat Types 1 & 2 .........g-3

Table G-4: White Fir Plant Community – Habitat Type 1 & 2 ...................................g-3

Table K-1: Average Air Temperatures at Howard Priarie Dam

(NOAA Station 1961-1990).................................................................................................. k-7

Table K-2: Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Soil Units (USDA 1993)............k-8

Table L-1: Average Monthly Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Air

Temperatures at Howard Prairie Dam ....................................................................... l-6

Table L-2: Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Soil Units (USDA 1993).......... l-8

Table L-3: Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Water Developments

with Water Rights............................................................................................................l-14

Table M-1: Overview of Curent Special Status Plant Species within the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument .................................................................... m-2

Table M-2: Terrestrial Wildlife Species Documented or Likely to Occur in the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ....................................................................m-4

Table N-1: Fire Suppression Tactics for Designated Special Management

Areas within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument....................................n-2

Table O-1: Existing Withdrawals in the Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument ........................................................................................................o-2

Table O-2: Linear and Site Authorizations in the Cascade-Siskiyou National

Monument .......................................................................................................................... o-3

figures

Figure 2-1: process for assessing rangeland health and determining 

livestock compatibility with the objects of biological interest.....................74

Figure 3-1: Adaptive management process.............................................................. 120
xviii Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Cascade-siskiyou national Monument

record of decision
2 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Record of Decision

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 3

record of decision

introduction

This document records the decisions reached by 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for 

managing approximately 52,947 acres of public 

lands administered by the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (CSNM). The decisions, which 

are summarized below, are more fully described 

in the Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 

Chapter 2 of this document.

What the Decision/Resource 

Management Plan Will Provide

This Record of Decision (ROD) and RMP 

provide overall direction for management of all 

resources on BLM-administered land comprising 

the CSNM.

What the Decision/Resource 

Management Plan Will Not

Provide

Many decisions are not appropriate at this level 

of planning and are not included in the ROD. 

Examples of these types of decisions include:

1. Statutory requirements. The decision will not 

change the BLM’s responsibility to comply 

with applicable laws and regulations including the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water 

Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA), Act of June 18, 1906 (Antiquities 

Act), or any other federal law.

2. National Policy. The decision will not change 

the BLM’s obligation to conform to current 

or future national policy.

3. Funding levels and allocations. These are determined annually at the national level and are 

beyond the control of the field office.

4. Changes in wilderness study area boundaries.

Land Use Plan Decisions

The decision is hereby made to approve the 

attached RMP for the CSNM. This plan was 

prepared in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 7318 (Appendix A) establishing the 

monument and under regulations issued under 

the authority of the FLPMA (43 CFR Part 1600) 

and other applicable laws. An Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for this 

RMP in compliance with NEPA (1969). Except 

for the decision to allow flexibility to lift the 

peregrine falcon seasonal climbing restrictions on 

the south and east sides of Pilot Rock, this plan 

is very similar to the one set forth in the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS (FEIS) published in February 2005. Modifications to the proposed plan corrected errors that 

were noted during review of the Proposed RMP/

FEIS and provide further clarification for some 

of the decisions, including how livestock grazing 

would be managed on newly acquired lands and 

on lands not currently authorized for grazing. 

Specific management decisions and objectives for 

public lands under jurisdiction of CascadeSiskiyou National Monument are presented in 

Chapter 2 of this RMP.

Land use plan decisions identified in the attached 

RMP include:

•	 land tenure zoning classifications;

•	 designations of vegetation management areas; 

•	 visual resource management classifications;

•	 programmatic and site-specific decisions 

related to livestock grazing;

•	 decisions regarding transportation and access 

(except those mandated by the presidential 

proclamation);

•	 wildland fire management; 

•	 recreation management; and

•	 management of linear rights-of-way and communication sites.

Implementation Decisions

It is BLM’s intent to implement, over time, a 

number of specific project-level decisions described in the attached RMP, as funding and staff 

are available. These are called “implementation 

decisions” (as opposed to land use planning decisions described above). Implementation decisions in this RMP will require the preparation 

of detailed, project-level NEPA analyses prior to 

implementation. Public involvement opportunities, including further protest or appeal opportunities, may be provided at that time. Examples of 
Record of Decision

4 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

implementation decisions described in Chapter 2 

include:

•	 specific vegetation and weed treatment projects and pilot studies;

•	 specific fire hazard reduction projects in the 

wildland-urban interface; 

•	 specific visitor facility development (e.g., 

trailheads, restrooms, interpretive signs, etc.);

•	 future livestock management decisions;

•	 creation of defensible space around structures 

on private property; and 

•	 specific methods for decommissioning roads.

public involvement in the 

planning process

The BLM is committed to providing opportunities for meaningful participation in the resource 

management planning process. Throughout the 

preparation of this RMP, the BLM has maintained an extensive public participation process 

aimed at providing frequent opportunities for 

interaction with the public through a variety of 

media.

scoping

The BLM initiated the planning process by 

undertaking a “scoping” process in which a large 

cross-section of the public was invited to identify 

relevant, substantive issues to be addressed in the 

Draft RMP for the CSNM. The formal scoping 

period began with publication of the Notice of 

Intent to produce a management plan in the Federal Register on July 31, 2000 (Volume 65, No.147, 

pg. 46731). Written comments were accepted 

through August 31, 2000. Initially, a letter announcing the establishment of the monument and 

detailing the planning process was sent to landowners adjacent to the monument, as well as to 

other interested parties. In addition, the CSNM 

web page provided up-to-date information on the 

monument and solicited public input. All relevant 

information received during the comment period 

for the Cascade Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area

(the area’s previous designation) Draft Resource 

Management Plan/ Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (March 2000) was included in the 

scoping process.

draft resource management

plan/draft environmental impact

statement

The BLM released the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS) 

in June 2002. A 90-day comment period followed 

the publication of the DRMP/DEIS. In response 

to numerous requests, the public comment period 

was extended for an additional 90 days, closing 

on December 19, 2002. Approximately 17,000 

comments were received. Substantive comments 

pertinent to the land use planning process were 

analyzed and responded to in Chapter 5 of the 

Proposed RMP/FEIS (USDI 2005).

Public Meetings on the Draft Resource 

Management Plan/Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

During the comment period for the DRMP/

DEIS, public meetings were held in Ashland 

on June 15, 2002; in Medford on November 

7, 2002; and in Lincoln on December 7, 2002. 

From November 19 through December 17, 2002, 

monument staff were available every Tuesday at 

a local establishment to answer questions about 

the DRMP/DEIS. Additionally, 12 individual 

briefings were held for interested groups and local 

officials.

proposed resource management

Plan/Final environmental impact

statement

A 30-day protest period, beginning February 11, 

2005, was provided for the Proposed RMP/FEIS 

in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.5-2. A total 

of 12 letters were received by the Washington 

Office of the BLM. These protests were resolved 

by the BLM Director. All of those who provided 

protests or comment letters to the Washington 

Office received a response from the BLM Washington Office.

Concurrent with the protest period for the Proposed RMP/FEIS, the BLM received approximately 13,000 comments, most as form letters 

generated electronically.
Record of Decision

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 5

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory

One of the protest letters stated that the BLM 

failed to address identification and protection of 

lands with wilderness qualities. The BLM recently updated its inventory of wilderness characteristics within the CSNM. 

With regards to wilderness characteristics, there 

are currently no unroaded areas (other than the 

Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA)) 

with over 5,000 acres of contiguous BLM lands. 

However, with the decommissioning of the 

Schoheim Road following approval of the RMP, 

the BLM will be monitoring the development of 

wilderness characteristics. The effects of management activities on wilderness characteristics will 

be evaluated site-specifically during project level 

planning.

Furthermore, management which is already provided by this RMP throughout the entire CSNM 

will maintain or enhance wilderness values and 

characteristics currently present as well as those 

that potentially develop in the future, particularly 

management in the Diversity Emphasis Area, 

road decommissioning and closures, prohibition 

of off-road mechanized travel, recreation management in the south management zone, and continuation of existing protection-based allocations 

and designations (Soda Mountain WSA, Jenny 

Creek Tier 1 Key Watershed, Mariposa Lily 

Botanical Area, Scotch Creek Research Natural Area, and Oregon Gulch Research Natural 

Area).

The existing Soda Mountain WSA is fully 

encompassed by the monument boundary. The 

area is currently managed and will continue to 

be managed in accordance with BLM’s Interim 

Management Policy (IMP) for Lands under Wilderness Review (BLM Manual H-8550-1). The 

objective of the IMP is to manage those lands so 

as not to impair their suitability for designation as 

wilderness.

Revised Statutes (R.S.) 2477

Four protest letters stated that prior to closing 

or decommissioning roads within the monument, the BLM needs to identify and retain valid 

existing R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. The R.S. 2477 

rights-of-way issue was addressed in the CSNM 

Proposed RMP/FEIS. Subsequent to publishing 

the Proposed RMP/FEIS and prior to issuing the 

protest responses, the Department of the Interior 

(DOI)/BLM R.S. 2477 policy changed (Secretary’s Memorandum March 22, 2006), revoking 

the January 22, 1997 Interim Department Policy 

on R.S. 2477. The protest responses, mailed 

April 7, 2006, inadvertently retained the outdated 

language; however, since there are no current 

filings for R.S. 2477 rights-of-way within the 

monument, the policy change in no way changes 

BLM’s decisions in this RMP.

Public Meetings on the Proposed Resource 

Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

Following the publication of the Proposed RMP/

FEIS, the BLM held two public meetings in February 2005 to provide information to the public, 

answer questions, and facilitate public comments. 

These meetings were held February 15th in Ashland and February 26th at the Greensprings Inn.

alternatives considered

Four different alternatives for management of the 

monument, including a No Action Alternative, 

were described in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS 

released in June 2002. The Proposed RMP/FEIS, 

published in February 2005, was drawn from the 

alternatives laid out in the Draft RMP/Draft 

EIS, applicable public comment and management 

direction.

overview of alternatives

Below is a brief overview of each alternative as 

described in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and the 

Proposed RMP/FEIS.

Alternative A—No Action

Alternative A described current monument management, which is based on the BLM Medford 

District RMP (1995) and the specific direction 

of the presidential proclamation. This alternative 

was meant to serve as a baseline for comparison 

with other alternatives.

Alternative B—Primitive, Hands-Off 

Approach

The management strategy proposed under Alternative B relied on natural ecosystem processes that would have allowed plant community 

dynamics to unfold without active intervention. 
Record of Decision

6 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

One exception was the management of young 

conifer stands that are a product of past timber 

harvest. Accommodations for recreation and 

visitation were to be minimal under this alternative. The transportation system would have been 

maintained at the minimal level necessary for access, and many roads were to be decommissioned 

naturally.

Alternative C—Moderate, Active 

Management

Alternative C represented the course of action 

that the BLM believed was best suited to address 

issues across the landscape. Alternative C would 

have relied on a moderate level of active management for protection and maintenance of all plant 

communities. Recreation and visitor use were to 

be accommodated at levels believed to be compatible with the protection of monument resources. 

The transportation system would have been managed to accommodate visitor use and safety, and 

both natural and mechanical decommissioning 

were to be implemented on some roads.

Alternative D—Intense, Active 

Management

Under Alternative D, the BLM would have utilized intensive, hands-on management for protection, maintenance and restoration of monument 

plant communities. Recreation and visitor use 

were to be accommodated to the fullest extent 

possible while protecting monument resources. 

The transportation system was to be managed to 

accommodate and promote visitor use, while mechanical decommissioning of many roads would 

have been used to protect and restore monument 

resources.

Proposed Resource Management Plan

The Proposed RMP was drawn from all of the alternatives and was primarily based on Alternative 

C. The Proposed RMP would manage fewer acres 

in the Old-Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA) 

than proposed in Alternative C, and management 

in the Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA) would 

be primarily limited to pilot studies. Recreation 

and visitor services would be accommodated at 

levels believed to be compatible with protection of 

monument resources. The transportation system 

would primarily be managed as described in 

Alternative C.

Environmentally preferred 

alternative

The National Environmental Policy Act requires 

that the Record of Decision identify the environmentally preferred alternative analyzed in the 

Environmental Impact Statement. This is judged 

using the criteria in NEPA and subsequent guidance by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ 1981). The CEQ has defined the environmentally preferred alternative as the alternative 

that will best promote the national environmental 

policy as expressed in Section 101 of NEPA. This 

section lists six broad policy goals for all federal 

plans, programs and policies:

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation 

as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations;

2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings;

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of 

the environment without degradation, risk 

to health or safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences;

4. 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;

5. Achieve a balance between population and 

resource use which will permit high standards 

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

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources 

and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources.

The presidential proclamation reserved the 

CSNM in recognition of its remarkable ecology and to protect a diverse range of biological, 

geological, aquatic, archeological, and historic objects. The resources found in the monument, both 

individually and collectively, comprise a unique 

and diverse ecosystem. Based on the six criteria 

identified above, the most environmentally preferable alternative involves a balancing of current 

and potential resource uses with that of resource 

protection as described in the proclamation. The 

Proposed RMP provides the best course of action 

for the protection, maintenance, restoration, or 

enhancement of monument resources as required 
Record of Decision

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 7

by the proclamation. Therefore, BLM finds the 

Proposed RMP best meets the definition of the 

environmentally preferred alternative.

management considerations

for selecting the resource 

management Plan

The alternatives described in the Draft RMP/

DEIS and public comment and input provided 

throughout this planning process were considered in preparing the RMP. The Proposed RMP 

depicted a combination of decisions from the 

four alternatives considered in the Draft RMP/

DEIS with emphasis on the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C). This approach to managing 

the monument was chosen because it: (a) most 

effectively accomplishes the overall objectives 

of protecting monument resources and facilitating appropriate research, (b) best addresses the 

diverse community and stakeholder concerns in 

a fair and equitable manner, and (c) provides the 

most workable framework for future management 

of the monument. Among the attributes that led 

to this determination are provisions for protecting monument resources (archaeological, historic, 

paleontological, geologic, biological) including 

special features such as special status species and 

riparian areas; establishment of a solid research 

and adaptive management program that will be 

used to define and protect resources as knowledge 

increases and circumstances change; and provisions for visitor use in a manner consistent with 

the protection of monument resources. The RMP 

is very similar to the Proposed RMP with minor 

revisions and clarifications stemming from protests and further staff review.

Continuity of Previous Decisions

The CSNM was established as a new planning 

area independent of other BLM-administered 

lands. Prior to the designation of the CSNM, 

lands within this geographic area fell within the 

range of the northern spotted owl and were managed in accordance with the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS)/ROD on 

Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and 

Old-Growth Related Species within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan) of 

February 1994, as amended; the Medford District 

Resource Management Plan (USDI 1995a); the 

Medford District Integrated Weed Management Plan

(USDI 1998); the Medford Grazing Management 

Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

(USDI 1984); the FEIS/ROD for the BLM Oregon 

Wilderness Study Report (USDI 1991); and the 

Western Oregon Program - Management of Competing Vegetation FEIS (USDI 1989) and Final ROD

(USDI 1992).

This RMP supersedes all other planning documents that previously covered the CSNM. 

However, NEPA allows for the incorporation of 

decisions made in previous planning documents 

where appropriate. This RMP incorporates by reference all of the decisions made in the following 

management plans:

•	 The Medford District Integrated Weed 

Management Plan (USDI 1998);

•	 The FEIS/ROD for the BLM Oregon 

Wilderness Study Report (USDI 1991); and

•	 The Western Oregon Program - Management of 

Competing Vegetation EIS (USDI 1989) and 

Final ROD (USDI 1992).

This RMP incorporates by reference the following portions of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) 

and the Medford District RMP:

•	 The “Aquatic Conservation Strategy” component of the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/

USDI 1994a), as amended;

Greene’s mariposa lily.
Record of Decision

8 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

•	 The “Survey and Manage” component of 

the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 

1994a), as amended; 

•	 The following land allocations identified in Attachment A of the Northwest 

Forest Plan ROD applicable to the geographic area now identified as the CSNM: 

Tier 1 Key Watershed (Jenny Creek) and 

Administratively Withdrawn Areas (Scotch 

Creek and Oregon Gulch Research Natural 

Areas);

•	 Section E-Implementation (Monitoring, 

Adaptive Management, Interagency 

Coordination, Watershed Analysis, 

Information Resource Management, 

and Consultation and Coordination) of 

Attachment A of the Northwest Forest Plan 

ROD, as appropriate to the incorporated 

Northwest Forest Plan direction and allocations in this RMP; and 

•	 The Best Management Practices from 

Appendix D of the Medford District RMP 

(USDI 1995a).

The above described decisions and analysis are 

those components of the Northwest Forest Plan, 

as amended, and the Medford RMP that are 

incorporated in this RMP as they are consistent 

with the presidential proclamation.

Plan Maintenance

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument RMP 

has incorporated by reference several decisions 

and portions of other resource management plans 

that applied to the monument lands prior to their 

designation as a national monument. In particular, components of the Medford District RMP 

and Northwest Forest Plan have been incorporated to ensure that monument management continues to contribute to the larger regional goals and 

objectives of these plans.

Because Resource Management Plans are periodically revised, amended, supplemented, or otherwise changed, the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument RMP adopts a process of evaluation 

and re-incorporation or rejection of new versions 

of the documents that are incorporated by reference at this time. The evaluation will determine 

whether or not the new version of the incorporated document is consistent with the monument 

proclamation and the primary objectives of this 

RMP. The goal of this process is to have monument management continue contributing to goals 

and objectives established at the regional level as 

they change over time, while protecting monument resources and meeting the intent of the 

presidential proclamation.

The evaluation process follows the steps outlined 

in the BLM Planning Handbook (H-1610-01) 

V.B.1-2. In particular, evaluation questions 4 

and 8, “Have there been significant changes in 

the related plans of Indian Tribes, state or local 

governments, or other federal agencies?” and “Are 

there new legal or policy mandates as a result or 

new statutes, proclamations, Executive Orders, 

or court orders not addressed by the plan?”, are 

applicable.

The monument manager shall prepare an evaluation report that includes recommendations for 

re-incorporation of the new version of a document 

through plan maintenance in accordance with 43 

CFR 1610.5-4 or preparation of new decisions 

as appropriate. “Maintenance actions shall not 

result in expansion in the scope of resource uses 

or restrictions, or change the terms and conditions and decisions of the approved plan (43 CFR 

1610.5-4).”

In addition to possible changes to the decisions 

and portions of other RMPs incorporated by reference, the BLM regulation in 43 CFR 1610.5-4 

provides that land use plan decisions and supporting components can be maintained to reflect 

minor changes in data. Maintenance is limited 

to further refining, documenting, or clarifying a 

previously approved decision incorporated in the 

plan.

Plan maintenance is not considered a plan 

amendment and does not require formal public 

involvement, interagency coordination, or the 

NEPA analysis required for making new land use 

plan decisions. Maintenance actions will be documented in the plan or supporting components. 

Plan maintenance will occur continuously so that 

the RMP and its supporting records reflect the 

current status of decision implementation and 

knowledge of resource conditions. 
Record of Decision

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 9

Consistency Review

The RMP is consistent with plans and policies 

of the Department of the Interior and Bureau of 

Land Management, other federal agencies, state 

governments, and local governments to the extent 

that the guidance and local plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs 

of federal law and regulation applicable to public 

lands. The Governor of the State of Oregon found 

that the Proposed RMP had not been evaluated for consistency against the Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds and the Oregon Board 

of Forestry’s Forestry Program in terms of the 

importance of various forest ownerships in a letter from the Governor’s Natural Resource Policy 

Director, Michael Carrier, dated April 15, 2005. 

The Proposed RMP has since been determined to 

be consistent with the Oregon Plan for Salmon 

and Watersheds and the Forestry Program for 

Oregon (Forest Ownership).

mitigation measures

Mitigation measures have been built into the 

RMP. Sensitive resources are protected through 

resource allocations, route and cross-country 

vehicle closures, and limitations and restrictions 

placed on developments and other activities. All 

practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm were carried forth in the RMP, 

including the adoption of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) from Appendix D of the 

Medford District RMP (USDI 1995a). During 

the next tier of planning, which allows for more 

detailed and site-specific analysis, additional 

measures will be taken, as necessary, in order to 

mitigate subsequent impacts to the environment. 

Monitoring will tell how effective these measures 

are in minimizing environmental impacts. Additional measures to protect the environment may 

be taken during or following monitoring.

Plan Monitoring

During the life of the RMP, the BLM expects 

that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, research, other agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data or 

support new management techniques and scientific principles. To the extent that such new information or actions address issues covered in the 

RMP, the BLM will integrate the data through a 

process called plan maintenance or updating. This 

process includes the use of an adaptive management strategy. As part of this process, the BLM 

will review management actions and the RMP 

periodically to determine whether the objectives 

set forth in this and other applicable planning 

documents are being met. Where they are not 

being met, the BLM will consider adjustments 

of appropriate scope. Where the BLM considers 

taking or approving actions which would alter 

or not conform to overall direction of the RMP, 

the BLM will prepare a plan amendment and 

Hobart Lake and Hobart Bluff.
Record of Decision

10 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

environmental analysis of appropriate scope in 

making its determinations and in seeking public 

comment. A more detailed discussion of implementation and the use of adaptive management 

can be found in Chapter 3.

Implementation

Implementation of the Resource Management 

Plan will begin upon publication of this Record 

of Decision and public notification via a Notice 

of Availability published in the Federal Register. 

Some decisions in the RMP require immediate 

action and will be implemented upon publication of the ROD and RMP. Other decisions will 

be implemented over a period of years. The rate 

of implementation is tied, in part, to the BLM’s 

budgeting process. Implementation of the RMP 

will occur in accordance with the implementation 

and adaptive management framework described 

in Chapter 3 of this RMP.

availability of the resource 

management plan

Copies of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Record of Decision/Resource Management 

Plan are available upon request from the BLM 

Medford District Office, 3040 Biddle Road, 

Medford, OR 97504 or by calling (541) 618-2245. 

It may also be available on the internet at 

http://www.or.blm.gov/Medford/CSNM.

manager’s recommendations

Having considered a full range of alternatives, associated effects, and public input, I recommend adoption 

and implementation of the attached Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Resource Management 

Plan, as described in this Record of Decision. This plan supersedes all other planning documents that 

previously covered the CSNM. The Resource Management Plan addresses all issues raised that are 

relevant for resolution by the Bureau of Land Management.

 

 August 2008

John Gerritsma Date

Ashland Resource Area 

Field Manager/Monument Manager

 

 August 2008

Timothy B. Reuwsaat Date

Medford District Manager

state director’s approval

I approve the attached Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Resource Management Plan. This 

document meets the requirement for a Record of Decision, as provided in 40 CFR Part 1505.2, and for a 

Resource Management Plan, as described in 43 CFR Part 1610.0-5(k).

 

 August 2008

Edward W. Shepard Date

State Director, OR/WA 
CASCADE-SISKIYOU NATIONAL MONUMENT

resource management plan
12 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 13

Chapter 1—Purpose and Need

chapter 1

purpose and need

introduction

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument 

(CSNM) was established on June 9, 2000 when

President William J. Clinton issued a presidential 

proclamation (Appendix A) under the provisions 

of the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Appendix B). 

This Resource Management Plan (RMP) details 

the management strategy designed to protect and 

enhance the public lands and associated resources 

described in the proclamation.

The CSNM was established as a new planning 

area independent of other Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered lands. This RMP, 

as a stand-alone document, meets requirements of 

the BLM’s regulation for Resource Management 

Planning found in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610.

Prior to the designation of the CSNM, lands 

within this geographic area fell within the range 

of the northern spotted owl and were managed in 

accordance with the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS)/Record of Decision (ROD) on Management of Habitat for LateSuccessional and Old-Growth Related Species within 

the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest 

Forest Plan) of February 1994, as amended; 

the Medford District Resource Management Plan

(USDI 1995a); the Medford District Integrated 

Weed Management Plan (USDI 1998); the Medford 

Grazing Management Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (USDI 1984); the Final EIS/

ROD for the BLM Oregon Wilderness Study Report 

(USDI 1991); and the Western Oregon Program - 

Management of Competing Vegetation Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)(USDI 1989)

and Final ROD (USDI 1992).

This RMP supersedes all other planning documents that previously covered the CSNM. 

However, the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) allows for the incorporation of decisions 

made in previous planning documents where appropriate. This RMP incorporates by reference all 

of the decisions made in the following management plans:

•	 The Medford District Integrated Weed 

Management Plan (USDI 1998);

•	 The FEIS/ROD for the BLM Oregon 

Wilderness Study Report (USDI 1991); and 

•	 The Western Oregon Program - Management of 

Competing Vegetation EIS (USDI 1989) and 

Final ROD (USDI 1992).

This RMP incorporates by reference the following portions of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) 

and the Medford District RMP:

•	 The “Aquatic Conservation Strategy” component of the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/

USDI 1994a), as amended; 

•	 The “Survey and Manage” component of 

the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 

1994a), as amended; 

•	 The following land allocations identified in Attachment A of the Northwest 

Forest Plan ROD applicable to the geographic area now identified as the CSNM: 

Tier 1 Key Watershed (Jenny Creek) and 

Administratively Withdrawn Areas (Scotch 

Creek and Oregon Gulch Research Natural 

Areas); 

•	 Section E-Implementation (Monitoring, 

Adaptive Management, Interagency 

Coordination, Watershed Analysis, 

Information Resource Management, 

and Consultation and Coordination) of 

Attachment A of the Northwest Forest Plan 

ROD, as appropriate to the incorporated 

Northwest Forest Plan direction and allocations in this RMP; and 

•	 The Best Management Practices from 

Appendix D of the Medford District RMP 

(USDI 1995a). 

The above described decisions and analysis are 

those components of the Northwest Forest Plan, 

as amended, and the Medford District RMP that 

are incorporated in this RMP as they are consistent with the presidential proclamation.

Plan Maintenance

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument RMP 

has incorporated by reference several decisions 

and portions of other resource management plans 

that applied to the monument lands prior to their 

designation as a national monument. In particular, components of the Medford District RMP 
Resource Management Plan

14 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 1—Purpose and Need

and Northwest Forest Plan have been incorporated to ensure that monument management continues to contribute to the larger regional goals and 

objectives of these plans.

Because Resource Management Plans are periodically revised, amended, supplemented, or otherwise changed, the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument RMP adopts a process of evaluation 

and re-incorporation or rejection of new versions 

of the documents that are incorporated by reference at this time. The evaluation will determine 

whether or not the new version of the incorporated document is consistent with the monument 

proclamation and the primary objectives of this 

RMP. The goal of this process is to have monument management continue contributing to goals 

and objectives established at the regional level as 

they change over time, while protecting monument resources and meeting the intent of the 

presidential proclamation.

The evaluation process follows the steps outlined 

in the BLM Planning Handbook (H-1610-01) 

V.B.1-2. In particular, evaluation questions 4 

and 8, “Have there been significant changes in 

the related plans of Indian Tribes, state or local 

governments, or other federal agencies?” and “Are 

there new legal or policy mandates as a result or 

new statutes, proclamations, Executive Orders, 

or court orders not addressed by the plan?”, are 

applicable.

The monument manager shall prepare an evaluation report that includes recommendations for 

re-incorporation of the new version of a document 

through plan maintenance in accordance with 43 

CFR 1610.5-4 or preparation of new decisions 

as appropriate. “Maintenance actions shall not 

result in expansion in the scope of resource uses 

or restrictions, or change the terms and conditions and decisions of the approved plan (43 CFR 

1610.5-4).”

In addition to possible changes to the decisions 

and portions of other RMPs incorporated by reference, the BLM regulation in 43 CFR 1610.5-4 

provides that land use plan decisions and supporting components can be maintained to reflect 

minor changes in data. Maintenance is limited 

to further refining, documenting, or clarifying a 

previously approved decision incorporated in the 

plan. 

Plan maintenance is not considered a plan 

amendment and does not require formal public 

involvement, interagency coordination, or the 

NEPA analysis required for making new land use 

plan decisions. Maintenance actions will be documented in the plan or supporting components. 

Plan maintenance will occur continuously so that 

the RMP and its supporting records reflect the 

current status of decision implementation and 

knowledge of resource conditions. 

setting

The monument covers 52,947 acres of federal land 

in southwestern Oregon (Map 1). Additionally, 

there are approximately 32,000 acres of privately 

owned land within the greater monument boundary. Prior to monument designation, there were 

several existing designations that recognized and 

protected the special ecological characteristics of 

this area. These designations included: 

•	 Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area 

(WSA); 

•	 Jenny Creek Late-Successional Reserve and 

Tier 1 Key Watershed; 

•	 Pilot Rock and Jenny Creek Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern; 

•	 Mariposa Lily Botanical Area; 

•	 Scotch Creek and Oregon Gulch Research 

Natural Areas (RNAs); and 

•	 Cascade-Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area 

(CSEEA).

The monument incorporated all of these designations, some of which overlapped. The Scotch 

Creek RNA, Oregon Gulch RNA, Soda Mountain WSA, Mariposa Lily Botanical Area, and 

Jenny Creek Tier 1 Key Watershed (in Oregon) 

are still recognized as distinct designations within 

the monument (Map 2). The monument proclamation and this RMP are only applicable to 

federal land within the greater monument boundary. The entirety of the monument is in Jackson 

County, and is surrounded by public and private 

land. The Oregon-California state line serves as 

the monument’s southern boundary. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 15

Map 1
Resource Management Plan

16 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 2
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 17

Chapter 1—Purpose and Need

purpose and need for action

The presidential proclamation reserved the 

CSNM in recognition of its remarkable ecology and to protect a diverse range of biological, 

geological, aquatic, archeological, and historic 

objects. The resources found in the monument, 

both individually and collectively, comprise a 

unique and diverse ecosystem. Over time, however, many key elements of this ecosystem have 

been altered as a result of human impacts. Although the plant and animal communities that 

inhabit the monument have shown resilience to 

these impacts, there is also evidence that monument resources have been degraded. The purpose 

of this management plan is to identify management concerns associated with the monument, 

and to determine the best course of action for the 

protection, maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of monument resources as required by the 

proclamation.

The ecological and biological importance of the 

area now known as the CSNM has long been acknowledged (Detling 1961; Nelson 1997; Prevost 

et al. 1990). The establishment of the CSNM 

recognized the high number of native species and 

plant community richness of the area, as well as 

the natural ecological processes that create and 

maintain this diversity, as outlined in the presidential proclamation:

The monument is home to a spectacular variety of rare and beautiful species 

of plants and animals, whose survival 

depends upon its continued ecological integrity. Plant communities present a rich 

mosaic of grass and shrublands, Garry 

and California black oak woodlands, juniper scablands, mixed conifer and white 

fir forests, and wet meadows. Stream 

bottoms support broad-leaf deciduous 

riparian trees and shrubs. Special plant 

communities include rosaceous chaparral 

and oak-juniper woodlands. The monument also contains many rare and endemic plants, such as Greene’s Mariposa 

lily, Gentner’s fritillary, and Bellinger’s 

meadowfoam.

The monument supports an exceptional 

range of fauna, including one of the 

highest diversities of butterfly species 

in the United States. The Jenny Creek 

portion of the monument is a significant 

center of fresh water snail diversity, and 

is home to three endemic fish species, 

including a long-isolated stock of redband 

trout. The monument contains important 

populations of small mammals, reptile 

and amphibian species, and ungulates, 

including important winter habitat for 

deer. It also contains old growth habitat 

crucial to the threatened Northern 

spotted owl and numerous other bird 

species such as the western bluebird, 

the western meadowlark, the pileated 

woodpecker, the flammulated owl, and 

the pygmy nuthatch.

Much of this plant community richness is due 

to the monument’s geographical location at the 

meeting of the Cascade, Klamath and Eastern 

Cascade Slopes Ecoregions (Map 3) (Pater et al. 

1997a). Evolution, long-term climatic change, 

and natural geological processes (volcanism, mass 

wasting, erosion, etc.) operating across geological 

time continue to contribute to the high ecological 

richness of the area.

The monument’s continued diversity depends 

upon the degree to which landscape-level ecological processes can continue to function. For 

example, plant communities in the monument 

evolved with fire as a natural process. The lack of 

fire due to fire exclusion has resulted in ecological 

changes for many plant communities throughout the monument. Wildland fire has played an 

important role in influencing historical ecological processes and continues to be recognized as a 

needed component in the development and maintenance of vegetative diversity in fire-adapted 

ecosystems found throughout the CSNM.

The resilience of individual species within the 

monument has been tested as historic and current 

man-made disturbances have disrupted the flow 

of species and processes across the landscape. 

Activities such as timber harvest and road 

building have changed natural processes across 

the landscape by creating smaller patches of 

forest habitat than would have occurred naturally. 

Many species are dependent upon large blocks 

of forest habitat for dispersal and long-term 

migration. Habitat fragmentation and the loss 
Resource Management Plan

18 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 3
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 19

Chapter 1—Purpose and Need

of connectivity threaten the biological integrity 

of the CSNM in the short term. Disturbances 

have also created pathways for the migration 

of noxious weeds and non-native plant species, 

changing the composition of native plant 

communities and the animal species dependent 

upon them. Historic patterns of livestock grazing 

have also influenced natural processes across the 

landscape.

The proclamation provides the principal management direction for the CSNM and clearly dictates 

that the BLM manage the monument “for the 

purpose of protecting the objects identified.” In 

addition to the presidential proclamation, provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, and 

NEPA (1969) provide the primary direction for 

the preparation of this resource management 

plan.

Within this guidance, many decisions remain 

about how best to protect monument resources 

and address the major issues surrounding monument management. The presidential proclamation 

directed the Secretary of the Interior to prepare 

a plan in order to begin making those decisions. 

This RMP fulfills that directive by guiding management activities within the monument and providing for the protection of monument resources. 

It proposes to do so in a manner that:

•	 implements progressive and adaptive land 

management;

•	 incorporates input from the scientific community and the public at large;

•	 reflects the regional significance of CSNM 

resources; and 

•	 supports opportunities for public exploration 

and education.

The purpose of this RMP is to provide both a set 

of decisions outlining management direction and 

to create a framework for future planning and 

decision-making. Its scope is necessarily broad, 

since it is a general framework document that will 

guide the overall management of activities within 

the monument, as well as the use and protection 

of monument resources. As in the case of any resource management plan, subsequent site-specific 

planning and analysis will focus on implementation of management activities within the monument in conformance with this RMP. The major 

management emphases in the RMP include:

•	 forest health;

•	 plant community health;

•	 the wildland/urban interface;

•	 access and transportation;

•	 recreation and visitor services;

•	 facilities/rights-of-way;

•	 scientific and research activities; and

•	 livestock grazing.

With regard to livestock grazing in particular, the 

presidential proclamation directed the Secretary 

of the Interior to “study the impacts of livestock 

grazing on the objects of biological interests in 

the monument with specific attention to sustaining the natural ecosystem dynamics.” The BLM 

published a Draft Study of Livestock Impacts on the 

Objects of Biological Interest in the Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument (draft study plan) in April 

2001 (USDI) and A Plan for Studying the Impacts 

of Livestock on the Objects of Biological Interest in 

the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (updated 

study plan) in November 2005 (UDSI). The 

studies described in the study plan are currently 

underway and the data analysis should be completed during 2007.

Major decisions regarding livestock grazing have 

been deferred until more information and analysis 

regarding the effects of current grazing practices 

on monument resources is available. However, 

this RMP does make some decisions that impact 

existing grazing management.

Edith’s checkerspot butterfly.
Resource Management Plan

20 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 1—Purpose and Need

general direction

This RMP is founded on the directions outlined 

in the BLM 1997 Strategic Plan. All lands administered by the BLM, including the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument, are managed to 

achieve this mission:

Sustain the health, diversity, and productivity 

of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of 

present and future generations by:

•	 serving current and future publics;

•	 restoring and maintaining the health of the 

land;

•	 promoting collaborative land and resource 

management; and

•	 improving business practices and human 

resource management.

overall vision

The CSNM was created to protect the ecological integrity of an area with outstanding biological diversity. The presidential proclamation, 

FLPMA, and other governing laws and regulations provided general direction for the preparation of this resource management plan. FLPMA 

provides that, “[t]he Secretary shall manage the 

public lands under the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield ... except that where a tract 

of such public land has been dedicated to specific 

uses according to any other provisions of law it 

shall be managed in accordance with such law 

(43 U.S.C. 1732(a)).” Pursuant to the Antiquities 

Act, 16 U.S.C. § 431-433, the President dedicated the public lands within the Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument to the purposes outlined in 

the proclamation. The proclamation delineated a 

purpose for the monument that is more specific 

than those described for most other BLM-administered lands.

The presidential proclamation provides the principal management direction for the monument and 

identifies many specific species, plant communities and other objects of scientific and historic 

interest in this area. Although important individually, it is the interrelationship of these objects 

in the context of natural environmental processes 

that create this diverse ecosystem. Therefore, the 

overall vision for management of the CSNM is to 

protect, maintain, restore or enhance relevant and 

important objects and natural processes. Within 

the context of this vision and applicable laws, the 

following objectives help guide the management 

of this very special place: 

1. The RMP addresses the management of 

monument resources from a landscape perspective, recognizing the interdependence of 

individual native species, plant communities, 

and associated natural processes.

2. The establishment of the monument is subject 

to valid existing rights and the proclamation 

does not revoke any existing withdrawal, 

reservation, or appropriation; however, the 

national monument is the dominant reservation. Activities falling under these provisions 

will be managed consistent with the proclamation. 

3. The RMP seeks to accommodate and carefully manage both recreation and visitation 

in ways that contribute to the understanding 

and protection of monument resources and 

natural ecosystem processes.

4. Monitoring and adaptive management are 

key components of management activities 

in the monument to ensure that ecological 

objectives are being met at both a site-specific 

and landscape-level scale.

5. As monument management proceeds, the 

BLM will continue to work with local, 

state and federal partners, scientists, Native 

American tribes, and the public to refine 

management practices to ensure protection, 

facilitate scientific and historic research, manage authorized uses, and allow appropriate 

visitation.

public participation and 

collaberation

Throughout the preparation of this RMP, the 

BLM has maintained an extensive public participation process aimed at providing frequent 

opportunities for interaction with the public 

through a variety of media. Forums such as 

scoping workshops, open house sessions and 

briefings provided an opportunity to gather and 

disseminate information on a more personal level. 

Reader’s guides accompanying the draft and proposed management plans provided readers with a 

general understanding of plan proposals.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 21

Chapter 1—Purpose and Need

Additionally, all of the information provided in 

printed publications and at the information meetings was available on the monument’s internet 

homepage. This homepage also provided an electronic link to planning information. The draft 

and proposed documents were available on the 

website in digital and down-loadable formats.

To more fully include the State of Oregon in 

the planning process, the BLM and the Oregon 

Department of Forestry have jointly funded a 

community forest protection officer for the past 

three years. This individual has participated in 

the planning process as a member of the interdisciplinary team in the development of the RMP. 

The BLM also consulted with Native American 

tribal officials throughout the planning process.

The BLM recognizes that social, economic, and 

environmental issues cross land ownership lines. 

Extensive cooperation during the planning stage 

and beyond is also needed to address issues of 

mutual interest. In keeping with the concepts 

outlined in Chapter 3 (Implementation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management Framework), the BLM could also engage in a collaborative management process that would seek to:

•	 Form innovative partnerships with local and 

state governments, Native American tribes, 

qualified organizations and appropriate federal agencies to manage lands or programs for 

mutual benefit consistent with the goals and 

objectives of this management plan;

•	 Work with communities, counties, state and 

federal agencies, and interested organizations 

in seeking non-traditional sources of funding, including challenge cost-share programs, 

grants, in-kind contributions, and allowable 

fee systems to support specific projects needed 

to achieve plan objectives;

•	 Place greater emphasis, where appropriate, 

on contracting with private sector businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, or state and local agencies to accomplish essential studies, monitoring, or project 

development;

•	 Increase the use of citizen and organizational 

volunteers to provide greater monitoring of 

resource conditions, and to complete on-theground developments for resource protection, 

effective land management, and human use 

and enjoyment.

Where it is found to be mutually advantageous, 

the BLM will enter into cooperative agreements 

or memoranda of understanding with federal, 

state, local, tribal, and private entities to coordinate management of lands or programs consistent 

with the goals and policies of this management plan. Such agreements could provide for 

the sharing of human or material resources, the 

management of specific tracts of lands for specific purposes, or the adjustment of management 

responsibilities on prescribed lands. This may be 

done in order to eliminate redundancy and reduce 

costs.

Non-profit organizations and citizens and user 

groups that have adequate resources and expertise 

can enter into cooperative agreements to assist in 

the stewardship of public lands in the monument. 

Assistance may include, but would not be limited 

to, research, resource monitoring, site cleanups, 

and the construction of authorized projects.

Jenny Creek on the former Box O Ranch.
22 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 23

Chapter 2—Introduction

chapter 2

resource management

plan

introduction

This chapter describes objectives and actions 

aimed at fulfilling the management direction 

discussed in Chapter 1. These decisions are 

organized under eight major headings:

Management Zones and Areas page 24

Old-Growth Emphasis Area page 27

Diversity Emphasis Area page 45

Riparian Areas and Aquatic 

Resources page 55

Livestock Grazing page 63

Transportation and Access page 77

Recreation and Visitor Services page 91

General Management page 103

The management zones and areas are described 

below, and provide the framework for many decisions and strategies described later. The General 

Management section at the end of this chapter 

describes management decisions for a wide range 

of issues. These include decisions on archaeological site protection and historic trails, special status 

species, collections and special forest products, 

fire suppression and communication sites. Management for the Old-Growth Emphasis Area, 

Diversity Emphasis Area, Riparian Areas and 

Aquatic Resources, Livestock Grazing, Transportation and Access, and Recreation and Visitor Services sections is generally described in the 

following format:

Overview

The overview provides the reader with a brief 

introduction to the subject. The introduction 

provides basic information and sets the stage for a 

brief discussion of management concerns.

Primary Management Concerns

In this section, primary management concerns 

for each subject are described briefly. The listing of management concerns is not intended to 

be exhaustive; rather, it is intended to provide 

the reader with insight into some of the primary 

issues that influenced the development of management objectives and subsequent management 

decisions. This section reflects concerns about 

existing conditions in the monument.

Primary Management Objectives

The planning team developed primary management objectives in response to concerns about existing conditions. This section details overarching 

objectives, and then identifies some of the steps 

that might be necessary to meet those objectives.

Primary Management Tools

This section describes the management tools, 

or options, that can be used in working toward 

meeting identified objectives. This list of tools 

includes the primary methods that the BLM will 

consider when developing site-specific strategies. 

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of 

the various management tools are also described 

in this section. The planning team used this list 

of tools to develop the management strategies 

described in each section. 

Management

This section describes the management strategies 

that will address the management concerns 

and objectives described in this document. 

Some of the management decisions described 

in this section are deliberately broad in scope; 

site-specific analysis will be required prior to 

implementation of specific actions related to 

decisions. However, some of the management 

decisions are site-specific in nature, and the level 

of analysis in this plan will allow subsequent 

implementation of certain projects. All projects 

will be consistent with the conservation measures 

for endangered species described in Appendix C. 

Each of the decisions in this section is numbered 

to facilitate referencing such decisions in future 

documents.

Implementation Considerations

Although many decisions are made in this 

resource management plan (RMP), site-specific 

implementation of most decisions will require 

additional analysis. This section details some of 

the issues that will be considered when planning 

management activities; these considerations will 

also be used to help make future management 

decisions that are in accordance with the objectives described in this plan.
Resource Management Plan

24 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Management Zones and Areas

MANAGEMENT ZONES AND AREAS

For planning purposes, the monument has been 

divided into the management zones and areas 

described below. These are referred to throughout 

the document with regard to management decisions.

North and South Management

Zones

The CSNM has been divided into two management zones that are used when describing management activities that are not necessarily related 

to vegetation management (such as recreational 

activities and visitor facilities). An east-west 

oriented line separates the North Zone from the 

South Zone (Map 4). This line divides the Upper 

Emigrant Creek, Keene Creek, Middle Jenny 

Creek, Johnson Creek, and Upper Jenny Creek 

subwatersheds (North Zone) from the East Fork 

Cottonwood Creek, Middle Cottonwood Creek, 

Scotch Creek, Camp Creek, Fall Creek, and 

Lower Jenny Creek subwatersheds (South Zone). 

These zones are referred to during the identification of management activities.

Plant Community Emphasis Areas

To better address the needs of individual species, 

plant communities, and ecosystem processes, the 

monument has been grouped into two “emphasis areas” (Map 5). The grasslands, shrublands, 

woodlands, semi-wet meadows and wet meadows 

make up the “Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA)” 

while the mixed conifer and white fir plant communities make up the “Old-Growth Emphasis 

Area (OGEA).”

Although DEA plant communities are primarily 

found in the south and OGEA communities in 

the north, there is not a strict north-south division between the two emphasis areas. An important contribution to the diversity of the monument is the juxtaposition of plant communities 

across the entire landscape. For example, there 

are isolated stands of mixed-conifer old-growth 

forest embedded in areas that are otherwise 

classified as DEA. These conifer communities 

serve an important ecological function across the 

landscape as stepping stones for species needing 

conifer forest for dispersal. The RMP recognizes 

that the spatial relationship of OGEA lands to 

DEA lands is an important consideration in the 

management of these areas.

The Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area 

(WSA) and the Scotch Creek and Oregon Gulch 

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) were designated 

prior to the creation of the CSNM; management 

for the DEA and OGEA does not include these 

special areas. However, for the purpose of landscape analysis, the plant communities in these 

three areas are considered part of the DEA or 

OGEA (Map 5).

High elevation true fir/aspen forest.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 25

Map 4
Resource Management Plan

26 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 5
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 27

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

old-growth emphasis area

overview

The presidential proclamation specifically addressed “old-growth habitat crucial to the threatened northern spotted owl and numerous other 

bird species” as an important component of the 

monument’s ecology. Old-growth forests are generally over 180 years old and have the following 

special characteristics: a multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; 

a high incidence of large trees, some with broken 

tops; numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground. 

In addition to old growth, this document also refers to late-successional forests. Late-successional 

forests are considered mature forests that exhibit 

some or all of the old-growth characteristics identified above. Late-successional and old-growth 

forests provide important habitat for species such 

as the northern spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, 

and pygmy nuthatch.

The planning team identified approximately 

25,340 acres of land that is currently late-successional habitat and old-growth forest, or capable of 

becoming so (Map 5). These lands were identified 

during the planning process as the Old-Growth 

Emphasis Area (OGEA). Mixed conifer forests are the dominant forest community in the 

OGEA and support a variety of trees including 

Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, 

incense-cedar, and Pacific yew. Predominately 

white fir forests are found at higher elevations 

in the northern part of the monument. Latesuccessional or old-growth stand conditions currently exist on approximately 12,820 acres in the 

OGEA. Of these, approximately 4,000 acres have 

never been entered for timber harvest.

Adding to the monument’s diversity, pine stands 

are found on the flat and lower hills east of 

Lincoln, reflecting forested communities of the 

Southern Cascade Slopes ecoregion (Map 3). 

These pine-dominated stands are important to 

species such as white-headed woodpecker, pygmy 

nuthatch, black-backed woodpecker, and flammulated owl. In some of these stands, a mixed 

white fir and Douglas-fir understory has developed in the absence of fire. Mixed conifer stands 

on the eastern portion of the monument exhibit 

a drier pine-dominated forest when compared to 

mixed conifer stands in the western portion of the 

monument.

Mature forests in the monument provide a key 

connectivity link between other areas of latesuccessional forest in the Oregon Cascades, the 

northern California Cascades, and the Siskiyou 

Mountains. The OGEA is located at one of two 

connectivity “hotspots” in Oregon as identified 

in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 

1994b). 

South of Keene Ridge, mixed conifer forests 

generally occur in isolated stands as opposed to 

the more contiguous stands in the north. These 

stands are often surrounded by the grassland and 

shrubland plant communities of the Diversity 

Emphasis Area (DEA). The conifer stands south 

of Keene Ridge are distinctive biologically diverse 

islands and unique isolated communities that 

reflect the discontinuity between the southern 

Cascades and the Sierra Nevada.

primary management concerns in

the Ogea

Habitat Fragmentation

Loss of habitat connectivity is one of the primary 

threats to the OGEA’s ability to function as 

habitat for late-successional species. In this case, 

connectivity is a measure of the extent to which 

habitat conditions can provide for breeding, feeding, dispersal, and movement of species associated 

with late-successional and old-growth habitat. 

Habitat fragmentation resulting from past timber 

harvests, road building, and other activities has 

limited connectivity by creating gaps in the mature forest larger than some wildlife species can 

successfully cross without being subject to predation or other mortality factors. Various levels of 

timber harvest have taken place on approximately 

83 percent of the OGEA. Regeneration harvests 

resulting in young, even-aged pine plantations 

have taken place across six percent of the OGEA.

Fire Exclusion

Effective fire suppression efforts over the past 100 

years have significantly influenced mixed conifer 

and pine forests in the OGEA by removing fire as 

a natural ecosystem process. The exclusion of fire 

from the ecosystem has caused changes in forest 

structure, tree size, and habitat for different spe-
Resource Management Plan

28 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

cies. The loss of fire as a natural process has also 

resulted in a shift toward dense stands of white 

fir and Douglas-fir at the expense of sugar pine, 

ponderosa pine, and incense-cedar. Tree growth 

rates have slowed, and the understory composition of forest stands has shifted to predominantly 

white fir. Levels of root rot and insect infestation 

(Maps 6 and 7) are higher as a result of species 

shifts and increased tree densities.

In addition to altering the historic structure of 

forest stands, fire exclusion has created conditions 

that support higher fire intensities than would 

have been common historically. Excessive ground 

and ladder fuels have increased the potential for 

stand replacement events. For example, observed 

fire behavior in the monument indicates high 

rates of tree mortality, including large, mature 

trees. Appendix D describes a process for assessing how current conditions may affect the severity, intensity, and frequency of fires burning in the 

ecosystem as compared to historic conditions.

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)

The OGEA is adjacent to several thousand acres 

of private land in the Greensprings community. 

As part of the National Fire Plan, the Oregon 

Department of Forestry has identified the Greensprings as a “community at risk” for a wildland 

fire spreading from public to private lands. 

Likewise, resources in the monument are also at 

risk from fires that originate on private land. Fire 

history data over the past 37 years (Appendix D) 

indicates that the likelihood of a fire originating 

on private lands is higher (3.32 fires/1,000 acres) 

than on public lands (2.70 fires/1,000 acres). 

Lightning is the primary cause of fire ignitions 

on public land (64 percent) while human-caused 

starts are the primary source of fire ignition on 

private lands (59 percent). There are approximately twice as many human-caused fires per acre on 

private lands as there are on public lands.

Road Density

There are approximately 169 miles of roads in the 

OGEA, resulting in a road density that averages 

4.26 miles per square mile. A high road density 

decreases the quality of late-successional habitat by impairing hydrologic function, creating 

ecological edges, reducing snags, and reducing 

mobility across the landscape for some species; 

furthermore, it can increase the risk of humancaused fire starts. Roads also facilitate access into 

forested areas by livestock, weed species, and nonnative wildlife such as opossums.

Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants

Noxious weeds and other non-native species are 

also a management concern. Canada thistle, 

yellow starthistle, and medusahead are the most 

common noxious weeds in the OGEA. Bulbous 

bluegrass, a non-native species, has established a 

strong foothold in all plant communities throughout the monument. Knapweeds show potential 

for spreading within the OGEA, but have so far 

been restricted to a few roadside populations that 

have been treated with herbicides.

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Connectivity

Past management activities such as timber harvest 

and road building have impacted riparian areas 

and limited aquatic connectivity in the OGEA. 

Past harvest activities have reduced shade and 

removed large wood from riparian areas. The 

checkerboard land ownership of the monument 

also contributes to the fragmented condition of 

the aquatic landscape. Management concerns 

regarding riparian areas and aquatic connectivity 

across the “boundaries” of the OGEA need to 

be analyzed on a monument-wide scale. Additional discussion and management direction can 

be found in the Riparian Areas and Aquatic 

Resources section of this chapter.

Bluebird.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 29

Map 6
Resource Management Plan

30 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 7
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 31

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

primary management objectives

for the ogea

The main goal of OGEA management is to 

maintain, protect, and restore historic conditions 

of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems in order to promote habitat and enhance 

connectivity for old-growth associated species. To 

achieve that goal, the management described in 

this plan meets the following primary objectives 

for the OGEA:

1) Enhance local and regional connectivity 

for species associated with late-successional 

forests.

•	 Identify areas where past disturbances (such 

as logging or fire) have reduced canopy 

closure to a point that no longer provides 

connectivity for late-successional species. 

•	 Accelerate the development of latesuccessional habitat characteristics in stands 

that no longer provide connectivity for latesuccessional species, where feasible.

•	 Reduce high road densities where possible.

•	 Use areas of intact old-growth forest with 

high ecological integrity for reference 

conditions.

2) Protect or enhance existing habitat for species associated with late-successional forests.

•	 Reduce the threat of high-severity wildland 

fire or other major disturbance events (stand 

replacement) to areas currently functioning as 

late-successional habitat. 

•	 Reduce mortality rates of large trees, especially pines, in mid- and late-successional 

stands with high tree densities.

•	 Maintain intact, healthy old-growth structure 

in forests. Focus treatments on stands where 

previous interventions or events have adversely impacted stand structure.

•	 Reintroduce fire to the landscape through the 

careful use of prescribed fire.

•	 Reduce the presence and spread of noxious 

weeds and undesirable non-native species.

3) Protect monument resources from fires originating on adjacent private lands. Reduce the 

risk of wildland fires spreading to residential 

properties in the wildland-urban interface.

•	 Identify the wildland-urban interface associated with the Greensprings, a community 

identified by the Oregon Department of 

Forestry as being “at risk” for wildland fires. 

•	 Provide adjacent landowners with assistance 

in obtaining grants for fire hazard reduction 

activities on their lands. 

•	 Where possible, reinforce fire hazard reduction activities on private lands by reducing 

fire hazard on adjoining monument lands. 

•	 Work with landowners to remove hazardous fuels (following site-specific criteria) on 

monument lands adjacent to private property 

to accommodate a 120-foot defensible space 

around existing private homes.

4) Improve riparian and wetland plant 

communities and habitats.

•	 Protect and enhance hydrologic function, 

aquatic connectivity, and water quality. 

•	 Maintain and improve wetland and riparian 

plant communities and structure. 

•	 Protect and enhance riparian areas as habitat 

for terrestrial and aquatic organisms.

primary management tools for the 

ogea

Many of the management objectives listed above 

can be achieved using similar management strategies. For example, the primary forest restoration 

activities identified for the monument involve 

removing smaller trees from dense forests and 

then using prescribed fire to imitate the role that 

low-severity fire once played in these ecosystems. These activities, designed to restore forest 

health, also reduce fire hazard, thereby achieving 

multiple management objectives simultaneously. 

The following management tools could be used 

to accomplish the objectives described above. 

Although this list is not exhaustive, management 

tools that will not meet the primary objectives 

of the OGEA, or the overarching goals of the 

monument, will not be allowed in the OGEA.

Forest Thinning

Thinning forest stands can be an effective tool for 

restoring forest structure, reducing stand density, decreasing fire hazard, promoting desired 

species, and can also serve as a precursor to the 

reintroduction of fire through prescribed burns. 

Tree removal can be used to meet the overlapping 

goals of reducing fire hazard and restoring a more 

natural forest structure to currently overcrowded 
Resource Management Plan

32 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

forests. Thinning in the monument will generally 

involve removing small trees from densely stocked 

stands. The primary thinning strategies that could 

be used in the monument are: (1) thinning from 

below; (2) density management; and (3) pine 

release.

1. The removal of understory trees is called 

thinning from below. Thinning from below 

will be used to remove some of the slowgrowing trees that have resulted from fire 

exclusion and are now competing with larger, 

established trees for sunlight, nutrients, and 

water. This treatment also removes a portion 

of the brush component of forested stands 

and reduces future risk of stand-replacing 

fires.

2. Density management also takes into consideration stand structure, and involves removing understory and overstory trees in order 

to reduce stand density. In the monument, 

density management could be used to help 

create more natural spacing in even-aged pine 

plantations or other densely stocked stands.

3. In some stands, thinning may be used to 

create gaps around mature pine trees that are 

being crowded by vegetation that has developed as a result of fire exclusion. These pine 

release treatments will be designed to remove 

competing vegetation from around existing 

pine trees and to provide opportunities for 

pine regeneration.

Large trees (relative to stand composition and 

average tree size) will not be cut except for the 

purpose of creating openings, providing habitat 

structure, or eliminating hazard. Where larger 

trees are cut, they will usually be left in place to 

contribute toward coarse woody debris or down 

wood needs.

Thinning, in most cases, will replace fire as the 

mechanism for reducing the density of forest 

stands. Although thinning is designed to remove 

trees that have resulted from fire exclusion, thinning alone cannot mimic all of the ecological 

benefits attributed to low-severity wildland fire 

and is often followed by prescribed fire. Thinning prepares the stand so that prescribed fire can 

achieve the desired results (low-severity burn).

Service contracts, timber

sales, and stewardship

contracts

Some of the primary mechanisms for accomplishing restoration projects in the OGEA are 

service contracts, stewardship contracts, and in 

some cases, commercial timber sales.

Service Contracts

Service contracts are contracts for services, such 

as thinning small diameter trees to accomplish 

forest restoration goals. Since there is no commercial value derived from the trees or brush 

removed, the BLM pays with appropriated 

dollars for the entire cost of restoration services. 

The primary goal of these contracts is to acquire 

services that result in ecological restoration.

Timber Sales

In some cases, projects may involve thinning 

trees with commercial value. Advances in technology and improved capabilities at sawmills 

have greatly decreased the size of trees that have 

commercial value. Commercial treatments would 

only be authorized as part of a “science-based 

ecological restoration project aimed at meeting 

protection and old-growth enhancement objectives” as specified in the CSNM proclamation 

(Appendix A). Under these circumstances, a 

timber sale could be authorized to accomplish 

old-growth enhancement objectives.

Stewardship Contracts

Stewardship contracts would allow for the 

involvement of local communities in the development of projects in the OGEA. Stewardship 

contracting does not replace either timber sale 

contracts or service contracts; it is a way to combine elements of these contracts in new ways that 

make it easier to meet ecological objectives in a 

more efficient and collaborative manner. Stewardship involves caring for public lands through 

broad-based public and community involvement. 

Stewardship contracts are contracts for ecological 

restoration services in which some of the costs 

may be offset by the value of vegetative material removed. The value of the material removed 

would help pay for services while engaging local 

communities in projects that benefit monument 

lands. Stewardship contracts must comply with 

all environmental laws and the land-use plan, 

including the intent of the presidential proclamation with regard to commercial timber harvest.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 33

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed burning is a complex tool that can 

be used to accomplish well-defined resource 

management objectives such as the restoration 

and maintenance of biological diversity, forest 

regeneration, forage production for wildlife, and 

fire hazard reduction. In many cases, fire cannot safely and effectively be reintroduced to the 

landscape without prior treatments to thin small 

trees or remove excessive brush and understory 

fuels. Without prior treatment, the energy release 

from prescribed fire as the initial treatment would 

exceed desired intensity levels and have undesirable effects on vegetation and soil.

Prescribed burning in the OGEA will include 

handpile burning and underburning. Handpile 

burning is utilized in areas that have been manually thinned, with brush and understory trees 

grouped in small piles. This type of burning takes 

place in the late fall and winter after a significant 

amount of rainfall has occurred. Underburning utilizes a low-intensity surface fire to reduce 

surface vegetation and some small trees. Underburning is conducted during weather conditions 

(usually late winter and spring) in which moisture 

levels allow for low-intensity fire.

Although forests in the monument evolved with 

fire as a natural ecosystem process, reintroducing 

fire to the landscape presents numerous challenges. One of the most significant of these is the 

proximity of private land to monument lands and 

the need to ensure that prescribed fire remains on 

public lands. For this reason, prescribed burning 

generally takes place when the environment is 

less dry and fire behavior is easier to predict and 

control. Some vegetation types such as higherelevation white fir stands are not conducive to 

prescribed burning as these sites did not evolve 

with frequent fire. More information on prescribed burning is available in Appendix E.

Road Closures

Road closures can reduce habitat fragmentation 

and increase connectivity. An analysis of the 

transportation system identifies areas of high road 

densities and areas where road closures should 

be considered (see Transportation and Access 

section).

Noxious Weed Treatments

Noxious weed treatments are an important component of OGEA management. The tools that 

can be used to treat noxious weeds are described 

in Appendix F.

treatment priorities in the ogea

The planning team used a combination of the 

management concerns and objectives described 

above in order to determine the most appropriate 

places on the landscape for initial management 

activities. The following five areas of concern 

were identified and then mapped by the planning 

team. Maps for this section begin on page 39.

Reduced Forest Habitat Connectivity 

(Map 8)

The planning team identified an area near 

Lincoln Creek and Pinehurst that is not currently 

providing suitable habitat connectivity for latesuccessional species due to past disturbances, such 

as logging or fire. The team delineated the area 

using vegetation types, past management history, 

and the land ownership pattern. The mapped 

area has a relatively high number of young forest 

stands due, in part, to previous forest management. The public land in this area lacks continuity, as it is interspersed with a relatively large 

amount of private land. The checkerboard pattern 

of public and private land increases the need for 

areas of strong habitat connectivity on public 

land. Management activities in these areas could 

help expedite the development of late-successional habitat structure in the previously managed 

stands.

Young Stands (Map 9)

Map 9 identifies young forest stands (generally 10-30 years old) in the OGEA that do not 

currently meet any known spotted owl requirements, but have the potential to become habitat 

for spotted owls and other late-successional 

species (Habitat Type 3). Past disturbances such 

as logging and wildland fire have reduced canopy 

closure and other important late-successional features. Almost all of these stands are unmanaged 

tree plantations that resulted from past clearcuts. 

Trees in these stands are not developing under the 

same conditions that historically resulted in oldgrowth structure and characteristics. These stands 
Resource Management Plan

34 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

Mckelvie habitat types

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Types and Forest Condition

Wildlife biologists classify the condition of forests based on their potential use 

by northern spotted owls. As the northern spotted owl is closely associated with 

late-successional forests, biologists assume that most habitat suitable for northern 

spotted owls is also suitable for most other late-successional species. Every acre of 

the CSNM was placed into one of six habitat categories. This classification system 

is used throughout the proposed plan to describe vegetative conditions and potential 

management activities. The OGEA is comprised of Habitat Types 1, 2, 3, and 5. The 

remaining two habitat types (4 and 6) are considered part of the Diversity Emphasis Area and would 

be managed accordingly. 

Habitat Type 1: Nesting (currently 3,426 acres)

Nesting habitat meets all spotted owl life requirements. These forests have a high canopy closure 

(greater than 60 percent), a multi-layered structure, and large overstory trees. Deformed, diseased, 

and broken-top trees, as well as large snags and down logs are also present.

Habitat Type 2: Roosting/Foraging (currently 9,392 acres)

Habitat Type 2 is not suitable for nesting, but provides spotted owls with roosting, foraging and 

dispersal habitat. Canopy closure is usually greater than 60 percent but with a more uniform 

structure. Habitat Type 2 has moderately sized overstory trees. Deformed trees, snags and down 

wood are less prevalent than in Habitat Type 1.

Habitat Type 3: Potential Habitat (currently 3,865 acres)

Habitat Type 3 does not presently meet spotted owl needs. Past disturbances such as logging or fire 

have reduced canopy closure and other important late-successional features. Stand density is high 

with up to 1,500 small trees per acre. Due to overcrowding, trees in these stands may not develop 

into late-successional habitat in the near future without density reduction. These areas have the 

potential to grow into Type 1 or 2 habitat if given enough time and appropriate management.

Habitat Type 4: No Potential (currently 26,218 acres)

Primarily found in the southern portion of the monument, these sites do not have the potential 

of developing into late-successional forest or supporting old-growth dependent species. Examples 

include chaparral, natural meadows, rocky open areas and oak woodlands. (For planning purposes, 

the BLM classified this habitat type as the Diversity Emphasis Area.) This habitat type provides 

suitable habitat for a wide range of species.

Habitat Type 5: Dispersal with Potential (currently 8,654 acres)

Habitat Type 5 is not suitable for spotted owl nesting, but is thought to be important for travel 

between old-growth stands due to a canopy closure greater than 40 percent. Many of these stands 

are growing at a higher density than stands that historically developed into late-successional habitat. 

These stands are at risk of wildland fire due to excessive levels of live and dead fuels. Habitat Type 

5 has the potential to grow into Type 1 or 2 habitat if given enough time and appropriate management.

Habitat Type 6: Dispersal with No Potential (currently 1,392 acres) 

This habitat type currently provides structure believed to be important for spotted owl dispersal. 

However, due to soil types and precipitation rates, these stands are not likely to provide the latesuccessional conditions required by spotted owls for reproduction. (For planning purposes, the BLM 

classified this habitat type as the Diversity Emphasis Area.)
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 35

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

may not develop into late-successional habitat 

without appropriate management.

Pine Forest Communities and Mixed 

Conifer with a Pine Component (Map 10)

Map 10 displays portions of the OGEA that 

have lands with mature ponderosa and sugar pine 

identified as a component of the potential natural 

vegetation (Soil Survey of Jackson County Area, 

USDA, 1993). In the pine forests primarily located in Eastern Cascade Slopes Ecoregion (Map 3), 

younger pine trees and Douglas-fir trees are competing with mature pine trees. In mixed conifer 

stands located in the remainder of the monument, 

Douglas-fir and white fir are now competing with 

ponderosa and sugar pine for water and nutrients. 

Without some type of management intervention, 

the old-growth pine component of these stands 

may be lost. 

High Fire Hazard within 1⁄4 Mile of OldGrowth/Late-Successional Habitat 

(Map 11)

Map 11 identifies stands with a high fire hazard 

rating (Appendix D) within 1⁄4 mile of latesuccessional and old-growth habitat (Habitat 

Types 1 and 2). The existing conditions of these 

stands are conducive to high-intensity fire. In 

the event of a wildland fire, these stands may 

pose a risk to nearby old-growth stands as the 

fire spreads. Some of the mapped areas are in the 

DEA. Stands in the DEA have a different set of 

management objectives than those in the OGEA. 

These areas will not be treated indiscriminately to 

reduce fire hazard simply because of their proximity to the OGEA. Any treatments in the DEA 

will take place in coordination with the objectives 

and management considerations for the DEA 

described later in this chapter.

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) (Map 12)

The National Fire Plan provides for the identification of “communities at risk” for wildland fire, 

and the Greensprings is defined as such a community by the Oregon Department of Forestry 

(ODF). The planning team worked with the 

ODF to identify public lands in the Greensprings 

wildland-urban interface that pose a fire risk to 

landowners in this area. Map 12 identifies lands 

in the wildland-urban interface.

Priority Areas (Map 13)

The five areas of concern described above were 

combined in a composite map (Map 13). Color 

values reflect the number of times a particular 

area was identified as one of the areas of concern 

described above (Maps 8-12). Under this management plan, areas that have multiple management 

concerns are priorities for additional analysis and 

future management activities. No areas exhibited 

all five management concerns. 

The planning team then considered the following 

questions in order to determine where treatments 

should take place.

1) Which geographical areas in the OGEA 

have the highest concentration of overlapping 

management concerns?

An analysis of Map 13 indicates that geographical areas with the highest priority for site-specific 

analysis and initial treatments within the OGEA 

are the following:

•	 the wildland-urban interface (WUI) (Map 

12); and 

•	 the area of reduced forest habitat connectivity 

(Map 8).

2) Within these geographical areas, what types 

of forest habitat (as related to the needs of latesuccessional species) are currently present and 

should be managed?

The areas identified as priorities for treatment 

were further categorized using the previously 

described McKelvie habitat typing system. Decisions regarding how many acres to treat in the 

WUI and Connectivity Area are also based on 

the types of habitat found in each area (Table 

2-1).

Habitat Types 1 and 2

Habitat Types 1 and 2 identify areas comprised of 

functional late-successional and old-growth habitat. Habitat Type 1 provides the highest quality of 

old-growth habitat found in the monument. Although there are management concerns associated 

with these stands, they are not a priority for treatment. Habitat Type 1 and 2 stands will be used 

for reference conditions to the extent possible. 

Management activities are not currently planned 
Resource Management Plan

36 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

in Habitat Type 1 stands. Limited pilot projects 

can take place in Habitat Type 2 stands located in 

the WUI. Additional treatments will only take 

place in Habitat Type 1 and 2 stands if immediate 

and critical needs are identified through the adaptive management strategy described in Chapter 3.

Habitat Type 3

Habitat Type 3 stands in these areas are comprised of young trees that were planted after 

clearcuts in the 1970s. Habitat Type 3 stands do 

not currently provide benefits to late-successional 

species. Treatments designed to facilitate the development of late-successional characteristics will 

be allowed throughout Habitat Type 3 stands.

Habitat Type 5

The diversity and complexity of Habitat Type 5 

stands exceeds that of Habitat Type 3 stands. As 

these stands currently provide ecological benefits 

to some late-successional species, management 

activities will be designed to ensure that existing 

functions are not lost in an effort to improve longterm habitat conditions.

3) Are there any other high-priority areas for 

treatments?

Young stands (Habitat Type 3) are a concern 

throughout the monument (Map 9). These stands 

are not currently providing habitat for late-successional species as they are primarily comprised of 

even-aged pine trees that were planted following 

clearcuts. Currently, many of these stands are on 

developmental paths that may not provide adequate or desirable structural late-successional and 

old-growth characteristics. Treatments in these 

stands may help accelerate the development of 

mature forest habitat throughout the monument.

management in the ogea

Based on the geographical areas identified as 

high priorities for treatment and the habitat types 

found in these areas, the following treatments are 

approved for the OGEA. All of these approved 

treatments will require site-specific design and 

the appropriate level of NEPA analysis.

Priority 1: Treatments in the WildlandUrban Interface (WUI)

OGEA-1 Initial treatments (following subsequent site-specific analysis) will take place within 

or adjacent to the WUI (Map 12) in Type 3 

(young) and Type 5 (dispersal) stands. Management activities will be designed to restore ecological integrity and to lower fire hazard in these 

habitat types through thinning and prescribed 

burning. Up to 70 acres (100 percent) of Habitat 

Type 3 and up to 460 acres (100 percent) of Habitat Type 5 can be treated during initial management activities (Table 2-2).

Many of the management concerns identified in 

this section apply to Habitat Type 2 stands. Habitat Type 2 stands provide roosting and foraging 

habitat for spotted owls, but do not provide the 

higher quality nesting habitat found in Type 1 

stands. 

OGEA-2 Pilot projects can be developed and 

implemented in Habitat Type 2 stands in the 

WUI. Pilot projects in Habitat Type 2 will require the collection of baseline pretreatment data 

and development of an effectiveness-monitoring 

plan. A maximum of 200 acres (49 percent) 

of Habitat Type 2 in the WUI can be treated 

through pilot projects (Table 2-2).

Table 2-1. Acres Identified as Priorities for Treatment by Habitat Type.*

Geographical Area

Habitat Type

Type 1

(old growth)

Type 2

(mature)

Type 3

(young)

Type 5

(dispersal)

Total

Acres

1. Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) 70 410 70 460 1,010

2. Connectivity 

Area 510 840 1,410 3,640 6,400

Total 580 1,250 1,480 4,100 7,410

*Acres are rounded.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 37

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

OGEA-3 All treatments in Habitat Type 2 and 

Type 5 will likely include pile burning and then 

subsequent underburning. 

OGEA-4 Habitat Type 3 will be burned selectively as some young trees cannot withstand any 

significant level of prescribed fire.

OGEA-5 In order to help private property owners protect their homes from wildland fire, prior 

written authorization can be given to homeowners to create a defensible space around their 

homes. In accordance with recommendations 

by Cohen et al. (1998), private property owners 

with an existing structure could be permitted 

to remove dead and live vegetation less than six 

inches in diameter at breast height (4.5 feet) on 

monument lands that are within 120 feet of their 

structure. Removal of this vegetation will be done 

manually (chain saws and hand tools) and only 

with prior written authorization from the BLM. 

Landowners outside of the WUI with structures 

adjacent to monument lands could be given the 

same consideration. There are approximately 10 

structures within 120 feet of monument lands. 

Vegetation removal could take place on an estimated 10 acres of monument lands under this 

provision.

Some of the areas identified as high priorities for 

treatment within the WUI are associated with 

the plant communities included in the DEA. 

These areas will be considered for management 

activities as described in the management section 

for the DEA.

OGEA-6 The boundary of the wildland-urban 

interface is not static and could change through 

the monument’s adaptive management process 

(Chapter 3). Future decisions that could modify 

the WUI boundary will balance the need to reduce fire hazard in areas adjacent to private property with the monument management objectives.

Priority 2: Treatments in the Connectivity 

Area

OGEA-7 Subsequent management activities in 

the OGEA must be designed to enhance ecological integrity in Habitat Type 3 (young) and 

Type 5 (dispersal) stands that are located within 

the area of reduced habitat connectivity (Map 

8) through thinning and subsequent prescribed 

burning. Approximately 1,410 acres (100 percent) 

of Habitat Type 3 stands located in the connectivity area will be considered for treatment (Table 

2-2).

OGEA-8 Management activities in Habitat 

Type 5 stands will be spaced out geographically 

and temporally. Treatments in Habitat Type 

5 will be higher priority in areas where two or 

more overlapping management concerns were 

identified (Map 13). Of the total 3,641 acres of 

Habitat Type 5 in the connectivity area, this will 

include 1,140 acres (31 percent) of stands in this 

area (Table 2-2). Treatments in Habitat Type 5 

Table 2-2. Acres Proposed for Management Activities in the OGEA.*

Proposed 

Treatments

Habitat Type

Type 1 

(old-growth)

Type 2 

(mature)

Type 3 

(young)

Type 5 

(dispersal) Total Acres

1. Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) 0 200 70 460 730

2. Connectivity Area 0 0 1,410 1,140 2,550

3. All Young Stands 0 0 2,385 0 2,385

Total Acres of Each 

Habitat Type in the 

OGEA

3,426 9,393 3,865 8,654 25,337

Acres (Percent) of 

Each Habitat Type 

Treated in the OGEA

0 200 (2%) 3,865 (100%) 1,600 (19%) 5,665 (22%)

*Acres are rounded. Most areas proposed for management activities would be thinned; approximately 3,700 acres would be 

treated with prescribed fire.
Resource Management Plan

38 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Old-Growth Emphasis Area

will emphasize pile burning and then subsequent 

underburning. 

OGEA-9 Habitat Type 3 will be burned selectively as some young trees could not withstand 

any significant level of prescribed fire.

Priority 3: Treatments in Young Stands

OGEA-10 Following treatments in the WUI 

and the area of connectivity, the third priority for 

management of forested stands in the OGEA will 

be the analysis and potential treatment of Habitat 

Type 3 stands located outside of these areas 

(Map 9). 

Habitat Type 3 stands are not currently providing 

habitat for late-successional species as they are 

primarily comprised of even-aged pine trees that 

were planted following clearcuts. Currently, many 

of these stands are on developmental paths that 

may not provide adequate or desirable structural 

late-successional and old-growth characteristics. 

OGEA-11 The overall objective of stand management will be to promote the development of 

stands that would more closely pattern historic 

forest development. The remaining 2,385 acres of 

Habitat Type 3 stands outside of the WUI and 

Connectivity Area can be thinned contingent on 

site-specific analysis. 

OGEA-12 Habitat Type 3 will be burned selectively as some young trees could not withstand 

any significant level of prescribed fire. For all 

Habitat Type 3 stands in the monument, approximately 50 percent will likely require prescribed 

fire. 

implementation considerations in

the OGEA

Although the intent of this process is to identify 

areas where progress can be made toward meeting multiple management objectives, numerous 

other considerations will influence where management activities take place. Mapping specific 

objectives does not take into account a variety of 

other factors that may play a role in determining 

where active management is appropriate. Additional considerations may either increase the need 

to treat a particular area, or eliminate it from 

treatment altogether. Several additional factors 

(described below) would be considered prior to 

project development and implementation.

All proposed management activities will be 

evaluated in light of potentially constraining issues or other concerns. All stands considered for 

treatment will be examined within the context of 

the surrounding landscape. Management activities will be avoided where adverse ecological impacts could outweigh potential gains. Additional 

management considerations may include, but not 

be limited to, the following:

Proximity to populations of noxious weeds; 

On-the-ground confirmation of data used to map 

priority areas (e.g., fire hazard); 

Susceptibility of site soils to weed invasions; 

Soils with perched water tables; 

Condition of fuels build-up across the landscape 

and location of natural fuelbreaks; 

Large concentrations of riparian habitat or 

springs; 

Potential for adverse impacts to the surrounding 

landscape; 

Proximity and percentage of treated areas to 

untreated areas; 

Proximity of stands to sensitive wildlife sites such 

as northern spotted owls or other raptor nests; 

Presence of rare or sensitive plants that may be 

affected by proposed treatments; 

Timing of treatments in relationship to other 

management activities including cumulative effects; 

Potential effect of treatment on existing areas of 

strong habitat connectivity; 

Natural vegetation potential for a particular site; 

and

Site-specific determination of historic fire regime 

and condition class (Appendix D).

In designing logistically feasible and operationally 

sensible projects, it may be necessary to incorporate and analyze for possible treatments stands 

that have differing priority rankings in the same 

project. Site-specific management would be based 

on ecoregion characteristics (Appendix G).
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 39

Map 8
Resource Management Plan

40 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 9
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 41

Map 10
Resource Management Plan

42 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 11
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 43

Map 12
Resource Management Plan

44 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 13
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 45

Chapter 2—Diversity Emphasis Area

diversity emphasis area

overview

There are approximately 27,610 acres in the 

Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA), mostly located 

south of Soda Mountain (Map 5). The majority of 

the vegetation in the Soda Mountain Wilderness 

Study Area (WSA) and the Scotch Creek and 

Oregon Gulch Research Natural Areas (RNAs) 

is classified as DEA. The management activities 

described in this section apply only to DEA lands 

outside of these designations.

As noted in the presidential proclamation, much 

of the plant community and species richness of 

the CSNM is derived from the grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands of the DEA:

Plant communities present a rich mosaic 

of grass and shrublands, Garry [Oregon 

white oak] and California black oak 

woodlands, juniper scablands, mixed conifer and white fir forests, and wet meadows. Stream bottoms support broad-leaf 

deciduous riparian trees and shrubs. Special plant communities include rosaceous 

chaparral and oak-juniper woodlands.

The DEA is comprised of hardwood, shrub, 

grass, semi-wet meadow, and wet meadow plant 

communities (Map 14). This rich tapestry of 

plant communities is dynamic in reaction to the 

principal historic disturbance of fire, and to current disturbances such as livestock grazing, road 

construction, prescribed fire, wildlife habitat rehabilitation, pasture creation, seeding, and other 

range improvements.

Unlike conifer communities in the Old-Growth 

Emphasis Area (OGEA), the plant communities 

in the DEA are characterized by large changes 

in species abundance over relatively short periods 

of time in response to fire. This is because many 

plant species have short life spans, and are dependent on fire for reproduction. Herbaceous plants 

may thrive for only a few years before conditions 

change enough to prevent growth. Shrub species 

may become decadent after a few decades, and 

need to be renewed through activation of their 

seed bank by fire. Furthermore, many hardwood 

species are dependent on fire for creating conditions favoring their persistence on the landscape. 

Other plant communities associated with rocky 

meadows and rock outcrops are resistant to fire 

and may remain unchanged for long periods of 

time.

primary management concerns in

the DEA

Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants

One of the primary management concerns in 

the DEA is the proliferation of weeds across the 

landscape (Map 15). Spatial analysis in GIS indicates that weeds are associated with roads, sites 

of acute disturbance (past timber harvest, power 

line corridors, pastures and other tilled areas), and 

areas of high livestock utilization. Disturbance 

associated with management activities may favor 

noxious weed invasion; therefore, limiting disturbance appears critical to controlling weeds. Some 

of the major ecological problems associated with 

grass/shrub/woodlands involve annual grasses, 

and noxious weeds like yellow starthistle and 

Canada thistle.

Riparian Areas

Riparian plant communities are a critical ecological component of the DEA as wetlands, streams, 

floodplains, springs and seeps represent a wide 

range of plant communities. Livestock grazing, 

pond construction, road construction, and other 

past management activities have altered plant 

communities, hydrologic function, and habitat for 

aquatic organisms. Current conditions differ from 

historic conditions as a result of management 

activities and natural disturbances.

Fire-Dependent Plant Communities

The removal of fire as an ecological process has 

influenced many of the plant communities in the 

DEA. Foothill mountain grasslands, steep mountain grasslands, and biscuit scablands represent 

some of the most fire-dependent plant communities of the CSNM landscape. Fire exclusion, weed 

invasion, livestock grazing and other disturbances 

have all contributed to changes in the composition, structure, and function of these communities. Fire exclusion has created a preponderance 

of older-aged shrub stands, of which wedgeleaf 

ceanothus stands are the most common.
Resource Management Plan

46 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 14
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 47

Map 15
Resource Management Plan

48 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Diversity Emphasis Area

Mesic (relatively moist) oak woodlands are subject to conifer invasion as a consequence of fire 

exclusion. The lack of natural fires due to suppression has also resulted in increased cover by 

shrubs within formerly open woodlands. Where 

oak woodlands were once characterized by open 

spaces, fire exclusion may have resulted in a 

proliferation of a younger age class (less than 130 

years) of Oregon white oak, depending on stand 

conditions.

Appendix D describes a process for assessing how 

current conditions may affect the severity, intensity, and frequency of fires burning in the ecosystem as compared to historic conditions.

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)

Although DEA plant communities are primarily located south of Soda Mountain, they are also 

found interspersed within the OGEA conifer 

forests north of Soda Mountain. Some of these 

plant communities are located in the wildlandurban interface (Map 12) and increased shrubland 

densities may pose an increased threat of wildland 

fire to adjacent landowners. 

Wildlife Habitat

Many of the wildlife issues of the CSNM relate 

directly to plant community compositional and 

structural issues identified as vegetation concerns. 

In the past, high winter deer mortality was attributed to the lack of fire-rejuvenated shrublands 

or livestock use of shrubs critical for winter deer 

browse. Past shrub scarification projects were 

implemented to improve wildlife habitat. Dozing 

and subsequent seeding met management objectives at the time of implementation, but had longlasting effects on vegetation attributes now considered a management concern. Introduced plants 

may be less palatable, less nutritious, or have 

floral parts that pose a danger to wildlife. Large 

areas historically dominated by bunch grass have 

converted to annual grasses. Not only are annual 

grasses less nutritious (particularly once they are 

dormant), but awns can result in intestinal sores 

and blind wildlife as well as livestock. Increased 

stand density in oak woodlands may reduce acorn 

production, an important food source for wildlife.

primary management objectives

for the Dea

The main goal of DEA management is to maintain, protect, and restore habitat and ecological 

processes critical to the richness and abundance 

of the objects of biological interest for which 

the monument was proclaimed. The myriad of 

plant communities in the DEA is not as well 

understood as the conifer communities in the 

OGEA. Ongoing studies are needed to improve 

our knowledge of historic conditions, how these 

ecosystems have changed in the last 150 years, 

and how plant communities and individual species react to fire and management activities. Until 

this research can be used to direct future management activities, four primary objectives have been 

identified to meet the DEA goal:

1) Control the spread of noxious weeds and 

other invasive grasses.

•	 Maintain healthy herbaceous plant communities as a barrier to weed invasions. 

•	 Improve conditions of stands that have 

a mixture of weeds and remnant native 

herbaceous species.

•	 Eradicate and restore small isolated 

weed patches to native herbaceous plant 

domination.

•	 Survey and treat primary travel corridors that 

serve as vectors for weed spread. 

•	 Isolate and treat large extensive weed areas. 

•	 Develop a long-term restoration plan for 

weedy areas greater than one acre.

2) Improve riparian and wetland plant 

communities and habitats.

•	 Protect and enhance hydrologic function, 

aquatic connectivity, and water quality. 

•	 Maintain and improve wetland and riparian 

plant communities and structure. 

•	 Protect and enhance riparian areas as habitat 

for terrestrial and aquatic organisms.

3) Prevent the loss of fire-dependent plant 

species and communities.

•	 Protect and maintain existing native 

grasslands. 

•	 Improve native grass/annual grass mix to 

native grass domination.

•	 Restore annual grass monoculture to native 

grass domination. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 49

Chapter 2—Diversity Emphasis Area

•	 Re-create a range of wedgeleaf ceanothus 

stand ages across the landscape.

•	 Reverse conifer invasion in woodlands. 

•	 Prevent loss of “open oak savanna” 

communities. 

•	 Prevent loss of old-growth conifer component 

within oak woodlands.

4) Protect monument resources from fires originating on adjacent private lands. Reduce the 

risk of wildland fires spreading to residential 

properties in the wildland-urban interface.

•	 Manage DEA lands in the WUI in a way 

that complements the management of adjacent lands in the OGEA.

•	 Where possible, reinforce fire hazard reduction activities on private lands by reducing 

fire hazard on adjoining monument lands.

The control of noxious weeds and the improvement of riparian habitats are management objectives that extend beyond the boundaries of the 

DEA. Although these objectives are of particular 

concern in the DEA, this section references 

rather than repeats the monument’s landscapewide noxious weed strategy (Appendix F) and the 

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources section 

of this chapter.

primary management tools for the 

dea

Listed below are the primary management tools 

that can be used in the DEA. Management tools 

for the DEA are more fully described in the 

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources section 

of this chapter and in the Weed Management 

Strategy (Appendix F). Road closures, which can 

also be used to reduce habitat fragmentation and 

reduce the spread of noxious weeds, are described 

in the Transportation and Access section. Although this list is not exhaustive, management 

tools that would not meet the primary objectives of the DEA, or the overarching goals of the 

monument, will not be allowed in the DEA.

Weed Treatments

Tools available to prevent and treat weeds include 

manual weeding, hot foam treatments, biological control, herbicides, or prescribed fire. Mowing and cultural methods such as disking will 

not be used within the DEA, except in limited 

circumstances such as road-bed decommissioning projects or mowing along road edges. Limited 

mowing, in addition to road edges, may take 

place as part of the pilot studies described below.

Plant Community Restoration

Native seed application can be used for several 

years following weed control treatments or in 

areas of acute ground disturbance in order to prevent weeds from becoming established. Planting 

native shrubs and trees, especially along treated 

riparian areas could help to restore and maintain 

healthy plant communities that are resistant to 

weed invasion.

Prescribed Fire

The fire-dependence of individual plant species, community composition, and community 

structure provides a strong incentive for allowing fire to shape the DEA. Prescribed fire may 

be implemented to initiate conditions thought to 

reflect historic conditions. Prescribed burning in 

the DEA will include handpile burning, underburning and broadcast burning. Handpile burning is utilized in areas that have been manually 

thinned, with brush and understory trees grouped 

in small piles. This type of burning takes place in 

the late fall and winter after a significant amount 

of rainfall has occurred. Underburning utilizes 

a low-intensity surface fire to reduce surface 

vegetation and some small trees. Underburning is 

conducted during weather conditions (usually late 

winter and spring) when moisture levels allow for 

low-intensity fire. Broadcast burning will occur to 

simulate wildland fire under controlled conditions 

from late fall through early spring.

Thinning in Shrublands and Oak 

Woodlands

Thinning may be used as a tool to restore dense 

Oregon white oak stands to historic tree density. 

Some historic oak savannah transitional with 

shrublands may show interspaces dominated by 

shrubs. Reduction of shrubs through prescribed 

fire or manual means may allow the preservation 

of the large oak structure.

management in the dea

Altered habitats including areas converted to 

weeds or sown non-native grasses, areas of high 

livestock utilization, and decadent shrublands will 
Resource Management Plan

50 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Diversity Emphasis Area

be the focus of pilot studies. All vegetation management activities aimed at vegetation restoration 

are therefore also considered to benefit wildlife.

Weed Abatement

DEA-1 The comprehensive strategy for treating 

noxious weeds across the monument described in 

Appendix F is adopted. The treatments described 

in this strategy will not be limited by the pilot 

studies described below. Noxious weed treatments 

can include manual weeding, biological control, 

herbicides, prescribed fire or prescribed grazing. 

Focal areas identified for immediate treatments 

are identified in the weed strategy. 

Noxious weeds will be treated aggressively, contingent on funding. Current funding has allowed 

a mixture of hand-pulling and herbicide treatments on approximately 1,000 to 2,000 acres each 

year for the past several years. The only herbicide 

currently used in the monument is RODEO® 

(glyphosate).

Restoration and Protection of Riparian 

Areas and Wetland Plant Communities

Riparian areas and wetland plant communities 

are a critical component of the DEA. The restoration and protection of these areas is essential 

for maintaining the integrity and diversity of the 

DEA. The management activities for these areas 

are addressed in the Riparian Areas and Aquatic 

Resources section of this document.

Pilot Studies in Fire-Dependent Plant 

Communities

Many concerns regarding the current condition 

of sensitive plants, wildlife, and fire-dependent 

plant communities can be addressed only after researchers examine (1) the nature of plant community dynamics in the DEA; and (2) the influence 

of past management activities. Past management 

activities such as oak woodland scarification, fire 

rehabilitation, and seeding of non-native perennial grasses were designed to improve forage for 

both wildlife and cattle. These activities have 

influenced plant community dynamics throughout the DEA. In order to understand the complexities of change in the DEA, knowledge about 

the extent and nature of these past management 

activities is needed.

An examination of cadastral surveys, aerial photos, historic photos, and other historic sources of 

information will be used to gather baseline data. 

DEA-2 This plan implements a series of pilot 

studies to enhance the knowledge and understanding of the DEA. 

DEA-3 As research and pilot studies are completed, new information could give the monument 

staff a basis for re-examining the DEA’s management strategy. New objectives or management 

direction would be developed in accordance with 

the monument’s adaptive management strategy 

(see Chapter 3).

Fire-dependent plant communities are primarily categorized as grasslands, shrublands, and 

woodlands. Objectives and some of the primary 

management tools under consideration are described below. 

DEA-4 With the exception of management 

activities in the wildland-urban interface, all 

treatments in grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands will be limited to the pilot studies described 

below.

DEA-5 Pilot studies will be limited to 10 acres 

in size with the exception of studies that involve 

broadcast burning. 

DEA-6 Studies that involve the use of broadcast burning will be limited to 100 acres in size. 

Broadcast burning will be limited to 200 acres 

annually, with no more than 100 acres occurring 

in a drainage area. 

DEA-7 Other types of prescribed burning will 

be limited to 10 acres in size. 

DEA-8 To mitigate potential impacts, pilot 

studies will be spread out spatially and temporally. Pilot studies will be placed to avoid sensitive plant communities associated with perennial 

streams, seeps, springs, and wetlands. Prior to 

implementation of multiple studies, additional 

analysis will determine the potential for sitespecific and cumulative effects.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 51

Chapter 2—Diversity Emphasis Area

Grasslands

Foothill mountain grasslands, steep mountain grasslands, and biscuit scablands represent some of the 

most fire-dependent plant communities in the monument. Many lower-elevation communities in the 

DEA consist of an annual grass monoculture, or have annual grasses as a dominant component. 

DEA-9 Table 2-3 describes three primary objectives for grasslands.

Table 2-3. Grassland Objectives and Pilot Studies.

Grassland Objectives Pilot Studies/Tools

1. Maintain and protect native grasslands.

Many types of grasslands are maintained by 

disturbance. Fire plays a critical role in the 

individual species ecology of grassland dwelling 

species (vigor, seedset, tillering ability, successful 

seed germination).

Prescribed Fire–Broadcast Burning

Treatments employing the use of broadcast 

burning to remedy grassland degradation would 

be studied. Treatment application during summer 

dormant season is most favorable, but not feasible 

due to fire danger.

2. Improve native grass/annual grass mix to 

native grass domination.

Annual grasses can invade decadent native 

grasslands following long-term fire exclusion, or 

low-vigor grasslands following long-term livestock 

impact.

Weed Treatments

Weed treatments (prescribed fire; mowing; 

prescribed short-duration, high-intensity livestock 

grazing) to prevent annual grass seedset would 

be studied. Two applications per year may be 

necessary to prevent seedset and treatments may 

need to continue for two or more years. Native 

grass seed application may also be necessary. 

Grazing may not be appropriate due to impacts 

on other monument objects and resources, so any 

study would consider this.

3. Restore annual grass monoculture to native 

grass domination.

Dense stands of early germinating or maturing 

annual grasses out-compete native grass 

seedlings for water and nutrients. In some cases 

medusahead exacerbates the problem through 

establishment of a thick duff layer.

Weed Treatments

Prescribed fire; mowing; prescribed shortduration, high-intensity livestock grazing 

treatments; and/or herbicide application would 

be studied for effectiveness in controlling the 

seedbank and promoting successful native grass 

establishment. Native grass seed application would 

be an essential part of any restoration effort. 

Grazing may not be appropriate due to impacts 

on other monument objects and resources, so any 

study would consider this.

Grassland in early autumn.
Resource Management Plan

52 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Diversity Emphasis Area

Table 2-4. Shrubland Objectives and Pilot Studies.

Shrubland Objectives Pilot Studies/Tools

1. Rejuvenate wedgeleaf ceanothus stands.

Fire exclusion has created a preponderance of 

older-aged shrub stands, many of which need to be 

rejuvenated through prescribed fire.

Prescribed Fire–Broadcast Burning

Treatments employing the use of broadcast burns 

would be used to reinitiate shrub stands. In order 

to facilitate the use of broadcast burning, some 

shrublands would be handcut, piled and burned 

in order to create low-fuel areas on the perimeter 

burn area.

2. Develop a long-term shrubland management 

strategy.

Survey Shrublands

A survey of all wedgeleaf ceanothus stands (stand 

age, stand cover) and their understory would be 

used to create a long-term shrubland management 

strategy.

Shrublands

Wedgeleaf ceanothus stands are the most common shrubland of the monument landscape. 

DEA-10 Since the lifecycle of shrublands includes a stage of herbaceous domination following fire, all 

grassland management objectives (Table 2-3) may also apply to shrublands. Primary shrubland management objectives are described in Table 2-4.

Shrublands.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 53

Chapter 2—Diversity Emphasis Area

Woodlands

A large range of woodland types exist in the CSNM, including Oak-Bunchgrass, Oak-Juniper- Fescue, 

Oak-Pine-Fescue, Oak-Pine-Oatgrass, Pine-Oak-Terrace, Pine-Oak-Fescue, Oak-Mahogany-Fescue, 

and high-elevation stands of Brewer’s oak. 

DEA-11 These communities overlap with grasslands and shrublands (Tables 2-3 and 2-4) and thus the 

management objectives for grasslands and shrublands are also pertinent to woodlands. Management 

objectives for woodlands are described in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5. Woodland Objectives and Pilot Studies.

Woodland Objectives Pilot Studies/Tools

1. Reverse conifer invasion.

Mesic (relatively moist) oak woodlands are 

subject to conifer invasion as a consequence of fire 

exclusion.

Prescribed Fire–Handpile Burning 

and Underburning

Prescribed fire will be studied for effectiveness 

in reducing conifer canopy cover within oak 

woodlands. Manual treatments (cutting, piling 

and burning) would be used where underburning 

cannot be safely reintroduced.

2. Prevent loss of ‘open oak savannah’ 

communities.

Much of the historic savannah oak woodland 

remains in an open condition. In mesic oak 

woodland areas, fire exclusion has resulted in 

proliferation of a younger age class (<130 years) 

of Oregon white oak. Increased stand density is 

believed to have reduced acorn production.

Remaining stands of native herbaceous understory 

species are frequently associated with Oregon 

white oak canopy.

Thinning and Shrub Reduction

The effectiveness of thinning dense Oregon white 

oak stands to historical tree density will be studied. Thinning should only occur providing there is 

no loss of the native herbaceous component within 

newly created interspaces.

Historic oak savannah transitional with shrublands may show interspaces dominated by shrubs. 

Reduction of shrubs through prescribed fire or 

manual means may allow the preservation of the 

large oak structure.

3. Prevent loss of old-growth conifer component 

in oak woodlands.

Historically, many oak woodlands contained an 

old-growth component. Photo-retakes indicate 

that timber harvest had removed many old-growth 

conifers from oak woodlands by the 1950s. Some 

old-growth conifers remain and younger conifers 

are now present.

Thinning and Prescribed Fire

Thinning dense stands of young conifers and 

shrubs will be studied as a way to protect 

dominanat conifers from fire (prescribed or 

wildland fire) under existing conditions. Where 

thinning can be achieved through prescribed fire, 

manual litter reduction may be required around 

the base of leave trees.

Woodlands.
Resource Management Plan

54 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Diversity Emphasis Area

Reduce Fire Hazard in the Wildland-Urban 

Interface

Approximately two percent of the DEA (640 

acres) is located within the WUI (Map 12). 

DEA-12 Fire hazard on DEA plant communities in the WUI can be reduced using manual 

thinning and/or prescribed burning. Up to 50 

percent of the DEA lands within the WUI can 

be treated to reduce fire hazard over the life of the 

plan. Treatments are limited to manual thinning 

and/or prescribed burning. 

DEA-13 Treated and untreated areas would be 

interspersed in order to (1) prevent the accumulation of decadent shrubs and ensure that a high 

proportion of shrublands will be in a relatively 

low-fuel condition at all times; and (2) retain 

areas of higher canopy closure habitat for wildlife. 

DEA-14 Seeding may be used to re-vegetate 

disturbed areas and reduce the invasion by nonnative species. Only native grasses may be used.

implementation considerations in

the dea

All management activities will be evaluated in 

light of potentially constraining issues or other 

concerns. All areas considered for treatment or 

pilot studies will be examined within the context of the surrounding landscape. Management 

activities will be avoided where adverse ecological 

impacts could outweigh potential gains.

Prior to the implementation of any project in the 

DEA, the following considerations will be taken 

into account:

•	 Proximity to populations of noxious weeds; 

•	 Susceptibility of site soils to weed invasions; 

•	 Soils with perched water tables; 

•	 Condition of fuels build-up across the landscape and location of natural fuelbreaks; 

•	 Large concentrations of riparian habitat or 

springs; 

•	 Potential for adverse impacts to the surrounding landscape; 

•	 Proximity and percentage of treated areas to 

untreated areas; 

•	 Proximity of stands to sensitive wildlife sites 

such as northern spotted owls or other raptor 

nests;

•	 Presence of rare or sensitive plants that may 

be adversely affected by proposed treatments; 

•	 Timing of treatments in relationship to other 

management activities; 

•	 Potential effect of treatment on existing areas 

of strong habitat connectivity; 

•	 Natural vegetation potential for a particular 

site; 

•	 The impact of management activities on current monitoring and data collection;

•	 The need to remove livestock from recently 

treated areas; and 

•	 Site-specific determination of historic fire 

regime and condition class (Appendix D).

Pinehurst School in the wildland-urban interface.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 55

Chapter 2—Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources

riparian areas and aquatic

resources

overview

Riparian areas consist of plants that grow adjacent 

to streams or lakes, as well as the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent upland areas that directly 

affect this ecosystem. Although riparian areas 

constitute a small portion of the total land area, 

they are more productive in terms of both plant 

and animal species diversity than the remaining 

land base (Platts and Raleigh 1984). The importance of riparian area habitat to the maintenance 

of ecological integrity at the landscape and local 

scales cannot be over-emphasized. Riparian areas 

and associated wetland habitats are some of the 

most productive, ecologically valuable, and utilized resources in the monument.

Riparian reserves are portions of watersheds 

where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and 

guidelines apply. Stream categories and associated buffer widths are described in the Northwest 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA/

USDI 1994b). Riparian reserves are assigned to 

all streams within the monument and are used to 

describe where some management activities will 

or will not take place.

Streams in the monument drain two distinct systems: the Klamath River basin to the south and 

the Rogue River basin to the northwest. Natural 

aquatic habitats within the monument include 

wetlands, seeps, springs, vernal pools, intermittent and perennial streams, and fish-bearing 

streams. Non-natural aquatic habitats throughout 

the monument include irrigation ditches, reservoirs, pump chances, spring developments, and 

the Talent Irrigation District (TID) diversion 

system. 

Wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, springs and 

seeps host a wide range of plant communities. 

For example, many seeps and springs offer habitat 

to rare aquatic mollusks and seasonal wetlands 

and pools provide habitat for rare plants. Aquatic 

insects are also important indicators of biological 

diversity and ecological integrity. Throughout 

the monument, aquatic monitoring has identified 

rare, endemic, and unusual combinations of 

aquatic insects.

The presidential proclamation noted that, “The 

Jenny Creek portion of the monument is a significant center of fresh water snail diversity, and 

is home to three endemic fish species, including a 

long-isolated stock of redband trout.” In addition 

to the redband trout, the endemic Jenny Creek 

sucker, and the speckled dace are also found in 

Jenny Creek. The Jenny Creek Watershed is host 

to a number of special status and sensitive aquatic 

species as identified by both state and federal 

agencies. The Northwest Forest Plan identified the Jenny Creek Watershed as a Tier 1 Key 

Watershed. Tier 1 watersheds contribute directly 

to conservation of at-risk salmon and resident fish 

species (USDA/USDI 1994b).

Aquatic connectivity is critical to the biological 

and physical health of streams. Riparian areas 

are the interface between the terrestrial and 

aquatic environments and play an essential role 

in maintaining aquatic connectivity throughout 

the monument. Very few of the wetlands in the 

monument are closed hydrologic systems. Water 

storage and water quality from these wetlands 

directly affect water quality and the availability of 

summer flows in the downstream aquatic systems. 

The isolated springs and seeps of Soda Mountain and Keene Ridge, and the sag ponds such 

as those found at Parsnip Lakes are uncommon 

features that are biologically important on the 

landscape. These particular areas contain species 

that are not found on the rest of the landscape.

primary management concerns in

riparian areas

Riparian areas are both fragile and resilient 

environments. They are also are sensitive to 

disturbance events. Events such as flooding are 

part of the natural disturbance regime. However, 

past and current management activities have created circumstances where natural processes are 

compromised. More specifically, human activities 

have resulted in the fragmentation of the monument’s aquatic ecosystem, changed the plant 

community structure, composition, and function 

of riparian areas, and reduced the value of these 

areas for aquatic and terrestrial species.
Resource Management Plan

56 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources

Riparian and Aquatic Habitat 

Fragmentation

Throughout the monument, fragmentation of 

the aquatic network has resulted in the disruption and loss of functions and processes necessary 

to create and maintain habitat required by fish, 

amphibians, and other riparian and aquaticdependent plants and animals. The checkerboard 

ownership within the greater monument boundary contributes to the fragmented condition of the 

monument’s aquatic landscape, especially in the 

north. The mixture of public and private lands 

also limits restoration opportunities for aquatic 

ecosystems. Past management activities, high 

road densities, dams and irrigation diversions, loss 

of floodplain connectivity, and beaver extirpation 

have all contributed to habitat fragmentation.

Past Management Activities

Past timber harvest, road construction, livestock 

grazing, and other management activities have 

altered stream habitat by reducing shade, removing large wood, and increasing sediment delivery 

and altering channel dynamics. In many places, 

clearcuts that extended into riparian areas removed the large wood component.

Springs, seeps, and wetlands have also been 

altered as a consequence of altered hydrology. 

Range and firefighting facilities (the creation of 

stock ponds and pump chances) and associated 

roads have altered the flow of water and may 

have deprived historic wetlands of water, and also 

inadvertently created and maintained new wet 

areas.

Road Density

Roads and associated culverts are often barriers to 

aquatic organisms, fragmenting populations and 

limiting dispersal. Roads also alter the hydrology 

by interfering with surface and subsurface flow. 

High road densities currently exist in riparian 

areas throughout the monument (3.75 mi./mi.2 in 

riparian reserves (BLM administered lands only)).

Dams and Irrigation Diversions

Dams and irrigation diversions serve as partial 

to complete barriers to fish migration. Water 

withdrawals for irrigation purposes limit aquatic 

connectivity and habitat quality by reducing 

flows in natural channels as water is diverted 

into irrigation channels. Water withdrawals leave 

certain stream sections dry during critical times 

of the year, limit access to historic spawning sites, 

and result in higher summer temperatures. Hyatt 

Lake and Keene Creek Reservoirs block access 

of fish and aquatic organisms to large areas of 

historically accessible habitat, and eliminate the 

downstream flow of rocks, fine sediments, wood, 

and nutrients.

Loss of Floodplain Connectivity

Many stream segments in the monument have 

lost access to their floodplains. Reduced access 

to the floodplain increases channelization and 

decreases the structural diversity of streams. 

The loss of floodplain connectivity also increases 

velocity and streambank erosion, especially in the 

meadow areas with depositional soils.

Beaver Extirpation

Historically beaver dams maintained high water 

tables and wide riparian areas by adding structure 

to the floodplains, dissipating stream energy, and 

capturing sediment. Beaver ponds and habitat 

complexes also provide inviting habitat for aquatic 

organisms. As beaver were trapped and removed 

from the monument, these beneficial hydrologic 

functions have been diminished.

Changes in Plant Community Structure and 

Composition

Riparian plant community structure and composition are critical as wildlife habitat. Many plants 

and animals depend directly on riparian habitat 

or indirectly through the influence of riparian 

structure and composition on water temperature, 

sedimentation, turbidity, channel structure, and 

erosion during flood events.

Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants

Noxious weeds and other invasive species are 

present in riparian areas and can displace the 

native vegetation used by aquatic and terrestrial 

wildlife. Some aquatic noxious weeds, such as 

purple loosestrife, are present in the region and 

could infest the monument’s riparian ecosystems 

in the near future.

Livestock Utilization

Monitoring livestock impacts over the past few 

years has identified areas of high-forage utilization and trampling within riparian areas. Livestock-use patterns are reducing the functionality 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 57

Chapter 2—Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources

of some riparian and wetland areas. Livestock 

preference for certain plant species can change the 

competitive balance between species resulting in 

plant community changes. Indirect impacts such 

as soil compaction, reduced vegetation cover, and 

soil disturbance can favor weed establishment.

Loss of Riparian Habitat for Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Species

As riparian areas throughout the monument have 

been altered, the value of these areas for terrestrial and aquatic species has been diminished. The 

plant community structure and composition of 

riparian areas is correlated to the type of species that are able to utilize these areas for forage, 

habitat, and reproduction.

Increased Stream Temperatures

There are nine streams in the CSNM that are on 

the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s most recent (2002) Environmental Protection Agency approved 303(d) list for temperature 

(summer) (ODEQ 2004) (Table 2-6). The draft 

2004 303(d) list was released for public comment in September 2005. One stream in the 

monument, Beaver Creek, was added to the draft 

303(d) list. It is listed for year-round temperature 

from the mouth to river mile 5.5. 

Changes in plant community structure through 

road-building, timber harvest, and livestock 

utilization can directly affect stream temperature 

through the alteration, reduction, or elimination 

of streamside vegetation. Streams have become 

wider and shallower, allowing solar radiation to 

reach a larger surface area and heat the streams 

more quickly. Many aquatic species are not welladapted to increased stream temperatures.

303 (d) LIST

The Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ ) 

is required by the Clean Water 

Act to maintain a list of stream 

segments that do not meet water quality 

standards. This list is called the 303(d) list in 

reference to the section of the Clean Water Act 

that makes the requirement. 

The Oregon DEQ has the responsibility for 

developing water quality standards that protect 

beneficial uses of rivers, streams, lakes, and 

estuaries. Beneficial uses include drinking 

water, cold water fisheries, industrial water 

supply, recreation, and agricultural uses. Once 

standards are established, the state monitors 

water quality and reviews available data and 

information to determine if these standards are 

being met and water is protected. 

Streams and rivers are not placed on the 

303(d) list until sufficient data are available 

that indicate an exceedance of water quality 

standards has occurred. The 303(d) list includes 

data submitted by individuals, organizations 

and government agencies as well as DEQ’s 

own monitoring data. The list is updated every 

two years.

Table 2-6. Water Quality Limited Streams on the 2002 303(d) List (ODEQ 2004).

Watershed Stream Name Description (River Miles) Parameter

Jenny Creek

Jenny Creek 0 to 17.8 Temperature-Summer

Johnson Creek 0 to 9.4 Temperature-Summer

Keene Creek 0 to 7.2 and 7.5 to 9.7 Temperature-Summer

Mill Creek 0 to 3.9 Temperature-Summer

South Fork Keene Creek 0 to 3.1 Temperature-Summer

Bear Creek

Carter Creek 0 to 4.8 Temperature-Summer

Emigrant Creek 0 to 3.6 and 5.6 to 15.4 Temperature-Summer

Hobart Creek 0 to 0 Temperature-Summer

Tyler Creek 0 to 4 Temperature-Summer
Resource Management Plan

58 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources

Sediment

Fine sediment generated primarily by roads, 

grazing, and past timber harvest can negatively 

impact aquatic organisms and their habitats by 

filling in pools, silting in spawning gravels, and 

limiting habitat for macroinvertebrates. Sediment 

occurs naturally in stream systems but is flushed 

out during high flow events in a properly functioning stream system. When compounded with 

altered hydrologic regimes and degraded habitat, 

sedimentation becomes a serious issue for aquatic 

organisms.

Livestock

In some areas livestock use patterns can negatively impact aquatic habitat by altering stream 

banks, riparian vegetation and reducing cover for 

aquatic organisms. In some locations all three of 

these conditions exist at the same time and place, 

reducing the quality of aquatic habitat. These 

impacts can affect aquatic organisms and their 

habitats by filling pools with fine sediment, silting 

in spawning gravels, channel widening, limiting 

habitat for macroinvertebrates, reducing undercut 

banks used for cover, and eliminating overhanging vegetation that provides cover and captures 

fine sediment during high flows.

Lack of Large Wood

In the Old-Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA), 

some riparian areas are lacking large overstory 

trees. Old-growth trees have previously been 

removed from riparian areas through road-building and timber harvest. Fire exclusion has also 

resulted in dense stands of small diameter conifer 

thickets. The lack of large trees in the overstory 

affects shade, water temperature, and results in a 

lack of potential recruitment of in-stream large 

wood in the future, which provides important 

benefits to stream structure and aquatic habitat.

primary management objectives

for riparian areas

The main goal of riparian area management 

would be to protect and restore riparian features 

critical to ecosystem health in order to support 

the monument’s diverse populations of plants and 

animals. This would be done in accordance with 

the BLM-wide goal of restoring and maintaining riparian and wetland areas so that they are in 

proper functioning condition. To achieve these 

goals, the management activities described in this 

plan would be designed to meet all of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy (ACS) (USDA/USDI 

1994a) objectives. The most relevant objectives are 

summarized below:

1) Protect and enhance hydrologic function, 

aquatic connectivity and water quality (ACS 

Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).

•	 Where possible, reduce roads within riparian 

areas and reduce the number of road/stream 

crossings.

•	 Improve road drainage and surfacing, and 

replace culverts to accommodate at least the 

100-year flood.

•	 Where possible, reduce water withdrawals 

and increase cold-water inputs.

•	 Improve riparian and wetland habitats, seeps 

and springs, and areas with altered hydrologic 

function.

•	 Encourage partnerships with local landowners to improve aquatic ecosystems across the 

landscape.

2) Maintain and improve wetland and riparian 

plant communities and structure (ACS Objective 8).

•	 Promote herbaceous and woody-plant development.

•	 Protect existing late-successional structure in 

riparian areas.

•	 Promote the development of late-successional 

structure where appropriate.

•	 Reduce the presence and spread of noxious 

weeds and other non-native species.

•	 Restore floodplain plant communities and 

add large wood to floodplains.

•	 Where possible, improve, reconstruct or 

decommission constructed water sources to 

allow recovery of the former native plant 

communities.

3) Protect and enhance riparian areas as habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms (ACS 

Objective 9).

•	 Protect and enhance riparian and aquatic 

habitats that favor native species.

•	 Improve riparian habitat connectivity for 

aquatic and terrestrial species.

•	 Restore plant community structure and 

composition.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 59

Chapter 2—Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources

primary management tools for

riparian areas

The tools for managing riparian areas overlap 

with the management tools described in the OldGrowth Emphasis Area, Diversity Emphasis 

Area, Transportation and Access, and Livestock 

Grazing sections of this document.

Survey/Inventory

The use of appropriate surveys and inventories can 

help to increase the understanding of riparian and 

aquatic conditions across the monument. Surveys can identify riparian areas where immediate 

restorative actions are needed.

Planting/Seeding of Native Species

In areas where riparian vegetation has been 

altered from the historic condition, native grass 

seeding and the planting of hardwoods and conifers suitable to the site can be used to promote 

the desired plant community composition and 

structure.

Thinning in Riparian Areas

Under certain circumstances, thinning in riparian 

areas can be used to promote late-successional 

characteristics in riparian areas by removing the 

small diameter trees that have resulted from fire 

exclusion. “Thinning from below” is described 

as a management tool in the Old-Growth 

Emphasis Area section of this chapter.

Reducing Road Density

Road density can be reduced by decommissioning 

roads that are located in riparian areas. Existing 

roads and associated stream crossings that cannot 

be decommissioned due to existing rights-of-way 

agreements can be improved or relocated.

Fencing

Where other management tools are not feasible, 

fencing may be used to exclude livestock from 

streams, springs, seeps, and wetlands where damage is occurring. Fencing can also protect isolated 

seeps and springs with sensitive species. Fencing 

may, however, inadvertently limit the mobility 

and dispersal of native species.

Livestock Management

Cattle are naturally drawn to riparian areas. 

Various livestock management techniques can 

be used to distribute cattle across the landscape 

and minimize time spent in riparian areas. Tools 

for managing livestock are described in the 

Livestock Grazing section of this chapter.

management in riparian areas

The planning team based the following management activities on what is currently known about 

the existing conditions of riparian areas and 

aquatic ecosystems. Many of the management 

activities overlap with the management activities described in the transportation and livestock 

sections of this document. The monitoring and 

adaptive management framework described in 

AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) was 

developed as part of the Northwest Forest Plan 

(USDA/USDI 1994) to restore and maintain the 

ecological health of watersheds and the aquatic 

ecosystems contained within them on public lands. 

The ACS contains four components: Riparian 

Reserves; Key Watersheds; Watershed Analysis; and 

Watershed Restoration.

Riparian Reserves: Lands along streams and unstable and potentially unstable areas where special 

standards and guidelines direct land use.

Key Watersheds: A system of large refugia comprising watersheds that are crucial to at-risk fish 

species and stocks and provide high quality water. 

The Jenny Creek Level 5 Watershed is the only Key 

Watershed identified within the CSNM.

Watershed Analysis: Procedures for conducting 

analysis that evaluates geomorphic and ecologic 

processes operating in specific watersheds. This 

analysis should enable watershed planning that 

achieves ACS objectives (B-11, USDA and USDI 

1994). Watershed Analysis provides the basis for 

monitoring and restoration programs and the 

foundation from which Riparian Reserves can be 

delineated. The Jenny Creek Watershed Analysis 

was completed in 1995.

Watershed Restoration: A comprehensive, longterm program of watershed restoration to restore 

watershed health and aquatic ecosystems, including 

the habitats supporting fish and other aquatic and 

riparian-dependent organisms.
Resource Management Plan

60 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources

Chapter 3 will be an important component of any 

riparian area management.

Surveys

RIPA-1 Stream/riparian surveys will be completed to provide a landscape-wide assessment 

of riparian areas throughout the CSNM. This 

assessment will be utilized to prioritize riparian 

areas for restoration activities and to determine 

further monitoring needs.

RIPA-2 Ongoing monitoring and data collection associated with the Livestock Impacts Study 

will also be used to identify areas in need of immediate restoration activities.

RIPA-3 Additional surveys and inventories can 

be conducted as needed to assess existing aquatic 

habitat; identify and prioritize areas for restoration activities; or assess impacts to monument 

resources.

Restoration and Protection Measures

RIPA-4 Restoration and protection activities 

that benefit aquatic habitat and water quality 

may be conducted throughout the CSNM. These 

activities may include, but will not be limited to, 

planting vegetation in riparian areas, stabilizing 

stream banks, placing in-stream habitat structures (e.g., logs and boulders), fencing springs 

and wetlands, altering livestock grazing patterns, 

removing or replacing culverts, and upgrading or 

decommissioning roads.

Aquatic Habitat

RIPA-5 Streams with the highest priority for 

aquatic habitat restoration and protection efforts 

are located in the Jenny Creek Watershed.

RIPA-6 Throughout the monument, springs and 

wetlands that contain endemic mollusks will be 

monitored and protective measures will be taken 

where necessary.

RIPA-7 Past inventories have identified the 

following areas as priorities for additional 

evaluation and implementation of restoration 

activities (Map 16):

•	 Area surrounding Hobart Lake

•	 Keene Creek (outside of canyon)

•	 Keene Creek Ridge (all springs encountered)

•	 Jenny Creek (upper and lower portions outside steep-sided canyon)

•	 Agate Flat (all seeps, springs, and ponds)

•	 Headwater springs of Camp Creek

•	 Chinquapin (big meadow with exclosure, 

isolated springs, and seeps)

•	 Parsnip Lakes (areas deferred in Medford 

RMP (USDI 1995))

•	 Soda Mountain Area (seeps and springs)

Future surveys, such as Proper Functioning 

Condition Surveys, may identify additional areas 

as priorities for restoration or protective measures.

Water Quality

RIPA-8 A Water Quality Restoration Plan 

(WQRP) will be prepared to address restoration 

on water quality limited streams in the monument 

(Table 2-6). The WQRP will provide a management framework for protecting and enhancing 

water quality on monument lands. The WQRP 

will be incorporated into the Oregon Department 

of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ ) water quality 

management plans that are being developed for 

the Upper Klamath (Jenny Creek Watershed) and 

the Middle Rogue (Bear Creek Watershed) Subbasins. These plans will provide implementation 

strategies for the Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs), which were scheduled to be developed 

in 2005 for these two subbasins. TMDLs are 

pollution load limits calculated by DEQ for each 

pollutant entering a water body. The WQRP will 

be the TMDL implementation plan for BLMadministered lands.

RIPA-9 The CSNM WQRP will include recovery goals for BLM-managed lands to enhance 

riparian condition and improve water quality. 

Elements to be addressed by recovery goals for 

the temperature TMDL will include a shade 

component, channel form component, and stream 

flow components.

RIPA-10 Restoration will involve both passive 

and active strategies. Passive restoration could 

consist of allowing riparian vegetation to grow to 

reach target values, allowing historic streambank 

failures to revegetate, allowing natural channel 

evolution to continue, and following Standards 

and Guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan 

for riparian reserves and unstable lands. If the 

Northwest Forest Plan is revised, amended, 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 61

Map 16
Resource Management Plan

62 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources

supplemented, or otherwise changed, the new 

version will be evaluated for possible incorporation following the process described in the Plan 

Maintenance section in the CSNM ROD and 

Chapter 1 of this RMP. 

Examples of active restoration efforts approved 

in this plan include: prescriptions that increase 

growth rate and survival of riparian vegetation, 

prescriptions to ensure long-term riparian vegetation health, vegetation planting to create a 

stand that will result in increased tree height and 

density, maintaining and improving road surfacing, reducing road densities by decommissioning 

non-essential roads, stabilizing stream banks, 

placing in-stream habitat structures, and altering 

livestock use patterns.

Former Box O Ranch Restoration

RIPA-11 Ongoing floodplain restoration at the 

former Box O Ranch will continue in order to 

establish a mature riparian hardwood-dominated 

forest that integrates with oak woodlands within 

the extended floodplain.

Weed Abatement

RIPA-12 Riparian areas with weed infestations 

will be treated following the strategy described 

in Appendix F. This strategy includes specific 

mitigating measures for herbicide treatments in or 

near riparian areas. Weed treatments in riparian 

areas will be monitored for effectiveness as well 

as any potential adverse impacts. Only glyphosate 

without surfactants (RODEO® or a product with 

similar environmental risks) will be used.

Thinning

RIPA-13 In association with management 

identified in the OGEA section of this chapter, 

thinning small-diameter trees will be considered 

in riparian areas where fire exclusion has created 

dense stands of small-diameter conifer thickets 

for the purposes of promoting development of 

late-successional characteristics. This would be 

most appropriate in Habitat Type 5 stands (see 

McKelvie Habitat Types on page 34). 

RIPA-14 If OGEA pilot projects take place in 

Habitat Type 2, trees can be felled to provide 

for in-stream habitat where riparian areas have 

insufficient large wood. This may take place along 

fish-bearing perennial streams where the riparian 

areas could also benefit from small openings in 

canopy cover. 

RIPA-15 Trees identified as hazard trees that 

are located in riparian areas will be felled toward 

the stream and left to improve terrestrial and 

aquatic habitat conditions. 

RIPA-16 Aquatic shading will be maintained.

Prescribed Fire

RIPA-17 Prescriptions for burning in riparian reserves will be based on plant community 

and stream/wetland type with greater protection 

given to riparian vegetation and water quality 

concerns. 

RIPA-18 Hand piles will be kept away from 

streams, seeps, springs, wetlands, and other water 

bodies to minimize the movement of soil and ash 

to water sources.

RIPA-19 Prescribed fire can be used in some 

areas to restore plant community structure in 

riparian areas. In these situations, prescribed fire 

from adjacent units will be allowed to creep or 

back into riparian reserves.

Partnerships

RIPA-20 Partnerships with private landowners, watershed councils, state and other federal 

agencies will be pursued to restore, protect, and 

enhance riparian areas and aquatic ecosystems 

across ownership boundaries.

implementation considerations in

riparian areas

Implementation considerations listed in the 

OGEA and DEA sections of this chapter are 

applicable to management in riparian areas where 

appropriate.

•	 Treatments within riparian areas will be 

designed to improve ecological conditions and 

processes;

•	 Treatments within riparian areas will be consistent with the ACS objectives.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 63

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing

overview

Livestock grazing has continued as an authorized 

use since monument designation. The presidential 

proclamation mandated a study of “the impacts 

of livestock on the objects of biological interest in 

the monument with specific attention to sustaining the natural ecosystem dynamics.” In keeping 

with this mandate, the Draft Study of Livestock 

Impacts on the Objects of Biological Interest (draft 

study plan) was published in 2001 and A Plan for 

Studying the Impacts of Livestock Grazing on the 

Objects of Biological Interest (updated study plan) 

was published in November 2005. The study plan 

describes the objectives, methodologies and protocols that are being used to evaluate the current 

grazing practices on monument resources.

This section of the RMP provides the following 

information:

•	 a description of the current active grazing 

allotments;

•	 a description of how existing laws and regulations govern livestock grazing management in 

the CSNM;

•	 identification of concerns associated with 

livestock grazing practices in the monument;

•	 a description of tools available for managing 

livestock grazing;

•	 a limited number of site-specific and programmatic decisions regarding current and 

future grazing management; and

•	 a framework for making decisions regarding 

livestock grazing practices using information 

from the Livestock Impacts Study and the 

upcoming Rangeland Health Assessments 

and evaluations.

Current Active Grazing Allotments

Livestock grazing in the monument is organized 

into nine grazing allotments (Map 17). Two of 

these allotments, Agate and Siskiyou, are currently vacant. Five of the active allotments, Soda 

Mountain, Keene Creek, Jenny Creek, Box R, 

and Deadwood, account for 97 percent of the 

authorized livestock grazing use in the monument and are managed by the Medford District 

BLM. The Lakeview District BLM administers 

the Buck Mountain and Dixie Allotments in the 

CSNM (Table 2-7). Eleven lessees have active 

Existing grazing leases authorize a total of 2,714 

active Animal Unit Months (AUMs) during 

the grazing season. An AUM is the amount of 

forage required to sustain a cow and calf for one 

month. Total AUMs represent the number of 

cows or cow/calf pairs multiplied by the number of months included in the season of use. For 

example, a lessee with one cow/calf pair that was 

turned out for five months would have used a 

total of five AUMs. Although the grazing seasons 

vary by allotment, grazing generally occurs from 

May through October within the monument.

Livestock lessees used a total of 1,889 AUMs 

on public lands in the monument during the 

2004 grazing season (70 percent of the AUMs 

authorized under their grazing leases). The 10-

year average of actual use shows that the livestock 

lessees in the monument used approximately 58 

percent of the authorized AUMs (Table 2-8).

laws and regulations related to

livestock grazing

The presidential proclamation stated that “Existing authorized permits or leases may continue 

with appropriate terms and conditions under 

existing laws and regulations.” The primary laws 

that govern livestock grazing practices on BLM 

land are the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934 

and the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) of 1976 as amended by the Public 

Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.

The TGA established a strategy for grazing management intended to “stop injury to the public 

authorized use within the monument on seven 

allotments.

Table 2-7. Active Grazing Allotments.

Active Grazing

Acres of Public Land 

(within the greater 

monument boundary)

Soda Mountain 35,264

Keene Creek 10,600

Jenny Creek 1,417

Dixie 1,283

Buck Mountain 739

Box R 88

Deadwood 32
Resource Management Plan

64 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 17
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 65

Table 2-8

Table 2-8. Allotment Use within the CSNM.

Allotment 

Name

CSNM 

Public 

Land 

Acres

CSNM 

Authorized 

Active 

AUMs

Actual Use

10-Year 

Average 

Actual 

Use 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995

Soda 

Mountain 35,264 1,776 1,087 691 728 393 692 1,310 1,052 1,076 1,351 1,207 959

Keene 

Creek 10,600 722 709 131 434 398 470 556 563 492 530 317 460

Siskiyou 1,898 VACANT

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Jenny 

Creek 1,417 115

0 28 92 112 82

0

0 87 119 106 63

Dixie* 1,283 74 75 73 76 96 Missing Data 94 94 94 96 94 88

Buck 

Mountain 739 19 11 11 11 11

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Box R 88

5

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

4

4

Agate 82 VACANT

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Deadwood 32 3 3 3 3 2

2 3 3 3 3 3 3

Totals 51,403 2,714 1,889 941 1,348 1,016 1,250 1,968 1,717 1,757 2,104 1,731 1,581

* A Rangeland Health Assessment was conducted on the Dixie Allotment in 2001 and the evaluation determined that one or more standards 

were not being met and livestock grazing was a contributing factor in non-achievement. Therefore, the active AUMs on the Dixie Allotment 

were reduced from 96 to 74.
Resource Management Plan

66 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and 

soil deterioration....” Subsequent to the TGA, 

65 million acres of public land deemed “chiefly 

valuable for grazing and raising forage crops” 

were placed in grazing districts. Grazing districts 

in Oregon were created exclusively on the east 

side of the Cascades and did not include lands 

that are now part of the CSNM. Section 15 of 

the TGA allows the issuance of grazing leases on 

public lands outside the original grazing district 

boundaries. Grazing leases in the monument were 

issued under Section 15 of the TGA.

In 1976 Congress enacted FLPMA, making fundamental changes to the management of public 

lands overall, including grazing management. 

FLPMA did not distinguish between the administration of lands included in the original grazing districts and those leased under Section 15. 

Regulations regarding the administration of grazing on BLM lands are found in Volume 43 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subpart 4100. 

The Presidential Proclamation

In addition to the mandate to protect monument 

objects, the presidential proclamation provides 

the following direction in regards to livestock 

grazing:

The Secretary of the Interior shall study the 

impacts of livestock grazing on the objects 

of biological interest in the monument 

with specific attention to sustaining the 

natural ecosystem dynamics. Existing 

authorized permits or leases may continue 

with appropriate terms and conditions under 

existing laws and regulations. Should grazing 

be found incompatible with protecting the 

objects of biological interest, the Secretary 

shall retire the grazing allotments pursuant 

to the processes of applicable law. Should 

grazing permits or leases be relinquished 

by existing holders, the Secretary shall not 

reallocate the forage available under such 

permits or for livestock grazing purposes 

unless the Secretary specifically finds, 

pending the outcome of the study, that such 

reallocation will advance the purposes of the 

proclamation.

The presidential proclamation directed the BLM 

to “study the impacts of livestock on the objects of 

biological interest in the monument with specific 

attention to sustaining the natural ecosystem dynamics.” The BLM has since published the Draft 

Study of Livestock Impacts on the Objects

of Biological Interest (draft study plan) in 2001 and 

A Plan for Studying the Impacts of Livestock Grazing on the Objects of Biological Interest (updated 

study plan) in 2005. The study plan describes 

the objectives, methodologies and protocols that 

are being used to evaluate the current grazing 

practices on monument resources. The Livestock 

Impacts Study includes multiple projects designed 

to determine and quantify the effects of livestock 

grazing on the objects of biological interest and 

ecosystem processes. The mandate to study the 

impacts of livestock grazing is also a call to consider ecosystem dynamics (change over time) and 

ecosystem integrity (whether all the components 

of the ecosystem are present and functioning). 

This requires the BLM to consider the biological objects and ecosystem variables relative to the 

range of processes occurring within the CSNM 

landscape. The monitoring of indicator species 

and variables indicative of ecosystem functioning is critical to understanding the health of the 

ecosystems within the monument.

The proclamation also stated that “Should grazing 

be found incompatible with protecting the objects 

of biological interest, the Secretary shall retire the 

grazing allotments pursuant to the processes of 

applicable law.” The results of the livestock studies 

will, therefore, be used to help determine whether 

or not livestock grazing is compatible with “protecting the objects of biological interest.”

Current Grazing Regulations

Current grazing regulations (43 CFR 4180) direct 

the BLM to manage livestock grazing in accordance with the Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management in the States of Oregon and Washington 

(Standards and Guidelines) (Appendix H).

The Standards and Guidelines identify five 

specific standards that are used to determine the 

degree to which “ecological function and process 

exist within each ecosystem.” Standards address 

the health, productivity, and sustainability of the 

BLM-administered public rangelands and represent the minimum acceptable conditions for the 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 67

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

public rangelands. The guidelines are management practices that will either maintain existing 

desirable conditions or move rangelands toward 

statewide standards within reasonable timeframes. The five specific standards are defined as 

follows:

Standard 1 – Watershed Function, Uplands: 

Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability 

rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. 

Standard 2 – Watershed Function, Riparian/

Wetland Areas: Riparian/wetland areas are in 

properly functioning physical condition appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.

Standard 3 – Ecological Processes: Healthy, 

productive and diverse plant and animal populations and communities appropriate to soil, 

climate, and landform are supported by ecological 

processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the 

hydrologic cycle.

Standard 4 – Water Quality: Surface water and 

groundwater quality, influenced by agency actions, complies with state water quality standards.

Standard 5 – Native, Threatened and Endangered, and Locally Important Species: Habitats 

support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals (including special status species and species 

of local importance) appropriate to soil, climate, 

and landform.

The Standards and Guidelines (Appendix H) 

also specify a set of potential indicators for use 

when determining whether or not standards are 

being met. The Livestock Impacts Study has 

been designed to provide information regarding 

many of these potential indicators. In addition to 

the Standards and Guidelines, it may be necessary to use other site-specific or species-specific 

indicators to determine “the impacts of livestock 

grazing on the objects of biological interest in the 

monument.” The results of the Livestock Impacts 

Study will be used in conjunction with other 

available data to determine whether or not the 

grazing standards are being met under current 

grazing practices.

primary management concerns

related to livestock grazing

A list of concerns and questions identified are 

presented below. They are based on quantitative 

and qualitative analyses, an extensive literature 

review, and site-specific knowledge regarding 

areas that are currently utilized by livestock. As 

described above, the BLM has initiated multiple 

studies of potential livestock impacts on monument resources. These studies will continue to 

provide quantitative data regarding potential impacts from livestock on the “objects of biological 

interest with specific attention to sustaining the 

natural ecosystem dynamics.” Ongoing monitoring, data collection, and analysis will help to answer some of the outstanding questions regarding 

the role that livestock grazing plays in some of the 

existing conditions throughout the monument.

Noxious Weeds

The spread of noxious weeds is a problem 

throughout the monument, particularly in the 

Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA). Livestock are 

one vector associated with the spread of noxious weeds: livestock disturbance may increase 

site receptiveness to noxious weed invasions; 

and livestock movement through areas may also 

contribute to weed spread. To what extent do 

livestock, as compared to other historic or current 

disturbance factors, contribute to the introduction 

and/or spread of noxious weeds and undesirable 

non-native species in the monument?

Riparian and Wetland Areas

Riparian and wetland areas are the most productive and highly prized resources found on 

public lands in the monument. These areas play 

a significant role in restoring and maintaining 

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of water sources (USDI 1994a). Monitoring of 

livestock use over the past few years has identified 

areas of use that exceed moderate levels (greater 

than 60 percent use of key forage species) within 

riparian areas. Livestock use patterns and associated trampling (hoof action) may be impacting 

the functionality of some riparian and wetland 

areas and impeding attainment of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives in these 

areas. To what extent are livestock, as compared 

to other historic or current disturbance factors, 

impacting streams, springs, seeps, and wetlands 
Resource Management Plan

68 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

or affecting aquatic organisms, including sensitive 

aquatic mollusk and fish species?

Springs, seeps, and wetlands have also been 

affected as a consequence of altered hydrology. 

Range facilities (the creation of stock ponds) and 

associated roads have altered the flow of water 

and may have deprived historic wetlands of water; 

they may have also inadvertently created and 

maintained new wet areas. How does the distribution of livestock facilities across the landscape, 

as compared to other historic or current disturbance factors, alter the monument’s hydrologic 

systems?

Wildlife Habitat

Cattle use the landscape and forage resources differently than do the native ungulates. As a result, 

the effects of cattle herbivory on ecosystem processes are different from those of native ungulate 

herbivory. Cattle can reduce the forage available 

for native species, and can reduce ground cover 

that may serve as habitat for various species. 

What effects do livestock, as compared to other 

historic or current disturbance factors, have on 

important wildlife habitats, including black-tailed 

deer winter range, native ground nesting birds, 

and rare or special status animal species?

Ecological Succession and Plant 

Community Composition

The literature indicates that direct and indirect 

livestock impacts can influence plant composition and, consequently, the relative abundance of 

weeds. Livestock preference for certain species 

and the plant’s ability to withstand grazing can 

change the competitive balance between species, resulting in livestock-induced changes to the 

ecological state and successional processes. What 

role does livestock grazing play in changing the 

vegetation community composition and structure, 

or in the maintenance of the existing annual/perennial grass ratios?

Special Status Species

Unique populations of native plant and animal 

species are an important part of the monument’s 

ecology. Cattle grazing can influence populations 

of these rare objects, either directly from grazing or trampling, or indirectly from the successional changes described above. How are current 

livestock grazing practices affecting the recovery 

of rare, threatened, endangered, special status or 

native species populations?

Water Quality

There are nine streams in the CSNM currently 

listed as water quality limited for temperature 

(summer) by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 2002 303(d) list and one 

additional stream nominated for the 2004 303(d) 

list (year-around temperature). Grazing by 

ungulates can directly affect stream temperature 

through the alteration, reduction, or elimination 

of streamside vegetation that shades the stream. 

Indirectly, livestock grazing can widen stream 

channels through stream bank erosion from 

trampling, hoof-slide, and stream bank collapse. 

Stream widening reduces stream depth and 

increases the surface area of the water exposed 

to solar radiation leading to higher water temperatures. To what extent are current livestock 

grazing practices, as compared to other historic or 

current disturbance factors, contributing to high 

temperatures in these streams?

primary management tools for

livestock grazing

Where livestock grazing is continued, livestock 

administration in the CSNM will be designed to 

manage the season, timing, frequency, duration, 

and intensity of livestock grazing in order to 

meet the Standards for Rangeland Health 

and the needs of the ecological components 

described above. The following tools provide the 

BLM with a variety of options for meeting the 

directives found in the presidential proclamation 

and the Standards and Guidelines. Additional 

guidelines for managing grazing leases are found 

in Appendix H.

Adjust Grazing Systems

The season, timing, frequency, duration, and 

intensity of livestock grazing use should be based 

on the physical and biological characteristics of 

the site. A grazing system may be adjusted or 

modified to a different system when conditions 

indicate that the current system may result or has 

resulted in over-utilization or other negative impacts. Some examples of grazing systems include 

continuous, deferred, rotational, rest-rotational, 

complete rest (short- or long-term), split season, 

and high-intensity, short-duration livestock use.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 69

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

Pasture Divisions

Grazing allotments may be divided into pastures 

to achieve proper distribution of cattle and reduce 

grazing pressure in over-utilized areas. Pasture 

divisions are maintained using fencing or natural 

barriers in order to change the grazing pressure 

exerted on a particular area.

Season-of-Use Adjustments

Grazing on the CSNM takes place during the 

spring, summer, and fall. Livestock grazing 

should be coordinated with the timing of precipitation, plant growth, and plant form. Soil 

moisture, plant growth stage and the timing of 

peak stream flows are key factors in determining 

when to graze. Adjusting seasons in pastures can 

provide periods of rest so that native plants can 

have time to complete their growth cycle and renew the seedbank. Season-of-use adjustments can 

also provide a competitive advantage for desirable 

species and a disadvantage to undesirable species. 

Season-of-use adjustments may also be used to 

take advantage of time frames when plants have 

higher nutritive values that promote better weight 

gains in livestock.

Distribution

Authorized livestock lessees are responsible for 

the appropriate distribution of cattle. There are 

many different ways to achieve desired livestock 

distribution. Livestock lessees can employ cattle 

herding by horseback or other means. Salt blocks 

can be placed to attract livestock away from water 

or other important features (biological, archaeological, etc.). Salt blocks can also be placed to favor livestock grazing on undesired noxious weeds 

or to break up dense shrub communities.

Adjustments to Turn-Out and Take-Off 

Dates

Rangeland readiness determines the dates that 

animals are allowed to be turned out or required 

to be taken off an allotment or pasture. Rangeland readiness for turn-out is determined through 

an evaluation of soil moisture, plant phenology 

(vegetative growth stage), and a number of other 

factors specific to each allotment or pasture. 

Similarly, take-off dates are influenced by levels 

of utilization, drought, soil moisture, and other 

relevant criteria.

Adjustments to AUM Authorizations

The primary method of authorizing forage use 

in a grazing lease is through the designation of 

AUMs (estimated livestock carrying capacity). 

Adjusting AUM authorizations provides a means 

of adjusting animal numbers over time. A lessee 

can request “nonuse” on an annual basis for various reasons including financial concerns, fluctuations in the livestock industry, or personal health 

issues. When requested and approved, nonuse can 

provide for a period of rest on an allotment.

Special Use Permits

According to the federal grazing regulations, 

a number of special use permits (e.g., FreeUse Grazing Permits, 43 CFR 4130.5) may be 

authorized to accomplish grazing that promotes 

various ecological processes. An example would 

be authorizing limited grazing to utilize undesirable species and promote improvements in desired 

species.

Rangeland Improvements

Rangeland improvement projects are designed to 

maintain or improve ecological conditions and/

or increase the efficiency of range management. 

Some examples of rangeland improvements are 

fencing, water developments, seeding of desirable 

plant species, brush thinning, etc.

Allotment Management Plans

Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) (43 CFR 

4120.2) direct the management of livestock grazing on the specified allotment. The AMP is the 

implementation document by which the BLM, in 

cooperation with the grazing lessees, other federal 

and state resource management agencies, and interested citizens, develops management objectives 

and associated site-specific actions that are based 

on meeting the Oregon Standards for Rangeland 

Health (Appendix H). AMPs employ many of 

the tools described above, including monitoring 

plans to evaluate effectiveness.

Cattle at Buck Point.
Resource Management Plan

70 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

primary management objectives

for livestock grazing

Livestock grazing continues as an authorized use 

in the monument in certain locations. The main 

objective for livestock management is to administer grazing allotments under existing laws and 

regulations to achieve land health standards and 

in the manner that protects “the objects of biological interest” and complements other resource 

objectives identified in this document. Specific 

attention will be given to resolving the concerns 

and questions identified above (Management 

Concerns section). This management plan makes 

a limited number of programmatic and site-specific decisions regarding current and future grazing management. It also establishes a framework 

for making future decisions regarding livestock 

grazing practices. These are discussed below.

management for livestock grazing

Programmatic and Site-Specific Decisions

Authorized Livestock Operations

Authorized livestock lessees need some degree of 

access for livestock management and maintenance 

of fences, stock ponds, and other improvements. 

Livestock operations may be affected by management activities, such as vegetation management, 

road closures, and prescribed burning. 

GRA-1 The BLM will continue to work with 

the monument’s grazing lessees in order to coordinate management activities with livestock operations. In cooperation with authorized livestock 

lessees, grazing management practices will be 

applied within existing lease terms and conditions 

to be proactive in protecting or enhancing monument resources; a variety of livestock management 

techniques will be utilized to accomplish these 

practices and are described in the Management 

Tools section.

Livestock Facilities

GRA-2 Ground disturbing activities and the 

construction of new livestock facilities—including 

watering developments, corrals, and chutes—will 

not be authorized unless the assessment/evaluation process described below leads the authorized 

officer to conclude that they are necessary to 

protect or enhance monument resources.

Access

GRA-3 The use of roads for livestock operations 

will be limited to designated open roads and be 

consistent with the CSNM transportation management plan, except interim access permitted 

by the monument manager (Map 18). Some of 

the roads on which interim OHV and vehicular 

access is permitted will be decommissioned. Once 

decommissioning takes place, livestock operators 

will no longer be granted OHV or vehicular access on these roads.

Existing Vacant Allotments

The Siskiyou and Agate Allotments are currently 

vacant. These allotments will be evaluated with 

current monument grazing leases to determine 

“the impacts of livestock on the objects of biological interest in the monument.” 

GRA-4 Applications for new grazing leases or 

other grazing authorizations, including nonrenewable grazing use, will not be approved on the 

Siskiyou and Agate vacant allotments until after 

completion of the assessment, evaluation, and 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process described below. The results of the final 

livestock studies will be used to determine 

whether or not livestock grazing is “incompatible 

with protecting the objects of biological interest,” 

consistent with the presidential proclamation.

Lease Renewals

GRA-5 Under existing law (Public Law 108-

108, Section 325), grazing leases that expire, are 

transferred, or waived during fiscal years 2004-

2008 prior to the completion of the lease renewal 

process will be renewed. The existing terms and 

conditions of these leases will continue in effect 

until the lease renewal process can be completed 

in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. During the lease renewal process, the lease 

may be canceled, suspended, or modified, in 

whole or in part, to meet the requirements of such 

applicable laws and regulations.

Allotment Retirement

GRA-6 The presidential proclamation addressed 

the retirement of existing allotments in the 

following manner: “Should grazing be found incompatible with protecting the objects of biological interest, the Secretary shall retire the grazing 

allotments pursuant to the processes of applicable 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 71

Map 18
Resource Management Plan

72 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

law. Should grazing permits or leases be relinquished by existing holders, the Secretary shall 

not reallocate the forage available under such permits or for livestock grazing purposes unless the 

Secretary specifically finds, pending the outcome 

of the study, that such reallocation will advance 

the purposes of the proclamation.” If grazing is 

found to be “incompatible” then allotments will 

be “retired” in accordance with the proclamation and will no longer be authorized for grazing 

under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act.

Lands Not Currently Included in Existing 

Allotments and Lands Not Currently 

Under Lease

GRA-7 New grazing leases or applications for 

temporary grazing use within the monument will 

not be approved on lands not authorized for grazing at the time of the proclamation.

The BLM is exercising its discretion, through 

GRA-7, to not add grazing leases or temporary 

grazing use on monument lands not authorized 

for grazing at the time of the proclamation in 

order to maintain and protect these lands in their 

ungrazed condition. Livestock grazing currently 

occurs on a variety of monument lands and the 

BLM, through GRA-7, is using its discretion 

to not expand the potential impacts and risks of 

grazing. This will allow the BLM to focus limited 

existing resources on those areas where grazing 

already occurs. This cautionary approach is consistent with the monument proclamation. These 

lands are hereby designated as unavailable for 

livestock grazing pursuant to the land use planning process. While prior denials of applications 

to graze were appealable to the Office of Hearings and Appeals because the lands were not held 

to be closed under the RMP, this is no longer the 

case. The decision to make these lands unavailable 

is a land use planning decision.

With regard to the Box O specifically, there is 

a history of degradation of the Box O Ranch’s 

important aquatic habitat during its private use 

for grazing. The BLM has undertaken substantial 

effort since Box O acquisition to restore natural 

ecosystem function. The monument proclamation 

specifically notes that the Jenny Creek portion 

of the monument (which flows through the Box 

O) “is a significant center of fresh water snail 

diversity, and is home to three endemic fish 

species, including a long-isolated stock of redband 

trout.” Even with the extensive restoration efforts, 

Box O lands have still not recovered and still fail 

to meet state water quality standards designed to 

protect fish such as the redband trout. The Box O 

lands are not appropriate at this time for livestock 

grazing, as livestock would impact fish, plants, 

animals, and natural ecosystem function on the 

Box O. These impacts are thoroughly discussed 

and documented throughout BLM analyses 

applicable to the Box O and through the record in 

Office of Hearing and Appeals cases OR-110-01-

02 and OR-110-03-02.

Newly Acquired Lands

GRA-8 Applications for grazing leases or 

temporary grazing use on newly acquired (after 

approval of this RMP) lands that had previously 

been used for authorized livestock grazing at any 

time since the proclamation will be analyzed 

(with information including the determinations 

from the Livestock Impacts Study) to determine 

if the grazing would be consistent with protecting 

monument objects. The BLM will not authorize 

those applications that are found to be incompatible with protecting monument objects. The 

BLM may authorize those applications that the 

BLM finds compatible with protecting monument objects and which do not pose other land 

use conflicts.

Framework for Making Future Decisions 

Regarding Livestock Grazing and Complying with the Presidential Proclamation

The BLM is currently engaged in conducting 

studies, monitoring projects, and a literature 

review designed to determine “the impacts of 

livestock grazing on the objects of biological 

interest in the monument with specific attention 

to sustaining the natural ecosystem dynamics” 

as directed by the presidential proclamation. The 

results of the Livestock Impacts Study will be 

used to help determine whether or not livestock 

grazing is compatible with “protecting the objects 

of biological interest.”

Additionally, monument grazing leases administered by the Medford District expire in 2006. 

Under Public Law 108-108, Section 325, leases 

that expire prior to fiscal year 2009 are renewed 

automatically with the same terms and conditions 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 73

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

of the expiring lease until completion of the appropriate level of environmental analysis required 

under NEPA. The environmental analysis is 

preceded by a Rangeland Health Assessment of 

grazing allotments and an evaluation to determine whether or not they are meeting the Oregon 

Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health 

(Appendix H) and other applicable guidelines.

GRA-9 The BLM adopts the process described 

in the following steps and displayed in Figure 2-1 

for determining if livestock grazing is compatible 

with “protecting the objects of biological interest” 

and evaluating the allotments for lease renewal 

to ensure that livestock grazing is consistent with 

current laws and regulations. Each grazing allotment will be assessed and monitored, and management specific to allotments will be developed, 

consistent with the BLM-wide grazing lease 

renewal process and meeting the intent of the 

monument proclamation.

Step 1: Livestock Impacts Study

The Livestock Impacts Study and associated 

data collection will continue through 2006. Data 

analysis will take place concurrently and extend 

through mid-2007. Some monitoring projects and 

data collection would continue over the longterm.

Step 2: Conduct Rangeland 

Health Assessments, Evaluate 

Current Livestock Grazing 

Practices and Determine 

Rangeland Health and Impacts 

to Objects

Rangeland Health Assessments 

are required on each allotment 

prior to consideration of grazing lease renewal. These assessments are conducted by an 

interdisciplinary team of resource 

specialists who assess ecological 

processes, watershed functioning 

condition, water quality conditions, special status species, and 

wildlife habitat conditions on an 

allotment. Assessments include 

field visits to the allotments and 

evaluation of all available data. 

All available data, including the 

results of the Livestock Impacts Study, will be 

used to make an overall assessment of rangeland 

health as described in the Oregon Standards for 

Rangeland Health, in light of the Fundamentals 

of Rangeland Health at 43 CFR § 4180.1.

Assessments are appropriate at the watershed 

and subwatershed levels, at the allotment and 

pasture levels, and on individual ecological sites 

or groups of sites. Monitoring, which is the 

well-documented and orderly collection, analysis, 

and interpretation of resource data, serves as the 

basis for making determinations of rangeland 

conditions and trends and for making management decisions. In cases where monitoring data 

do not exist, professional judgment, supported by 

interdisciplinary team recommendations, may be 

relied upon by the authorized officer in order to 

take necessary action.

The monument manager (authorized officer) will 

use the assessment described above to determine 

whether or not current livestock grazing practices 

within the monument allotments are meeting the 

standards and following the guidelines described 

in the Oregon Standards for Rangeland Health 

and whether or not current livestock grazing 

practices are impacting “the objects of biological 

interest.”

Cow within grazing allotment.
Resource Management Plan

74 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Figure 2-1

Assessment, Evalu

ation

and Determin

ation

STEP 1

YES

Livestock Impact Study

(Data Gathering).

Figure 2.1. Process for assessing rangeland health and determining livestock

compatibility with the objects of biological interest.

Resource

Assessment.

Evaluate Rangeland Health Standards.

Determination of 

rangeland health.

Determination of 

causal factor. Is 

grazing a factor?

Determination of impacts

of current grazing practices 

with objects of

biological interest as

directed by the presidential 

proclamation.

D

ata Collection 

D

ata Analysis

STEP 2

Fails to meet or make

significant progress

toward standard(s). Meets or makes

significant progress

toward standard(s).

YES

NO

NO

Other

Information

or Data.

STEP 3 Develop full range of livestock

management alternatives which would

1) meet Standards for Rangeland

Health regulations and

2) protect the objects of biological

interest and sustain the natural

ecosystem dynamics as directed by

the presidential proclamation.

Alternative that addresses 

Step 2 findings through 

emphasizing current

grazing practices.

Alternative(s) that address(es) 

Step 2 findings through 

emphasizing modified

grazing practices.

Alternative(s) that address(es) 

Step 2 findings through

emphasizing elimination

of grazing.

Evaluate

environmental

consequences of

implementing

each of the

alternatives.

NE

PA Process

STEP 4

Issue new lease(s)

or renew current lease(s).

Retire allotment(s)

pursuant to the processes 

of applicable law.

Determination of

grazing compatibility

with the protection of

the objects of biological

interest and issue decisions

under NEPA (40 CFR 1505)

and under the grazing

regulations

(43 CFR 4160).

Decision
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 75

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

To the extent the evaluation results determine 

that the standards are not being achieved or are 

not making progress toward being achieved, 

the monument manager will determine whether 

or not existing livestock grazing management 

practices or levels of use are significant factors 

in failing to achieve the standards and conforming to the guidelines. The monument manager 

shall take appropriate action such that significant 

progress toward fulfillment of the standards and 

conformance with the guidelines is reached. 

This action shall be taken as soon as practicable, 

consistent with the regulations, and may include 

actions such as reducing livestock stocking rates; 

adjusting the season or duration of livestock use; 

modifying or relocating range improvements; 

and/or restricting or eliminating livestock use in 

portions of or entire allotments. 

To the extent the evaluation results determine 

that existing livestock grazing practices are 

“incompatible with protecting the objects of 

biological interest” as defined in the presidential 

proclamation, the monument manager will determine whether or not practices can be modified 

in a manner that is economically and logistically 

feasible to achieve compatibility.

Step 3: Follow the NEPA Process for Lease 

Renewals or Allotment Retirements

Following the evaluation and determination of 

rangeland health and compatibility “with protecting the objects of biological interest,” lease 

renewals would be subject to the appropriate level 

of environmental analysis as prescribed under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The NEPA 

analysis will develop a full range of management 

alternatives for livestock grazing consistent with 

all applicable legal authorities, including the 

presidential proclamation. Alternatives would include current grazing management, a no-grazing 

alternative, and other alternatives developed to respond to the findings in Step 2. Evaluation of the 

consequences of implementing each alternative 

will include consideration of the social impacts, as 

well as the economic and logistical feasibility.

Step 4: Determine Grazing Compatibility, 

Issue Decision and Implement Grazing Lease 

Issuance/Renewal or Retire Allotments

Following the appropriate level of NEPA analysis, a determination on the compatibility of 

grazing with “protecting the objects of biological interest” will be made and a decision will be 

issued under the provisions of 40 CFR 1505 and 

43 CFR 4160 to implement the issuance/renewal 

of a grazing lease or retire the grazing allotments. 

Decisions regarding livestock grazing will utilize 

a landscape approach relying on all available data 

including information gained from the study 

mandated by the proclamation. If modification 

of current grazing systems is required, leases will 

include an adaptive management strategy that 

allows for modifications to the leases in response 

to ongoing monitoring, future rangeland health 

evaluations, and the needs of the lessees where 

consistent with the monument plan and the mandates of the proclamation.

A term grazing lease will be issued if current 

or proposed grazing practices are found to 

be compatible “with protecting the objects 

of biological interest” and meet the Oregon 

Standards for Rangeland Health and the BLM 

has not determined that the lands are best 

allocated to other purposes. This process would 

designate lands that are available for livestock 

grazing based on compatibility with monument 

resources and the objects of biological interest. 

Grazing leases would specify the types and levels 

of use authorized and would define quantifiable, 

time-specific objectives for meeting standards.

If livestock grazing on specific allotments should 

be found “incompatible with protecting the objects of biological interest,” and grazing systems 

cannot be modified to achieve compatibility, or 

if the BLM determines that the lands are best 

allocated to other purposes, those allotments will 

be retired as specified in the presidential proclamation and applicable laws, regulations, and 

procedures.

Although this plan does not implement or 

analyze site-specific changes to grazing, the 

process described in this document allows for 

three possible outcomes: (1) the current grazing 

practices will not be changed; (2) modified 

grazing practices that may restrict or eliminate 

livestock use in portions of, or entire allotments 

will be implemented; (3) or allotment(s) will be 

retired. Future site-specific planning will include 

the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and 

will be tiered to this resource management plan 

and no further amendments to this plan will be 
Resource Management Plan

76 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Livestock Grazing

needed upon completion of this process. Thus, 

this land-use plan allows for a range of options 

to occur based on finer-scale data, including the 

mandated grazing study.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 77

Chapter 2—Transportation and Access

transportation and access

overview

The transportation system provides access 

throughout the monument to points of interest, 

resource management areas, and other public and 

private lands. The BLM identifies approximately 

476 miles of road (including closed and open 

roads) on the 85,126 acres of public and private 

land within the greater monument boundary 

(Map 19). Roads in the monument vary from 

primitive four-wheel drive (jeep) roads to paved 

highways. Mileage estimates are generally conservative, as not all private roads or non-inventoried 

roads are in the BLM database. Of this 476-mile 

total, the BLM controls approximately 228 miles 

of road.

Roads associated with the monument are controlled or owned by the BLM, timber companies, 

Jackson County, the State of Oregon, and many 

private landowners. These roads are managed in a 

variety of ways. For example, although the BLM 

provides the capital investment and maintenance 

on BLM-controlled roads, the BLM may not 

necessarily own the property where the road is 

located. In most areas the BLM and other large 

property owners have reciprocal agreements that 

allow access for forest management activities 

(Map 20), but do not provide for public access. 

Across many private lands, the BLM has acquired 

exclusive road easements which allow for public 

access to federal lands. In other cases, the BLM 

has acquired nonexclusive easements for administrative access only. This type of easement does 

not include rights for the public to access federal 

lands.

BLM-controlled roads are generally open for vehicle use by the public unless posted closed with 

signs or blocked by gates or other barriers. Some 

roads have been legally closed through a notice 

in the Federal Register. These roads may not have 

barriers other than signs, but use of these roads 

is prohibited by regulation. Of the 228 miles of 

BLM-controlled roads, approximately 93 miles 

are closed; 79 miles are open for BLM and authorized use only; and 56 miles are open for public 

use (Map 19). In addition, 13 miles of road have 

been decommissioned. Most of these roads were 

closed or decommissioned subsequent to the 1995 

Medford District Resource Management Plan. 

The Schoheim Road and some associated road 

segments were closed subsequent to monument 

designation in 2000. 

Road densities on BLM lands throughout the 

monument range from 2.41 miles per square mile 

(mi./mi.2) in the Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA) 

to 4.26 mi./mi.2 in the Old-Growth Emphasis 

Area (OGEA) (Table 2-9). Road densities are 

calculated for BLM lands within the monument 

as well as for all lands within the greater monument boundary. Road density calculations are 

based on all roads that are currently in the BLM 

database. Calculations of road density include 

roads on both public and private lands in order 

to assess the cumulative impacts of roads at the 

watershed and landscape scales.

Table 2-9. Road Densities within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (Includes Open and 

Closed Roads, but Excludes Previously Decommissioned Roads).

Item Miles of 

Road*

Area 

(mi.2)

Road Density 

(mi./mi.2)

All Lands within the Greater CSNM Boundary 475.93 133.01 3.58

BLM Lands within the Greater CSNM Boundary 272.40 82.71 3.29

Old-Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA) (BLM Lands Only) 168.82 39.59 4.26

Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA) (BLM Lands Only) 103.93 43.14 2.41

All Lands within Jenny Creek (Tier 1 Key Watershed) 

within the Greater CSNM Boundary 302.31 74.88 4.04

Jenny Creek (Tier 1 Key Watershed) in the CSNM 

(BLM Lands Only) 175.56 45.45 3.86

*Road miles are calculated using the BLM’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database, and are rounded off in the text 

of this section.
Resource Management Plan

78 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 19
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 79

Map 20
Resource Management Plan

80 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Transportation and Access

primary management concerns for

transportation

The road network within the monument was 

primarily designed to access and remove timber 

products. Many of these existing roads are no 

longer necessary for timber management activities 

on public lands, but still require maintenance and 

may be associated with adverse affects on ecological systems. To reduce maintenance requirements 

and adverse impacts associated with roads, some 

unnecessary roads have been, or could be, decommissioned. However, roads with current rightsof-way (ROW) grants or those under reciprocal 

agreements that provide access to private lands, 

will not be permanently closed or decommissioned.

Management of the BLM road network within 

the monument must consider the protection of 

natural resources, including the “objects of biological interest;” access for recreation and resource 

management; access requirements of adjacent 

landowners; and fire suppression access needs 

on BLM lands, as well as on adjacent public and 

private lands. Extensive road networks can result 

in negative impacts on wildlife and aquatic species and habitats; impaired hydrologic function; 

introduction and spread of exotic species; reductions in site productivity; and increased sediment 

production. The primary management concerns 

associated with the road network in the monument are highlighted below.

Terrestrial Wildlife and Associated Habitats

Roads facilitate human access and the subsequent 

disturbance to wildlife. Problems range from 

noise disturbance of nesting birds to game poaching and shooting of non-game species. Roads 

also result in accidental deaths from vehicle/animal collisions. Roads fragment wildlife habitat, 

disrupt connectivity between habitat patches, and 

create ecological edges. Snags, essential components of forested habitats, are often identified as 

hazard trees along roads and removed.

Analysis of the existing transportation system 

indicates that the greater monument landscape 

has road densities in excess of those cited in the 

literature as being detrimental to ecosystem processes and wildlife (Forman and Alexander 1998; 

Forman and Mellinger 1998; Mech 1989; vanDyke et al. 1986). Of specific concern to wildlife 

is the density of roads in sensitive wildlife areas 

such as big game winter range, elk management 

areas, northern spotted owl core areas, and riparian reserves (Table 2-10).

Hydrologic Function and Water Quality

Roads within the monument may alter the 

groundwater and surface flow patterns locally and 

may create an imbalance in hydrologic systems. 

Natural and graveled road surfaces, road cuts, 

fill slopes, and ditch lines are subject to erosion. 

Ditch lines that are not effectively drained by 

relief culverts (cross drains) act as extensions of 

stream networks that deliver fine sediment, as 

well as intercepted ground and surface water directly into stream channels. Research (Jones and 

Grant 1994; Wemple 1994; Wemple, et al. 1996) 

suggests that roads that contribute to the extension of the stream channel network are related 

to changes in the timing and magnitude of peak 

flows. Road cuts intercept subsurface flow, effectively increasing the amount of surface flow, and 

the ditch lines allow the water to move through 

the stream systems quicker. Road densities 

throughout the monument are high: several level 

6 subwatersheds (Map 4) have road densities that 

exceed four miles per square mile (Table 2-11).

Table 2-10. Road Densities within Special Areas and Reserves (Excluding Previously 

Decommissioned Roads).

Item Miles of 

Road Area (mi.2

) Road Density

(mi./mi.2)

Northern Spotted Owl Core Areas (BLM lands only) 9.86 3.14 3.14

Elk Management Areas 70.61 21.57 3.27

Big Game Winter Range Areas 23.76 11.60 2.05

Riparian Reserves (BLM lands only) 62.98 16.78 3.75
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 81

Chapter 2—Transportation and Access

Key Watershed

Over half of the monument (55 percent of the 

BLM lands) is located in the Jenny Creek Watershed, which was identified as a Tier 1 Key Watershed under the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/

USDI 1994b). Tier 1 Key Watersheds contribute 

directly to the conservation of at-risk fish species 

and have a high potential of being restored as part 

of a watershed restoration program. The Northwest Forest Plan calls for reduced road densities 

in key watersheds in order to facilitate recovery of 

watershed function and aquatic biodiversity. The 

road density in the Jenny Creek Watershed within 

the greater CSNM boundary is 4.04 mi./mi.2

(Table 2-9). Research suggests that stream habitat 

shows signs of degradation when road densities 

exceed 2 mi./mi.2 (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997; 

Dose and Roper 1994).

Aquatic Species, Riparian Areas and 

Water Quality

Road density within the riparian reserves in the 

monument is 3.75 mi./mi.2 (Table 2-10). Roads 

within riparian areas can greatly influence aquatic 

and riparian conditions. Roads contribute to the 

disruption of aquatic connectivity, large wood 

and nutrient storage regimes, peak flow routing, 

aquatic habitat complexity, temperature regimes, 

channel morphology, and direct sediment inputs 

from road failures.

Many aquatic and terrestrial species are dependent on riparian areas for their survival. Removal 

of large wood associated with past road construction has simplified channel structure and degraded aquatic habitats. Travel corridors (connectivity) 

for small mammals and herptiles are blocked 

by roads. Road crossings often create barriers to 

migration along the stream corridor, especially 

in the upstream direction. Sedimentation alters 

habitat for species that need interstitial spaces and 

clear water for egg mass development and gravels 

for spawning. An increase in stream temperatures 

and lack of vegetative cover eliminates habitation 

in these streams for some species. Stream systems 

are often confined by parallel road systems which 

may incise channels and restrict floodplain access.

Exotic Species/Noxious Weeds

Disturbance associated with road construction 

and subsequent travel over roads provides corridors for the spread of noxious weeds and other 

invasive species. An analysis of the spatial relationship of individual weed populations relative 

to disturbance factors throughout the monument 

indicate that higher than expected counts of weed 

populations occur within 100 meters (328 feet) 

Table 2-11. Road Densities by Watershed and Subwatershed within the Greater CSNM Boundary. 

Level 5 Watershed Level 6 Subwatershed Area 

(acres)

Area 

(mi.2)

Road 

Miles

Road Density

(mi./mi.2)

Bear Creek Upper Emigrant Creek 13,693 21.39 79.51 3.72

Bear Creek Watershed Totals 13,693 21.39 79.51 3.72

Jenny Creek Upper Jenny Creek 3,014 4.71 27.41 5.82

Jenny Creek Johnson Creek 445 0.69 3.00 4.35

Jenny Creek Middle Jenny Creek 14,359 22.44 99.41 4.43

Jenny Creek Keene Creek 16,575 25.90 110.50 4.27

Jenny Creek Lower Jenny Creek 13,437 21.00 61.92 2.95

Jenny Creek Watershed Totals 47,830 74.73 302.24 4.04

Klamath-Iron Gate Fall Creek 543 0.85 5.02 5.91

Klamath-Iron Gate Camp Creek 8,574 13.40 28.48 2.13

Klamath-Iron Gate Scotch Creek 4,331 6.77 12.82 1.89

Klamath-Iron Gate Watershed Totals 13,448 21.01 46.32 2.20

Cottonwood Creek East Fork Cottonwood Creek 6,705 10.48 32.76 3.13

Cottonwood Creek Middle Cottonwood Creek 3,320 5.19 14.78 2.85

Cottonwood Creek Watershed Totals 10,025 15.66 47.56 3.04
Resource Management Plan

82 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Transportation and Access

a problem throughout the monument. Roads also 

facilitate the illegal dumping of trash and toxic or 

hazardous waste.

Livestock Operations

Livestock operators with existing leases in the 

monument rely on the road network to manage 

their allotments. Since monument designation, 

the BLM has permitted livestock operators “interim access” on some roads that are closed to the 

public to maintain fence and water developments 

and conduct livestock handling activities. Some 

of these roads will be closed to motorized access 

in the future.

primary management objectives

for transportation

The main objective of transportation management is to maintain a road network within the 

monument that allows for ecosystem restoration 

and provides for human access needs. This can 

be accomplished through the targeted reduction 

of road densities, while maintaining an appropriate level of access for various recreational activities, livestock lessees, private property owners, 

resource management, wildfire suppression, law 

enforcement, and other administrative uses.

Implementation of management outlined in this 

RMP meets the following objectives:

1) Maintain the minimal transportation system 

necessary to facilitate the protection of monument resources.

•	 Where possible, reduce the amount of existing roads in the monument, particularly 

where road densities exceed two miles per 

square mile. 

•	 Close roads identified for closure in the presidential proclamation. 

•	 When possible, decommission rather than 

close roads to minimize resource impacts. 

2) Reduce the incidence of trespass and other 

problems associated with public access to the 

monument through private land. 

•	 Where appropriate, use signs or maps to 

clearly identify the boundary between public 

and private land. 

•	 Where appropriate, seek to acquire easements 

for the public to use roads that lead to BLM 

lands. 

of roads. Most of the recorded weed populations 

within the monument are found in close proximity to roads (Map 15).

Fire Ignition and Suppression

The road network is associated with both fire 

ignition and fire suppression. An analysis of 

available spatial data for human- and lightningcaused fire starts within the monument between 

1967 and 2003 indicates that 46 percent of the 

fire starts were attributed to human activities (114 

out of 250 fires). Of the human-caused fires, 39 

percent (45 out of 114 fires) were within 100 meters (328 feet) of a road. Closing roads may reduce 

human-caused fire ignitions, but it may also result 

in slower response times for fire suppression.

Human Impacts Associated with the 

Presence of Roads

The road network provides opportunities for visitors to see and experience different areas throughout the monument. Roads often enter and leave 

private land several times (e.g., Soda Mountain 

Road) before reaching a public destination such 

as the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT). 

In some cases, the BLM does not have the legal 

right to allow the public to use roads to access 

popular BLM sites. At this time, landowners 

have not prevented the public from general use 

of these roads. However, this informal public 

use across private lands takes place at discretion of the road owner(s) and could cease at any 

time, thereby limiting access to these sites. Illegal 

cross-country use by motorized vehicles remains 

Baldy Creek Road.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 83

Chapter 2—Transportation and Access

•	 Coordinate with landowners on a site-specific 

basis when problems arise.

3) Eliminate illegal cross-country use by motorized vehicles.

•	 Identify and close unofficial (non-inventoried) 

routes that may cause resource degradation or 

promote illegal activities. 

•	 Use law enforcement personnel to ensure that 

laws and regulations pertaining to the protection of monument resources are followed.

4) Balance the risk of fire ignition associated 

with roads with the need for access for fire suppression activities.

•	 Consider input from Oregon Department of 

Forestry (ODF) and local fire districts when 

planning to close or decommission roads. 

•	 Assess the potential for increased humancaused fire starts near open roads. 

5) Ensure legal road access to holders of ROW 

grants and reciprocal agreements in accordance 

with the terms of the right-of-way grants or 

reciprocal agreements.

•	 Coordinate with ROW/reciprocal agreement 

holders when proposing to close any roads 

under existing ROW/reciprocal agreements. 

•	 Work closely with new ROW/reciprocal 

agreement applicants to determine routes that 

best provide access while protecting monument resources.

6) When requested, provide reasonable and 

legal access to all private property.

primary management tools for

transportation

There are a variety of options for managing the 

monument’s transportation system. There are 

advantages and disadvantages associated with 

each management option depending on the sitespecific need. Some of the primary management 

tools that would be used are listed below.

Road Closures

Seasonal, temporary, and long-term road closures 

will be used to reduce the open road density in 

order to protect monument resources. Gates and 

road barriers regulate vehicle access in order to 

reduce maintenance costs, road damage, soil 

erosion, water quality degradation, the spread of 

noxious weeds, wildland fire risk, and wildlife 

disturbance. Road closures restrict unauthorized motorized access while allowing access for 

administrative purposes, ROW grants, reciprocal 

agreements, fire suppression, or other authorized 

uses. Roads that are closed but not decommissioned may be maintained. Seasonal closure of 

roads with natural surfaces may prevent damage 

during the wet season. Roads may also be closed 

on a seasonal basis to provide various species 

with protection from motorized traffic during the 

breeding season or other sensitive times.

Road Decommissioning

Road decommissioning occurs when a decision 

is made to remove a road from the transportation 

network. The goal of road decommissioning is 

to return the area affected by the road to a more 

natural state, and to eliminate some of the ecological impacts associated with the road. Natural 

decommissioning is generally used with stable, 

natural-surfaced roads that have not been used 

very often and are vegetating naturally. Selective 

ripping, removal of drainage structures, and the 

construction of waterbars may also take place. 

Mechanical decommissioning involves ripping, 

seeding, mulching, and planting to reestablish 

vegetation as quickly as possible. Cross drains, 

crossing structures with fills in stream channels 

would be removed, and unstable areas would be 

repaired or removed where possible.

Road Obliteration

Road obliteration can be used to eliminate the 

roadbed by restoring natural contours and slopes. 

During obliteration, all drainage structures are 

removed and fill material used in the original 

road construction is excavated and placed on 

the road prism. Road obliteration is the type of 

decommissioning that comes closest to restoring 

hydrologic function to an area. Road obliteration 

is the most expensive alternative for road removal 

and in many cases may not be feasible or practical, 

e.g., when the road prism has vegetated naturally 

or natural advanced regeneration is already occurring along the road surface.

Drainage Improvement

Inadequate road drainage can be improved by 

reshaping the road surface and/or by maintaining 

or installing drainage structures that meet current 

BLM standards.
Resource Management Plan

84 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Transportation and Access

Road Stabilization

Road prisms can be stabilized where necessary 

to prevent erosion and/or slumping by mulching, 

planting, or rocking.

Maintenance

Road maintenance includes removing safety 

hazards, surface maintenance, ditch cleaning, and 

reducing soil erosion potential. Safety hazards 

include trees that have the potential to fall on 

structures, recreation areas, or roadways. Proper 

maintenance of road drainage systems and stream 

crossing culverts protects water quality and reduces erosion and sedimentation.

Best Management Practices

Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to 

road renovation/improvement, maintenance, 

construction, and decommissioning are described 

in Appendix D of the Medford District RMP

(USDI 1995a). These BMPs will be used on all 

BLM-controlled roads within the monument to 

minimize erosion and sedimentation in a manner 

that best protects water quality and other monument resources.

Law Enforcement

The BLM’s strategy to keep vehicles on designated travelways will be to increase patrol by foot, 

vehicle, and aircraft. The BLM will be proactive 

in educating the public about routes that are open 

using maps and signs. Methods for disseminating 

information on open travel routes may include 

one or more of the following methods: signs; 

the monument website; the visitor center; and 

the media. The BLM has a cooperative agreement with the sheriff’s department in Jackson 

County to facilitate shared law enforcement and 

support for enforcing established closures. The 

BLM will continue to work with counties, state, 

communities, and others to communicate correct 

information to the visiting public and residents. 

Monument staff will patrol on a regular basis 

throughout the year and additional patrols will be 

added during periods of intense use, to the extent 

staffing allows.

management for transportation

The planning team based the following transportation management plan on what is currently 

known about existing conditions. In order to better protect monument resources and meet management objectives, the management activities 

described below can be modified in the future. 

In developing the RMP, staff considered existing ROW grants, leases, permits, and reciprocal 

agreements on roads throughout the monument. 

Coordination with current holders, or a change 

in property ownership, could allow for changes 

in the monument’s overall transportation and 

access system. The BLM will use the objectives 

described above when making changes to transportation management.

TRAN-1 All management activities associated with the transportation system will meet the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives in the 

Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 1994b, 

B-11). If the Northwest Forest Plan is revised, 

amended, supplemented, or otherwise changed, 

the new version will be evaluated for incorporation following the process described in the Plan 

Maintenance section in the CSNM ROD and in 

Chapter 1 of this RMP.

Access

Valid Existing Rights

TRAN-2 Valid existing rights may include a 

variety of BLM authorizations such as rightsof-ways, leases, reciprocal agreements, and 

withdrawals. Valid existing rights were expressly 

recognized and protected in the monument proclamation. Private landowners (in-holders) will 

retain access to their property (see also VER-1 in 

the General Management section).

Public Access

TRAN-3 In order to allow for legal access to 

popular destination sites and travel routes, the 

BLM will pursue acquiring legal easements that 

allow for public access on the roads shown on 

Map 21.

Access for Livestock Operations

TRAN-4 Since monument designation, the 

BLM has authorized livestock operators to have 

interim vehicle and off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

access on otherwise closed roads in the Agate 

Flat area, Schoheim Road, Road 41-3E-9.0, 

Randcore Pass, and through the Box O Ranch 

(Map 18 of the CSNM PRMP/FEIS). Map 22 

shows the approved road treatments. Some of the 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 85

Map 21
Resource Management Plan

86 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 22
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 87

Chapter 2—Transportation and Access

roads on which interim OHV use was permitted 

will be decommissioned. Once decommissioning 

takes place, livestock operators will no longer be 

granted OHV or vehicular access on these roads. 

Additionally, interim OHV use was permitted on 

routes not identified as roads by the BLM (Map 

18 of the CSNM PRMP/FEIS). Once this RMP 

is finalized through the ROD, OHV use will not 

be authorized on these routes. Livestock operators 

will continue to have access on some closed 

roads deemed necessary for the management of 

livestock operations. Map 18 shows the interim 

OHV and vehicle use permitted for livestock 

operators until decommissioning treatments 

occur.

Road Construction

TRAN-5 New road construction will be limited 

to instances that meet the primary objectives for 

transportation. Requirements under valid existing rights or the relocation of an existing road in 

order to reduce impacts on the “objects of biological interest” are examples of when new road 

construction might occur. 

TRAN-6 Road construction will be designed 

to minimize resource damage and to meet the 

BMPs described in Appendix D of the Medford 

District RMP.

Administrative Access and Service Roads

TRAN-7 Administrative routes will be limited 

to authorized users. These are existing routes that 

are closed seasonally or year-round, but lead to 

facilities or areas that have an administrative or 

other purpose. These authorized developments 

include power lines, cabins, weather stations, 

communication sites, etc. 

TRAN-8 Access and use of service roads will 

be strictly limited and can only be granted for 

access to and maintenance of land-use authorizations such as fences, ponds, utility lines, and 

irrigation ditches. Service roads are normally 

high-clearance, four-wheel drive roads that are 

not considered part of the transportation system. 

Authorized users could include researchers, state 

or federal agencies, utility companies, and others 

carrying out authorized activities under a permit 

or other authorization. Occasionally, authorized 

ROW holders need to perform emergency maintenance and will use the service roads during inclement conditions. They are required to mitigate 

any adverse impacts.

Emergency/Fire Suppression Access

TRAN-9 Opening of decommissioned roads 

and construction of roads with a bulldozer is permitted when deemed necessary by the authorized 

officer during fire suppression and other types of 

emergencies (e.g., search and rescue and medical evacuation). Where emergency actions are 

required for fire suppression, a project inspector, 

in consultation with a resource advisor, will be 

the on-the-ground BLM representative authorized to permit opening decommissioned roads or 

constructing roads within the monument.

Off-Highway Vehicle Access

All OHVs used on public lands in Oregon require 

a State of Oregon All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) 

Operating Permit. Currently, OHVs/mechanized 

vehicles are allowed on all open BLM-designated 

roads. The BLM is analyzing the monument’s 

road network to determine which open roads are 

compatible with OHV/mechanized vehicle use. 

Some criteria that may be used in this analysis 

may include proximity to residential areas or recreation sites; road condition; road width; compatibility with other uses of the road; and whether or 

not the road accesses public lands.

TRAN-10 Once this analysis process is complete, the BLM will publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying all open or closed OHV/

mechanized vehicle routes within the monument. 

TRAN-11 The BLM will also inform the public 

about the open OHV/mechanized vehicle routes 

using maps, signs, monument website, or other 

appropriate methods.

TRAN-12 This RMP closes BLM-managed 

land within the monument to the use of OHVs/

mechanized vehicles, except on designated open 

roads (Maps 18, 19, and 25) and for emergency 

(e.g. search and rescue, medical evacuation) in 

accordance with the presidential proclamation 

which prohibits “all motorized and mechanized 

vehicle use off road.” 

TRAN-13 Existing OHV/mechanized vehicle 

travel routes not on designated roads will be con-
Resource Management Plan

88 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Transportation and Access

sidered for restoration to meet the intent of the 

presidential proclamation.

Road Density

TRAN-14 Road densities throughout the 

monument are higher than desired to protect 

the “objects of biological interest” and support 

naturally functioning ecosystem processes. This 

RMP approves decommissioning approximately 

53 miles of road (Map 22), which will reduce the 

BLM-controlled road network in the CSNM by 

23 percent; this would significantly reduce road 

densities, particularly in the DEA.

TRAN-15 Subsequent to the draft plan (2002), 

the planning team identified approximately 24 

miles of road that are not needed for monument 

management. Decommissioning these roads 

would reduce road densities and may be beneficial 

to the objects identified in the proclamation and 

ecosystem processes. Roads identified on Map 23 

will be considered for closure or decommissioning 

in a future site-specific action.

TRAN-16 Transportation needs on any newly 

acquired lands will be evaluated and roads may 

be blocked or decommissioned to further reduce 

road density and protect resource values.

Site-Specific Management

TRAN-17 This RMP approves road treatments within the monument as shown on Map 

22. The draft plan (2002) distinguished between 

roads that would be mechanically and naturally 

decommissioned. The RMP describes both these 

categories as “decommissioning.” On-the-ground 

analysis will determine where specific decommissioning techniques will be applied.

Roads or segments of roads requiring a more detailed description of the approved treatments are 

highlighted below. 

Schoheim Road

TRAN-18 The Schoheim Road (41-2E-10.1) 

was closed by the presidential proclamation 

(Appendix A). The western and middle portions 

(Map 22) have been closed and will be decommissioned. The eastern portion will be closed for 

use by unauthorized vehicles except east of the 

gate at the Jenny Creek crossing in T.41S., R.4E., 

Sec. 9 to the Copco Road (40-4E-3.1), where it 

provides access to private property.

Pilot Rock Road

TRAN-19 The BLM will improve and maintain 

the existing Pilot Rock parking facility at the 

rock quarry along Pilot Rock Road (40-2E-33 

and 41-2E-3). The Pilot Rock Road (41-2E-3) will 

be closed at this point and decommissioned beyond the quarry. A trail will allow access to Pilot 

Rock beyond the road closure (see Recreation 

and Visitor Services section).

Randcore Pass Road

TRAN-20 In order to meet the intent of the 

proclamation, Randcore Pass Road (40-4E-19.2) 

south of the junction with road 40-4E-31.0 will 

be closed for use by unauthorized vehicles.

Skookum Creek Road

TRAN-21 Skookum Creek Road (40-3E-28 

and 40-3E-27.2) past the junction with Road 

40-3E-27.1 will be improved and left open to the 

public to where Section 36 (T.40S., R.3E.) and 

Section 1 (T.41S.,R.3E) meet. Skookum Creek 

Road past where Section 36 (T.40S.,R.3E.) and 

Section 1 (T.41S.,R.3E) meet will be closed to 

unauthorized use.

Road 41-2E-9.0

TRAN-22 Road 41-2E-9.0 past the corral in 

T.41S., R.2E., Sec. 9, SW1/4 NW1/4 will be 

closed and decommissioned.

Soda Mountain Lookout Road

TRAN-23 The Soda Mountain Lookout Road 

(40-3E-21.1) will be improved for extended-season use from its junction with Road 39-3E-32.3 

south to its junction with Road 40-3E-21.2. Road 

40-3E-21.2 will also be improved for extendedseason use. A gate will be installed on Road 40-

3E-21.2 where it takes off to the lookout.

Lone Pine Ridge Road

TRAN-24 Lone Pine Ridge Road (40-3E-31) 

past the road block in T.40S., R.3E., Section 31 

will be closed and decommissioned.

Road 41-4E-7.0

TRAN-25 Road 41-4E-7.0 crosses the OregonCalifornia border at the section line between 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 89

Map 23
Resource Management Plan

90 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Transportation and Access

Sections 7 and 18, T.41S., R.4E. It will be closed 

for use by unauthorized vehicles.

Road 41-2E-12.0

TRAN-26 Road 41-2E-12.0 crosses the Oregon-California border at the south section line 

of Section 13, T.41S., R.2E. It will be closed and 

decommissioned.

Roads 39-4E-6.0, 39-3E-11, 40-3E-35 and 

40-3E-3

TRAN-27 Roads 39-4E-6.0 (Yew Springs), 39-

3E-11 (Wildcat Glade), 40-3E-35 (Beaver Creek), 

and 40-3E-3 (South-East Hyatt Lake) will be 

closed with gates from November 15th through 

April 15th (or as substantial snowfall amounts 

dictate) in order to provide the best possible snow 

conditions for winter recreationists.

implementation considerations for

transportation

This RMP approves some site-specific decisions 

about road closures and road decommissioning. 

Decisions regarding future changes in transportation management in accordance with the objectives described in the RMP (including proposed 

closures, acquiring easements, and decommissioning) would take many issues into consideration, including, but not limited to, the following:

•	 Is the road or road segment included in existing ROW grants, reciprocal agreements, or 

other valid existing rights? 

•	 Who might be affected by potential road 

closures (property owners, recreational users, 

hunters, livestock operators, researchers, other 

agencies, etc.)? 

•	 How would road closures limit potential 

management activities (thinning, prescribed 

burning, noxious weed treatments, etc.)? 

•	 Are there conflicts with rare, sensitive, or 

threatened and endangered plant or animal 

species? Are there conflicts with cultural 

resources?

•	 Are there conflicts with other monument 

resources or natural ecosystem processes?

•	 Do adverse ecological impacts to monument 

resources outweigh potential benefits of leaving the road open (e.g., fire suppression and 

management activities)?

•	 What are the access requirements of adjacent 

landowners?

•	 What is the need for legal public access when 

acquiring new or reviewing existing access 

rights? Are existing levels of road access 

compatible with protection and enhancement 

of monument resources?

implementation procedures for

transportation

Once the BLM determines that management actions (beyond those described in this plan), such 

as road closures, decommissioning, or increased 

public access, are necessary in order to meet the 

objectives described in this plan, some or all of 

the following steps would be taken:

•	 Where valid existing rights are involved, discuss potential changes with affected parties.

•	 Discuss potential closures or decommissioning with ODF.

•	 When a road is gated, provide ODF, ROW 

holders, and other authorized users with keys 

to allow continued access.

•	 The appropriate method of closure to address 

resource issues would normally be determined 

through an interdisciplinary process based on 

site-specific considerations.

•	 Inform affected adjacent landowners, authorized livestock lessees and the interested 

public.

•	 Conduct the appropriate level of site-specific 

analysis where required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

•	 Provide for public notification through a 

Federal Register notice detailing road closures.

Historic Greensprings Highway, circa 1920.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 91

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

recreation and visitor services

overview

The area that is now the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (CSNM) has long been popular 

for recreation. Recreational hiking, hunting, and 

fishing began around the turn of the century and 

continue as favorite uses of the area. The major 

recreational activities that occur throughout the 

monument include camping, hiking, horseback 

riding, pleasure driving, sightseeing, hunting, 

fishing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, rock 

climbing, and nature study. The Hyatt Lake Recreation Area is the only developed recreation site 

within the monument. The Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail (PCT) provides hiking opportunities 

at multiple locations within the monument.

Some forms of recreation in the monument were 

limited or curtailed by the presidential proclamation. The proclamation banned off-road travel by 

motorized or mechanized vehicles, eliminating 

the popular use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) 

to travel cross-country in the area. The mandated 

closure of Schoheim road restricted mechanized 

access to Agate Flat, a popular area for hunting, 

rock collecting, and other activities. While hunting and fishing are still allowed throughout the 

monument, restrictions have made some historic 

hunting camps and sites less accessible to motorized vehicles.

The majority of the monument is undeveloped 

and visitor use is estimated as light to moderate throughout the area; informal observations, 

however, indicate that visitation to the area has 

increased since monument designation. The Hyatt 

Lake Recreation Area receives moderate use 

during the months of April through October. In 

2003, records show that 14,139 people visited the 

Hyatt Lake Recreational Complex.

primary management concerns

related to recreation

Different forms of recreation have the potential to 

impact monument resources. Ecological impacts 

of recreation can include soil compaction, inadvertent or unintentional harassment of wildlife 

species, trampling or harvesting of sensitive 

vegetation, increased fire risk, and the spread 

of noxious weeds. Several specific management 

concerns are discussed below.

Mixed Ownership

Managing recreation presents a challenge due to 

the high percentage of private ownership across 

the landscape and the network of public and 

privately controlled roads. In many cases, either 

limiting or providing public access to an area 

requires BLM to work with the private landowners who control sections of road throughout the 

monument.

Due to the checkerboard ownership pattern of 

public and private land in the region, private 

lands are sometimes mistaken for monument 

lands. Visitation to the monument may result in 

inadvertent trespass on private lands.

Increased Visitation

Visitation to the monument is expected to increase. The northern portion of the monument 

is easily accessible and well-suited to visitation. 

There are many areas in the monument that do 

not have official trails, but are popular places to 

visit. As some of these areas have sensitive vegetation that is easily trampled, increased visitation 

could result in additional resource degradation.

The south zone (Map 4) of the monument 

is primarily rugged and undeveloped. The 

remoteness of these areas limits human 

disturbance on the monument’s resources and 

natural ecosystem processes. Although these 

areas offer excellent opportunities for exploration 

and discovery, increased visitation could diminish 

the wilderness-like character of the area and have 

negative impacts on monument resources.

Trail Proliferation

The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) 

is the only developed trail in the monument. 

However, the PCT does not directly access many 

popular sites within the monument. Secondary 

trails and parallel trails may result from increased 

visitation. These unofficial trails can increase 

erosion and diminish the primitive characteristics 

of an area. Increased parking in unauthorized 

areas can widen the road prism, also increasing 

erosion and providing additional opportunities for 

noxious weeds.
Resource Management Plan

92 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

Illegal Motorized Use

Prior to designation, the monument was a popular place for OHV use. Although cross-country 

travel by OHVs is now prohibited, illegal use 

of OHVs has become a problem. OHV use can 

damage sensitive plant communities, spread noxious weeds, and disrupt the experience of other 

visitors.

primary management objectives

for recreation

The monument is a part of the BLM’s National 

Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), established to protect some of the nation’s most 

remarkable and rugged landscapes. A key NLCS 

objective is to provide opportunities for the 

individual to explore and discover these special 

areas. Proposed monument management seeks to 

accommodate existing and future uses in a manner that balances recreation with the protection 

of monument resources and natural ecosystem 

processes. Implementation of management activities outlined in the RMP meets the objectives 

listed below:

1) Provide opportunities for visitors to explore 

and discover different components of the 

CSNM.

•	 Provide information for a variety of users 

regarding the different types of recreational 

opportunities in the monument through 

interpretive sites, signs and brochures.

2) Preserve the monument’s rugged and 

wild backcountry as a primitive recreation 

experience.

•	 Encourage visitors to use the monument’s 

developed recreation sites. These include the 

Hyatt Lake Recreation Area and the PCT.

•	 Promote “leave no trace” camping and hiking 

methods.

•	 Minimize signs or visitor improvements in 

remote areas.

3) Balance recreational opportunities with the 

protection of monument resources.

•	 Monitor areas for unacceptable changes.

•	 Consider alternatives to site development 

(road closures, permits, etc.).

•	 Educate users about the potential negative 

impacts of different activities.

•	 Use law enforcement to ensure that laws and 

regulations pertaining to the protection of 

monument resources are followed.

4) Minimize disturbances to adjacent 

landowners.

•	 Inform adjacent landowners when proposing 

changes in recreation management.

•	 Where appropriate, use signs or maps to 

clearly identify the boundary between public 

and private land.

primary management tools for

recreation

There are a variety of options for managing recreational uses throughout the monument. There 

are advantages and disadvantages associated with 

each option, depending on the site-specific needs. 

Some of the primary management tools that will 

be used to manage recreation and visitation are 

described below.

Site Improvement

Resource damage resulting from recreation is often unintentional. Improving a popular site where 

resource damage is occurring can help contain 

and focus use through the development of trails, 

trailheads, parking areas, and toilets. Other improvements such as kiosks or bulletin boards can 

educate the public about resource concerns. On 

Cross-country skier at Buck Prairie.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 93

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

the other hand, site improvement can also detract 

from the primitive character of the area and has 

the potential to attract increased use.

Education

Public education can include informational brochures or flyers, interpretive signs, presentations 

to groups or individuals, and other types of media 

or communication. At times, public education can 

reduce resource impacts without limiting recreational opportunities or changing the character 

of the site. This may be particularly true when 

education affects the practices of an organized 

user-group; in other words, education can be an 

effective tool in situations where a user-group has 

the desire to change certain practices. However, 

education may not be effective if users are not 

willing to make changes, or if it is not possible to 

reach a broad spectrum of users through education alone.

Limit or Prohibit Use

Monument staff will monitor levels of visitor 

use and recreational activities throughout the 

monument. In the event of unacceptable resource 

damage, certain recreational uses could be limited 

or prohibited. Limits can be established through 

the use of permit systems or group-size limits. 

Conversely, while limiting or prohibiting use is 

an effective way of preventing additional resource 

damage, these methods reduce opportunities for 

individuals to explore the monument.

Seasonal Closures

Seasonal closures can restrict specific recreational 

activities during times when activities are most 

likely to negatively impact monument resources. 

Seasonal closures could be based on, for example, 

the breeding or nesting seasons of sensitive 

species that are vulnerable to disturbance during these times. For some activities, however, 

seasonal closures could conflict with the primary 

time of year that a recreational activity generally 

takes place.

Road Closures

Road closures can limit use at a particular site by 

increasing the amount of effort that it takes to 

access an area. Closing a road segment can also 

make it possible to encourage parking in a more 

appropriate area. Roads or areas may be closed to 

motorized vehicles if the BLM determines that 

resource damage or illegal actions are occurring. 

Under these circumstances, some roads that are 

open to vehicle access may be closed to OHVs if 

it is determined that OHVs are the primary cause 

of resource damage.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement will be used in situations where 

individuals or groups violate regulations or laws 

pertinent to the CSNM, or cause resource damage through their actions. Law Enforcement 

Officers can monitor activity in the monument 

using foot, horse, aircraft, and vehicle patrols as 

part of BLM’s strategy to ensure the protection of 

monument resources.

Hiker and dog enjoying the view at Hobart Bluff along the Pacific Crest Trail.
Resource Management Plan

94 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

management for recreation

The planning team based the following recreation 

management activities on what is known about 

current conditions and existing levels of recreation. In order to protect monument resources, it 

could become necessary to modify the management activities described below in areas where 

resource damage is occurring or has a strong 

potential to occur. The monument’s adaptive 

management plan is described in Chapter 3. The 

BLM will use the objectives and tools described 

above when making a change to recreation management in the monument. Recreational activities 

not mentioned in this plan will be analyzed on a 

case-by-case basis.

Animal Stock Use

REC-1 Recreational stock use includes the use 

of pack or riding animals such as horses, llamas, 

or goats for non-commercial uses. Cross-country 

recreational animal stock use is allowed in the 

CSNM with the following restrictions:

•	 The total number of stock on overnight trips 

is limited to four animals per group.

•	 The total number of stock on day trips is 

restricted to six animals per group.

•	 Animals are not allowed to overnight within 

200 feet of any water’s edge, or in any wet 

areas.

•	 Stock users are encouraged to feed certified 

weed-free feed 24 hours prior to entering the 

monument.

REC-2 Administrative stock use may be 

authorized for researchers, survey crews, fire 

crews, or other authorized tasks. Cross-country 

administrative animal stock use is allowed in the 

CSNM with the following restrictions:

•	 The total number of stock on day and overnight trips may exceed the numbers allowed 

for recreational stock use with prior authorization, as long as the activity does not interfere with the protection of monument objects 

or resources.

•	 Animals are not allowed to overnight within 

200 feet of any water’s edge, or in any wet 

areas.

•	 Stock users are encouraged to feed certified 

weed-free feed 24 hours prior to entering the 

monument.

Bicycles

REC-3 Bicycles (non-motorized) will be allowed on open roads and on most designated 

roads open to administrative use but otherwise 

closed to motorized vehicle access. Bicycles are 

not allowed on trails, including the PCT. Bicycles 

would not be allowed on roads closed by the 

proclamation or those roads identified for decommissioning (Map 24). Bicycles would not be 

allowed cross-country within the CSNM.

Campfires

REC-4 Campfires are allowed throughout the 

CSNM except within areas where camping is 

prohibited. All campfires would be consistent 

with Oregon state regulations. Only dead and 

down wood can be collected for campfires. Cutting of live vegetation or snags is not allowed. 

Campers are responsible for adhering to seasonal 

restrictions on campfires as mandated by the 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 

REC-5 Within the Hyatt Lake Recreation 

Area, campfires are allowed only in designated 

fire pits.

Climbing

REC-6 In order to protect natural geologic features and vegetation such as lichens and mosses, 

technical rock climbing is not allowed within the 

CSNM, except on Pilot Rock. Rock climbing on 

Pilot Rock is subject to the restrictions described 

in the Pilot Rock section below.

Collections/Special Forest Products

REC-7 The proclamation specifically prohibits 

the removal of monument features. Removal of 

features includes, but is not limited to, the collection of any monument resources such as rocks and 

minerals, petrified wood, fossils, archaeological 

and cultural items, plants and parts of plants, fish 

and animals not regulated by ODFW, insects 

or other invertebrate animals, bones, waste, and 

other products from animals (see also COLL-1 in 

the General Management section). 

REC-8 Christmas tree cutting is prohibited 

within the monument. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 95

Map 24
Resource Management Plan

96 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

REC-9 The above prohibitions shall not be 

deemed to diminish the responsibility and 

authority of the State of Oregon for the management of fish and wildlife, including the regulation 

of hunting and fishing on federal lands within the 

monument.

REC-10 Exceptions include collections authorized by permit in conjunction with authorized 

research, educational, or management activities; the collection of fruits, nuts, berries, and 

mushrooms for personal non-commercial use, 

not to exceed one gallon per day; the collection 

of certain natural materials by Native Americans 

under BLM permit; the collection of antlers or 

horns as provided by ODFW regulations; and the 

collections of dead and down wood for immediate 

use in campfires, where campfires are allowed (see 

also NAT-1 and COLL-4 in the General Management section).

Dispersed Camping

REC-11 Dispersed “leave no trace” camping is 

allowed across the entire CSNM, except within 

the Hyatt Lake Recreation Area, RNAs, structures at the former Box O Ranch, and archaeological or cultural sites. Other exceptions include 

riparian and wetland areas, endangered plant 

sites, or other areas that may be easily damaged 

by camping. 

REC-12 In order to reduce impacts to monument resources, groups larger than 25 in the 

north management zone and larger than 12 in 

the south management zone (Map 4) will not 

be allowed to camp without prior authorization. 

Group camping in excess of these limits would 

be allowed for administrative purposes as long as 

the activity does not interfere with the protection 

of monument objects or resources. Administrative purposes may include authorized research, 

survey crews, fire crews, or other authorized tasks 

requiring an overnight stay in the monument.

Access to Dispersed Camping Areas

REC-13 For direct access to existing dispersed 

camping, motorized and mechanized vehicles 

can pull off of open roads no more than 50 feet. 

Camping areas that are located further than 50 

feet from an open road must be accessed by nonmotorized and non-mechanized means. Exceptions include some existing camping areas that 

are currently accessed by existing, non-designated 

routes where continued use will not cause additional resource damage. 

REC-14 Motorized and mechanized vehicles 

are not allowed to leave the road for access to 

camping in the RNAs, endangered plant areas, 

wet areas or riparian areas, or other areas identified for resource protection.

REC-15 Some existing historic camping areas 

may be identified as designated dispersed campleave no

trace

Leave no trace is a national 

outdoor skills and ethics 

education program that promotes land stewardship and 

is designed to assist outdoor enthusiasts with 

their decisions about how to reduce their impacts when they hike, camp, picnic, snowshoe, 

run, bike, hunt, paddle, ride horses, fish, ski or 

climb. The program strives to educate all those 

who enjoy the outdoors about the nature of 

their recreational impacts as well as techniques 

to prevent and minimize such impacts.

Leave No Trace is rooted in scientific studies and common sense. The message is framed 

under seven main principles.

1. Plan Ahead and Prepare

2. Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces 

(established trails and campsites)

3. Dispose of Waste Properly (pack it in, pack 

it out)

4. Leave What You Find (leave plants, rocks, 

historical and archeological artifacts)

5. Minimize Campfire Use and Impacts

6. Respect Wildlife

7. Be Considerate of Other Visitors

Additional information on Leave No Trace can 

be found at www.lnt.org.

 “One touch of nature makes 

 the whole world kin.”

 -Will iam Shakespeare
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 97

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

sites. Some of these camping areas may also be 

closed on a temporary or permanent basis if the 

BLM determines that unacceptable resource 

damage is occurring.

REC-16 Existing dispersed camping areas will 

be inventoried and a subsequent, tiered planning 

process will determine which historic camping 

areas will be retained.

Hang Gliding and Para-Sailing/Gliding

REC-17 Hang gliding and para-sailing/gliding 

will be allowed only in designated areas and by 

permit only. The designated area would be determined by the monument staff through an analysis 

process after an application is received and only 

after a decision is made to permit the activity at 

the applied-for site. These activities will not be 

allowed on Pilot Rock.

Hiking

REC-18 Hiking is allowed throughout the 

monument. Groups larger than 25 are required to 

contact monument staff for information on ways 

to mitigate possible resource damage in sensitive 

areas.

Hunting and Fishing

REC-19 Visitors participating in hunting and 

fishing activities are required to comply with 

regulations set by the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. 

REC-20 Game carriers are not allowed crosscountry within the CSNM. Non-motorized game 

carriers are not allowed on the PCT and not 

allowed on roads closed by the proclamation or 

those roads identified for decommissioning. Nonmotorized game carriers are allowed on roads 

open to motorized and mechanized access, as well 

as most designated roads that are open to administrative use but otherwise closed to motorized 

vehicle access. 

Hyatt Lake Recreation Area

REC-21 The Hyatt Lake Recreation Area 

includes 745 acres in the northwest corner of 

the monument (Map 2). This recreation area has 

developed recreation facilities that require substantial investment and management. The Hyatt 

Lake Recreation Area is managed in accordance 

Motorized and Mechanized Recreation

REC-22 Motorized and mechanized vehicles 

include, but are not limited to, OHVs, motorcycles, game carriers, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, bicycles and tractors. Motorized vehicles 

must comply with Oregon state laws and regulations while operating on public lands (43 CFR 

8341.1). Motorized vehicles must be equipped 

with a muffler which meets the standards for 

noise emissions established under ORS 821.030. 

REC-23 Motorized vehicles are restricted to 

roads that are designated as open to the public for 

motorized access (Map 19). 

REC-24 Cross-country travel by motorized and 

mechanized vehicles is prohibited throughout the 

monument, except for emergency, administrative, 

or authorized use. 

REC-25 Persons requiring wheelchairs for 

mobility may use a motorized or mechanized 

wheelchair to access any area in the monument. 

A wheelchair refers to a device that is designed 

solely for use by a mobility-impaired person 

with the Hyatt-Howard Special Recreation 

Management Area Plan (1995). Management 

objectives within the Hyatt Lake Recreation Area 

are to provide for safe and enjoyable recreational 

opportunities consistent with the protection of 

monument objects. Camping within the Hyatt 

Lake Recreation Area is restricted to designated 

sites. Future modifications within the Hyatt Lake 

Recreation Area will be evaluated and undertaken 

as needs are identified in ways consistent with 

monument objectives.

Boater on Hyatt Lake.
Resource Management Plan

98 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

for locomotion and that is suitable for use in an 

indoor pedestrian area.

Paint Ball

REC-26 The discharging of paint ball guns is 

not allowed within or into the CSNM. 

Parking

REC-27 Drivers of motorized vehicles are 

required to park within the road prism, preferably on hardened surfaces. Drivers should avoid 

parking in wet areas and should not park in areas 

where vegetation damage could easily occur.

Pilot Rock

Pilot Rock is a popular area for hikers and climbers. In 2001, a pair of peregrine falcons reoccupied a historic nest site on Pilot Rock. This location was last occupied by peregrine falcons in the 

late 1960s. In 1999, the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service removed the American peregrine 

falcon from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. However, peregrine falcons 

are a Species of Special Concern for the BLM 

and require continued protection. Management 

for climbing and hiking in the Pilot Rock vicinity 

complies with this protection requirement.

Technical Climbing on Pilot Rock

The south face of Pilot Rock provides some of the 

best technical climbing opportunities in southwestern Oregon. There are seven recorded technical routes on Pilot Rock. To date, fixed anchors 

have been placed very conservatively on the four 

Pilot Rock routes requiring them.

REC-28 New fixed anchors could be established 

on a limited basis with prior BLM authorization 

to the extent that they do not detract from the 

geologic resource or impair the quality of the current climbing experience. Bolts needed for fixed 

anchors may only be installed using a non-mechanized hand drill and hammer.

REC-29 In order to better protect the peregrine 

falcons at Pilot Rock and to help ensure nest 

productivity, a seasonal climbing closure prohibits 

climbing activities on the south and east sides of 

Pilot Rock from February 1 to July 30 each year. 

If it is determined by the BLM that peregrine 

falcons are not nesting, or that their young have 

been confirmed to have fledged and moved a 

sufficient distance from the rock face to avoid 

disturbance by climbers, this seasonal climbing 

restriction may be lifted.

REC-30 No permit system for climbing will 

be established at this time. However, use will be 

monitored and a climbing management plan may 

be necessary if the seasonal closure is violated or 

resource damage occurs. A plan for monitoring 

the peregrine falcon nest site is detailed in Appendix I.

Hiking on Pilot Rock

In addition to technical climbing, Pilot Rock 

is also a popular destination for hikers who can 

make their way to the top of the rock without 

technical assistance. Currently, hikers access Pilot 

Rock on an unstable trail traversing the ridge 

west of Pilot Rock before continuing up a chute 

on the north side of the rock.

REC-31 This unofficial trail does not bring hikers into direct contact with the peregrine falcons 

on Pilot Rock. The seasonal restrictions that apply 

to climbing will not apply to hiking unless hiking 

is determined to have a negative impact on the 

falcons. The BLM will educate hikers about the 

activity restrictions on the south and east sides 

of the rock from February 1 to July 30 each year. 

Hikers would be instructed to avoid accessing the 

south and east sides of rock from the summit.

REC-32 Footing on the trail is poor, and in 

some places there are large areas barren of vegetation as people seek more stable footing along the 

sides of the trail. Surface erosion caused by runoff 

across exposed soils has contributed to the problem. In order to improve hiking opportunities, 

increase visitor education, and prevent additional 

resource damage from occurring in the Pilot 

Rock area, the following actions will be taken:

•	 The BLM will improve and maintain the existing Pilot Rock parking facility at the rock 

quarry along Pilot Rock road (40-2E-33).

•	 The Pilot Rock road will be closed and decommissioned beyond the quarry.

•	 A trail will allow access to Pilot Rock beyond 

the road closure.

•	 Interpretive and educational materials will 

be developed regarding the need for seasonal 

climbing restrictions and the safety issues 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 99

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

associated with hiking or climbing on Pilot 

Rock.

•	 A subsequent site-specific environmental 

analysis will determine a more stable access 

route to Pilot Rock. The analysis will consider 

whether the existing trail with its associated erosion problems could be stabilized, or 

whether the existing trail should be closed 

and a new route established.

Recreation Use Permits

REC-33 Recreation Use Permits (RUPs) 

are authorizations for short-term recreational 

use of developed recreation facilities. The only 

developed recreation facility in the CSNM is the 

BLM’s Hyatt Lake Recreation Area. Visitors to 

this facility are required to purchase a RUP to 

access camping sites, boat launch areas, day-use 

sites, group shelters, and day-use sites. RUPs 

are available on a first-come, first-served basis 

from fee envelope dispensers at fee stations or 

the visitor contact station at the entrance to the 

facility. Group shelter reservations by telephone 

are also taken at the Medford BLM office on a 

first-come, first-served basis.

Snowmobiles

REC-34 Snowmobiles are allowed on designated open roads north of Highway 66. Snowmobiles are not allowed in the south management 

zone; on roads that are closed or decommissioned; 

or on the PCT. Cross-country travel by snowmobiles is prohibited throughout the monument. 

The existing snowmobile routes (Map 25) in the 

north management zone enter and leave private 

land several times. The BLM does not have legal 

rights to allow the public to use roads on private 

lands for winter recreation. At this time, private 

landowners have not prevented the public from 

general use of these routes. However, the informal public use across private lands takes place 

at the discretion of the road owner(s) and could 

cease at any time, thereby limiting access to these 

areas. The BLM will seek partnerships with user 

groups to obtain legal easements from private 

land owners for access rights to historic snowmobile routes.

REC-35 Snowmobile use south of Highway 66 

within the north management zone is limited 

to adjacent landowners for ingress and egress to 

their properties.

Special Recreation Permits

A Special Recreation Permit (SRP) is an authorization that allows specified recreational uses of 

public lands and related waters. They are issued 

as a means to manage visitor use, protect natural 

and cultural resources, and provide a mechanism 

to accommodate recreational uses. There are five 

types of SRPs issued by the BLM: commercial 

use, competitive use, vending, special area use, 

and organized group activities and event use. 

Definitions of these SRPs are found in BLM 

Handbook 2930-1. The issuance of an SRP is a 

discretionary action. 

REC-36 Special Recreation Permits are considered on a case-by-case basis and may be denied 

based upon factors such as potential impacts to 

resource values; a prohibitive land use allocation; 

public health and safety; the applicant’s past performance; or the inability of the managing office 

to manage or monitor the proposed use. SRPs 

involving commercial stock use such as horses, 

llamas, or goats will not be permitted due to the 

high potential for resource damage from these 

activities. Before issuing an SRP for an activity 

or group event, a determination must be made 

to whether the request is primarily recreational. 

Future permits will be issued and existing permits 

will be renewed only if the proposed activity is 

found to be consistent with CSNM objectives.

Special Areas

REC-37 Special areas or special use areas are 

officially designated by presidential proclamation, 

statute or secretarial order, and include components of the National Trails System, National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Conservation Areas, National Monuments and recreation areas, or any area where the land manager 

determines that natural resources require special 

management and control measures for their protection. Examples of special use areas within the 

CSNM include the Oregon Gulch and Scotch 

Creek Research Natural Areas, the Mariposa 

Lily Botanical Area, and the Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Study Area. Permits may be required 

in special areas on a case-by-case basis for use to 

achieve management objectives.
Resource Management Plan

100 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 25
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 101

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

Trails

The only designated hiking trail within the 

CSNM is the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 

(PCT). The PCT is described in further detail in 

the General Management section in Chapter 2 

under National Scenic Trails.

REC-38 New trail construction or designation 

will be considered only to mitigate resource damage or to improve access in areas where visitation 

is resulting in the degradation of monument resources. New trails, or trail re-routes, will require 

future site-specific analysis and will be designed 

in a manner that most effectively protects monument resources from future degradation. Trails 

will be designed and constructed in accordance 

with the policies and standards found in BLM 

Manual 9114. Trails will be avoided in riparian 

areas. When placement of trails outside of riparian areas is not possible, trails will be designed 

to minimize impacts by placing trails away from 

streams and using soil stabilization structures to 

prevent erosion. 

Visitor Facilities

REC-39 All visitor facilities—existing, newly 

acquired, jointly operated, or newly constructed—

will comply with current accessibility legislation 

and corresponding standards/guidelines (Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA), Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act (amended 1978), 

and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(ADA)). In addition, any new construction or 

alteration of existing visitor facilities (including 

trails) will comply with state and local codes as 

well as impending federal guidelines regarding 

the accessibility of the outdoor recreation environment in outdoor developed areas. All existing and new visitor facilities will be maintained, 

designed, and constructed according to Bureau 

standards. 

REC-40 The RMP allows for the improvement 

and alteration of existing facilities as part of the 

monument’s visitor services and interpretation 

program. The Medford BLM will remain a point 

of contact for visitor information. 

REC-41 Facilities could be developed within 

the surrounding communities for use as visitor 

contact stations. Exact location of these facilities 

will be based on availability of infrastructure, 

environmental site constraints, economic viability, 

possible partnerships, and funding.

Currently, the BLM has signed a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) with the Friends of the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument to manage a small, self-service visitor information center 

located at 11470 Highway 66 (Appendix J).

REC-42 Under this RMP, maintenance of the 

trailheads, parking, and toilet facilities listed 

below will continue:

•	 PCT parking along the Soda Mountain Road 

(39-3E-32.3) in T40S, R3E, Section 16; 

•	 PCT parking at Porcupine Gap along 

the road (40-2E-33-3.0) in T40S, R2E, 

Section 35;

•	 horse corrals along Old Highway 99 in T 

41S, R2E, Section 9;

•	 parking within designated areas in the 

Hyatt Lake Recreation Area: in T39S, R3E, 

Sections 15, 21, 22; and

•	 PCT and Pilot Rock parking facility at the 

rock quarry along Pilot Rock Road 40-2E-33 

in T41S, R2E, Section 3.

Toilets could be provided, as necessary, at designated trailheads and parking sites.

Interpretive Sites/Signs

REC-43 New interpretive sites and/or signs can 

be developed, as needed, within the north management zone (Map 4) for resource protection, 

travel information, educational purposes and/or 

public safety. 

REC-44 No new interpretive sites will be developed in the south management zone (Map 4) and 

new signs would be installed only for resource 

protection, travel information, and/or public 

safety.

Visitor Education

REC-45 Public outreach and education will be 

designed to promote protection and understanding of the CSNM. The amount of public outreach 

and education provided for visitors will be contingent on the level and types of activities taking place in the monument. Visitor outreach and 

education will follow any restrictions on signing, 

interpretive exhibits, displays, or facilities deter-
Resource Management Plan

102 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—Recreation and Visitor Services

mined in this plan. Public outreach and education 

for all monument visitors will emphasize resource 

protection and visitor safety by meeting the following objectives:

•	 Provide the public with accurate information on visitation, use, and recreation in the 

CSNM. 

•	 Identify areas of high visitor use, or areas 

with particularly fragile resources, and take 

necessary steps to prevent resource damage.

•	 Educate visitors on how best to limit impacts 

to monument resources using “leave no trace” 

principles.

•	 Target different types of recreation (e.g., 

equestrians, backpackers, and snowmobilers) with specific messages on how those user 

groups can prevent resource damage.

•	 Clarify visitor expectations and the monument’s mission in relation to visitor experiences on other public lands. 

•	 Educate the public about the vision and mission of the National Landscape Conservation 

System (NLCS) and the CSNM.

•	 Provide information on how historical and 

current human uses within the monument 

and on adjacent land have shaped the character of the monument.

•	 Emphasize the need for visitors to be aware 

of and respect the private property adjacent to 

monument lands.

•	 Increase appreciation of and respect for 

monument resources through interpretation.

implementation considerations for

recreation

Decisions regarding future changes in recreation 

and visitor management in accordance with the 

RMP (including proposed site development, 

changes in visitor use, implementation of permit 

systems) would take many issues into consideration, including, but not limited to, the following:

•	 What type of resource damage is occurring 

(proliferation of campsites, human waste 

problems, trail creation, vandalism to historical or archaeological sites, etc.)?

•	 Are there conflicts with rare, sensitive, or 

threatened and endangered plant or animal 

species?

•	 Are there conflicts with other monument 

resources or natural ecosystem processes?

•	 Is the amount or type of use incompatible 

with protection of monument resources?

•	 Are opportunities for exploration and discovery negatively impacted by the number of 

people that a visitor encounters in a day?

•	 Can the problem be corrected through education?

•	 Would site development protect the resource 

at risk and accommodate current and increasing numbers of visitors?

•	 Would site development unnecessarily detract 

from the area’s primitive character?

•	 Is visitor use negatively affecting adjacent 

landowners? Would site development mitigate 

this problem?

Camping at Hyatt Lake Campground.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 103

Chapter 2—General Management

general management

csnm property boundary and 

ownership

OWN-1 The Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument (CSNM) designation applies only to 

federally managed land. The external boundary 

depicted on the CSNM Analysis Area (Map 1) 

is for planning purposes only. Privately owned 

property within this outer boundary is not encumbered by, or in any way part of, the CSNM 

designation.

land tenure adjustments

LAND-1 All currently administered public 

lands within the monument will be retained. 

LAND-2 The BLM may acquire additional 

lands within the greater monument boundary 

through purchase and exchange with willing 

participants. The BLM would utilize land acquisition to help meet the management goals 

and objectives described in this plan. Any land 

acquisition must result in a net gain of objects 

and values within the monument, such as wildlife 

habitat, threatened and endangered or sensitive 

species habitat, riparian or wetland areas, cultural 

or historic sites, or areas key to the maintenance 

of productive ecosystems. 

LAND-3 Any newly acquired lands within the 

greater monument boundary will become part of 

the monument (Map 1) and fall under the provisions of the monument proclamation and this 

RMP.

LAND-4 Lands may be acquired on a caseby-case basis through purchase, donation, conservation agreements/easements, or by exchange, 

consistent with existing land-use planning, 

regulation, and law. 

LAND-5 Lands may be acquired by exchange 

only where the public land involved in the exchange is located outside the CSNM.

LAND-6 Lands may not be acquired through 

land tenure adjustments which reduce the total 

acreage of Oregon and California (O & C) lands 

or result in a reduction of harvestable O & C 

timberlands in western Oregon. 

management of newly acquired 

lands

LAND-7 Newly acquired lands within the 

monument will be managed in accordance with 

the management direction for the surrounding land (e.g., management zone, emphasis area 

(Maps 4, 5)) and for the resource values present. In the interim, actions would be taken to 

protect resource values until the next plan revision. Livestock grazing on newly acquired lands 

is addressed in the Livestock Grazing section 

(GRA-8).

LAND-8 Newly acquired lands will be incorporated into existing resource monitoring procedures on adjacent or similar public lands. 

LAND-9 Transportation needs on any newly 

acquired lands will be evaluated and roads may 

be blocked or decommissioned to protect resource 

values.

federal reserved water rights

The presidential proclamation “reserved, as of 

the date of this proclamation and subject to valid 

existing rights, a quantity of water sufficient to 

fulfill the purposes for which this monument is 

established.” 

WAT-1 This statement signifies that BLM has 

a federal reserved water right with a priority date 

of June 9, 2000 for an amount of water that is 

necessary to fulfill monument purposes including 

supporting the plant and animal species identified in the proclamation (i.e. a variety of plant 

communities including wet meadows and riparian 

vegetation, rare and endemic plants, fresh water 

snails, three endemic fish species, butterflies, 

important populations of small mammals, reptile 

and amphibian species, ungulates, and numerous 

bird species including the threatened northern 

spotted owl). 

WAT-2 The federal reserved water rights include 

all types of water sources necessary to meet 

monument purposes, such as springs on federal 

lands, and instream flows. 

WAT-3 The amount of water reserved will be 

based on requirements of the species involved. 
Resource Management Plan

104 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—General Management

Quantification of the federal reserved water rights 

for the CSNM will need to be determined. 

WAT-4 The BLM reserves the right to assert 

its federal reserved water rights established by the 

CSNM proclamation.

soda mountain wilderness study 

Area (WSA)

WSA-1 The Soda Mountain Wilderness Study 

Area (WSA) would continue to be managed 

under BLM’s Interim Management Policy for Lands 

Under Wilderness Review, H-8550-1 (1995b). The 

Interim Management Policy applies only during 

the time a WSA is under wilderness review and 

until Congress acts on it. After Congress acts on 

the president’s recommendations for each WSA, a 

different policy will apply, depending on whether 

or not Congress designates the area as wilderness. 

Areas designated as wilderness will be managed

under applicable regulations (currently 43 CFR 

6300). Areas released from wilderness study will 

no longer be subject to the Interim Management 

Policy, and will be managed consistent with surrounding contiguous landscape of the CSNM.

RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS (RNAs)

RNA-1 Management plans for the Scotch Creek 

RNA (Appendix K) and Oregon Gulch RNA 

(Appendix L) are adopted. Implementation of 

management actions in the RNAs will require 

the appropriate level of site-specific environmental analysis as required by NEPA.

mariposa lily botanical area

The Mariposa Lily Botanical Area, a unique 

area west of Interstate 5 (I-5) in the monument 

was established for Calochortus greenei (Greene’s 

mariposa lily) in 1995. The Mariposa Lily Botanical Area provides a core, relatively undisturbed, 

reference area that contains large populations of 

Greene’s mariposa lily. 

MARI-1 Future management activities within 

the Mariposa Lily Botanical Area will occur only 

if a neutral or beneficial effect for the lily will 

result.

northwest forest plan

NFP-1 The management objectives of the 

monument will be implemented in accordance 

with the overall Northwest Forest Plan goal of 

maintaining, protecting, and enhancing latesuccessional and old-growth habitats.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy

ACS-1 All management actions/treatments 

throughout the monument will be consistent with 

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). 

The ACS, as amended is an integral part of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. It was developed to 

restore and maintain the ecological health of 

watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public 

lands. The ACS includes nine objectives (USDA/ 

USDI 1994b; B-11) and four components (riparian reserves, key watersheds, watershed analysis, 

and watershed restoration (USDA/USDI 1994b; 

B-12)). Over half of the monument (55 percent 

of the BLM lands) is located in the Jenny Creek 

Watershed, which was identified as a Tier 1 Key 

Watershed under the Northwest Forest Plan 

(USDA/USDI 1994b). Tier 1 Key Watersheds 

contribute directly to the conservation of at-risk 

fish species and have a high potential of being restored as part of a watershed restoration program.

special status species

Special status species are plant and animal species 

that meet one of the following criteria:

1. Species proposed for listing, officially listed, 

or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA);

2. Species listed or proposed for listing by Oregon; and

3. Species designated by the BLM state director 

as sensitive, assessment, or tracking species.

SSS-1 Special status species are managed in 

accordance with the ESA, and Bureau standards 

and policies for special status species (BLM 

Manual 6840; OR/WA Instruction Memorandum OR-91-57 and OR/WA Instruction Memorandum 2003-054). Special status species will 

also be managed consistent with the requirement 

to protect monument objects.

SSS-2 Within the monument, surveys for 

special status species will be conducted prior to 

any ground-disturbing activity. If special status 

species are found and the long-term impacts of 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 105

Chapter 2—General Management

the proposed activity would adversely affect the 

population, the species will be buffered from 

the activity, or the activity modified to reduce 

impacts.

SSS-3 Species listed as “Survey and Manage” 

under the Northwest Forest Plan are managed in 

accordance with the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey 

and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation 

Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA/USDI 

2001) and subsequent annual species reviews.

SSS-4 Appendix M in this RMP provides a list 

of special status plant and animal species in the 

monument.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Species

There are three species in the monument listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA: Gentner’s fritillary (endangered), the northern spotted 

owl (threatened), and the bald eagle (threatened). 

The 2006 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion for the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument addresses the effects from management activities that may occur within the monument and establishes conservation measures such 

as seasonal restrictions. 

SSS-5 This RMP, including conservation measures described in Appendix M, is consistent with 

determinations for the listed species. However, 

any National Fire Plan Grants or Title II grants 

to private land owners within the boundaries of 

the monument will be addressed on a project-byproject level.

Bureau Sensitive, Assessment and Tracking 

Species

SSS-6 Protection will be provided for sensitive 

species through clearance inventories, monitoring 

to determine trends, and analysis of effects in environmental documents. This meets BLM policy 

to protect, manage, and conserve sensitive species and their habitats in a manner that will not 

contribute to the need to list any of these species 

under the ESA. 

SSS-7 BLM assessment species are a category 

separate from sensitive in that these species are 

not presently eligible for federal or state listing, but are of concern in Oregon, and may need 

some protection or mitigation in BLM activities. 

Protection recommendations for assessment species will be considered on a case-by-case basis in 

balance with other resource considerations. Clearance surveys may be done subject to limitations in 

funding, and impacts will be assessed in environmental documents. 

SSS-8 BLM tracking species are species that no 

longer need active management (e.g., former sensitive species), or species for which more information is needed to determine their status. 

Assignment of protection measures for these species is a discretionary action per BLM policy.

fish and wildlife populations

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service have 

responsibility for the management of all fish and 

wildlife populations throughout Oregon (setting 

desired population levels, protecting special species, setting hunting/trapping laws and harvest 

limits, licenses and fees, etc.). Federal agencies 

work cooperatively with state agencies to ensure 

that federal habitat management is consistent 

with ODFW fish and wildlife population management goals.

air quality management

The topographic and physical characteristics 

of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, 

as well as its location in southwestern Oregon, 

position it to be directly affected by both humancaused and natural forms of air pollution. The following factors in combination with one another 

may impact visibility and affect sensitive vegetative communities within the CSNM:

•	 The proximity of Interstate 5;

•	 Population expansion in Jackson County 

within the Ashland/Medford Air Quality 

Management Area (AQMA);

•	 Industrial development within the Rogue 

River Valley and Klamath Basin; and 

•	 Seasonal weather patterns that have historically trapped air pollutants in the Rogue 

River and Klamath River Valleys.

Mobile sources (i.e. automobiles and diesel trucks) 

have been targeted as a major source of pollution 
Resource Management Plan

106 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—General Management

requiring control along the I-5 Corridor, part of 

which intersects the monument. The warm dry 

summer climate combined with increasing mobile 

source emission due to population increases, 

could lead to the development of photochemical 

smog. Although the potential exists, local state air 

regulatory agencies have not identified sufficient 

pollution levels to warrant protection under the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

During summer and late winter months, temperature inversions often prompt air stagnation 

advisories. These inversions trap pollutants at 

the lower elevations for extended periods of time 

resulting in the AQMA reaching Non-Attainment status for Particulate Matter (PM 10). The 

AQMA has been in attainment status for at least 

six (6) years. Additionally, smoke from wildland 

fires has had a direct effect on the CSNM and 

adjacent Rogue and Klamath Basins.

AQ-1 The level and timing of prescribed fire 

use identified in the RMP for the CSNM will be 

conducted to comply with direction in the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Use of dispersion, 

dilution and avoidance techniques will minimize 

smoke impacts on the Medford/Ashland AQMA, 

City of Klamath Falls, City of Yreka in California, Mt. Ashland Ski Area, and the I-5 Corridor.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)

BMP-1 Site-specific best management practices 

(BMPs) will be developed as required by the 

federal Clean Water Act in order to reduce nonpoint source pollution to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

BMP-2 Project planning will incorporate the 

BMPs developed in the Medford District BLM 

Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan 

(USDI 1995a), unless they do not contribute to 

the monument objective of protecting the objects 

of interest.

water quality management

Water Quality Standards

The Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ ) recognizes the BLM as 

the Designated Management Agency for 

implementing the Clean Water Act on BLMadministered lands in Oregon. Pursuant 

to a Memorandum of Agreement (2003) 

between the BLM and ODEQ , water quality 

standards are expected to be met through the 

development and implementation of water quality 

restoration plans (WQRPs), BMPs, and aquatic 

conservation strategies. The BLM manages 

BLM-administered lands to protect, restore, 

and maintain water quality so that federal and 

state water quality standards are met or exceeded 

to support beneficial uses, in accordance with 

applicable laws and regulations.

WQ-1 The BLM is implementing the Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management Protocol for Addressing Clean Water Act Section 303(d) 

Listed Waters (USDA/USDI 1999). Under the 

Protocol, the BLM will continue supporting 

ODEQ’s efforts to develop total maximum daily 

loads (TMDLs) and water quality management 

plans (WQMPs) for water bodies with limited 

water quality within the CSNM. ODEQ set a 

target date of December 31, 2005 for completion 

of TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters in the Middle 

Rogue and Upper Klamath Subbasins which 

include the CSNM (ODEQ 2004). The TMDLs 

are being developed and will likely be completed 

in 2006.

WQ-2 The BLM will develop WQRPs specific to BLM-administered lands, which will be 

incorporated by reference into ODEQ’s WQMPs. 

WQRPs will use the approach formulated in the 

Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies (USDA and USDI 2005) 

for analyzing stream shade, effects of shade on 

stream temperature, and management of riparian 

areas. Implementation of WQRPs, BMPs, the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy, and effectiveness 

monitoring would ensure that TMDLs are being 

met on monument lands.

Public Water Systems

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) mandated that state agencies 

conduct source water assessments for every public 

water system. A federally-regulated public water 

system provides water for human consumption 

through pipes or other constructed conveyances 

to at least 15 service connections or serves an 

average or at least 25 people for at least 60 days a 

year. The states must delineate the groundwater 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 107

Chapter 2—General Management

and surface water source areas which supply public water systems, inventory each of those areas 

to determine potential sources of contamination, 

and determine the most susceptible areas at risk 

for contamination.

The monument falls within the source water areas 

for the cities of Gold Hill, Rogue River, and 

Grants Pass in Oregon and Yreka in California. 

The surface water source for the three cities in 

Oregon is the Rogue River downstream from 

Bear Creek. The Bear Creek Watershed is included in the source water area and 6,181 acres of 

the monument are in the Upper Emigrant Creek 

Subwatershed (Map 4) of Bear Creek. The monument lands in the Bear Creek Watershed are over 

30 miles upstream from the closest public water 

system intake. The water source for Yreka is Fall 

Creek. There are 292 acres of monument lands 

within the Fall Creek Subwatershed (Map 4). PacifiCorp diverts up to 16.5 cubic feet per second 

(cfs) from Spring Creek in the Lower Jenny Creek 

Subwatershed for hydroelectric power and transports this water via an open earthen canal to Fall 

Creek above the intake for the City of Yreka. The 

PacifiCorp diversion and all but approximately 

100 feet of the canal (approximately 2,400 feet in 

length) are located on BLM-administered land 

within the monument. Approximately 250 feet of 

Spring Creek above the diversion are within the 

monument. Monument lands are over 3.5 miles 

upstream of the City of Yreka intake.

Source water assessments have been completed by 

the DEQ and the Oregon Department of Human 

Services for the cities of Gold Hill, Rogue River, 

and Grants Pass and by the California Department of Health Services for the City of Yreka. 

The assessments include an inventory of potential 

contaminant sources within the source water 

areas. Grazing animals (greater than five large 

animals or equivalent per acre) were identified as 

a potential contaminant source for the Gold Hill, 

Rogue River, and Grants Pass drinking water 

protection areas. The assessments recognized that 

concentrated livestock may contribute to erosion 

and sedimentation of surface water bodies. Grazing in the Bear Creek Watershed portion of the 

monument consists of open range grazing with 

an average of less than 200 cows across the 6,181 

acres of monument land. The City of Yreka source 

water assessment identified open range cattle 

as a potential contaminating activity. No other 

potential contaminant sources that could occur 

on monument lands were identified in the state 

source water assessments.

Road operations (construction, renovation, and 

decommissioning), forest thinning, and prescribed fire are additional possible contaminating 

activities that could occur within the monument 

portion of the source water areas. 

WQ-3 Best management practices (USDI 1995) 

and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA/

USDI 1994a), as amended, will be implemented 

to protect the drinking water source areas and 

minimize potential adverse effects. No road 

construction is planned for the monument and 

it would only occur under limited circumstances 

designed to minimize resource damage. A small 

amount of road drainage improvement work and 

road decommissioning are proposed for the Upper 

Emigrant Creek Subwatershed. BMPs will be 

implemented to minimize sediment delivery to 

streams during road operations. This RMP does 

not propose any road work for the Fall Creek 

Subwatershed or the Spring Creek area in the 

Lower Jenny Creek Subwatershed. Riparian areas 

will be protected during forest thinning activities 

to minimize any adverse effects on water quality. 

Yarding will be designed to minimize soil compaction and soil disturbance. Prescribed burning 

may include handpiles and underburning that 

will be kept away from streams, seeps, springs, 

wetlands, and other waterbodies to minimize the 

disturbance of riparian vegetation and movement 

of soil and ash to water sources.

native american uses

The lands within the monument were formerly 

inhabited by the Takelma Indians. The Shasta 

Indians and the Klamath Tribe also utilized the 

area. Following the Rogue Indian Wars in 1856, 

surviving Takelma and Shasta Indians were relocated to reservations in northern Oregon, where 

their descendants are members of two federally 

recognized tribes: the Confederated Tribes of 

Grand Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of 

Siletz. Shasta natives also managed to survive 

south of the border in California; descendants of 

the Shasta Indians are federally recognized as the 

Quartz Valley Rancheria.
Resource Management Plan

108 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—General Management

NAT-1 There are no treaty reserved rights 

within the monument for any of these tribes. 

However, descendants of the Takelma and the 

Shasta, and the tribal groups to which they belong today, are active in promoting the heritage 

and current welfare of their members. Traditional 

use areas, as well as archaeological sites reflecting 

tribal histories, exist within the monument. The 

federally recognized tribes identified above will 

be contacted regarding any projects that might affect cultural resources representing their heritage 

(see also REC-10 in the Recreation and Visitor 

Services section and COLL-4 below).

archaeological and cultural site 

protection

Archaeological Sites

ARCH-1 Archaeological sites within the 

CSNM will be protected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Among other laws 

and regulations, the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) requires agencies to consider the 

effects of their actions on significant historic sites. 

Section 106 of the NHPA provides a process for 

identifying, evaluating, and assessing effects of 

federal actions on cultural resources.

Cultural Resource Sites

While many of the historic and pre-historic sites 

within the monument are known, many of the 

physical characteristics, oral histories, and folklore of these sites remain largely undocumented. 

CULT-1 Cultural resources within the monument will be identified, documented, and protected. Public education and interpretation are tools 

for protecting these resources through increased 

awareness of and appreciation for both archeological and historic resources.

Laws specifically related to the protection of prehistoric and historic cultural resources include the 

Antiquities Act of 1906, the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended, the Native American Grave Protection 

and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, and 

Executive Order 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971).

Research and Education

CULT-2 Applications for Cultural Resource 

Use Permits would be analyzed on a case-by-case 

basis. These may include applications for excavation, research, or field school projects. Each 

application must include documentation detailing 

a methodological/theoretical framework appropriate to the work proposed, a timeframe for 

project work and completion, and professional 

methods for reporting project results. All projects 

must be compatible with monument goals and 

objectives, established policy, and requirements 

applicable to the management of the cultural 

resources involved. Proposed work may be modified through limitations or terms and conditions. 

Applications that fail to meet minimum qualifying criteria specified, either upon initial receipt or 

through failure to respond adequately to a request 

for missing information, may be rejected without 

further review.

Historic Trails

Congress identified and designated many significant National Historic Trails through the 

National Trails System Act (NTSA). This act 

was created to preserve the nation’s historic trails 

and to ensure that visitors have a meaningful 

recreational experience. A National Historic Trail 

retraces trails or routes of travel with national historical significance to the greatest extent possible. 

Within the monument, many of these trail resources are located on private lands. Unless these 

resources are certified or an agreement is reached 

with the land owner, historic trails on private 

lands are not accessible to the public. These trails 

include the Applegate Branch of the California 

National Historic Trail, and the California/Oregon Wagon Trail, also recognized as the Ewing 

Young Route State Historic Trail (Map 26).

TRAIL-1 Historic trails within the monument 

will be managed to preserve the surrounding natural resource values, cultural resource values and, 

where appropriate, recreational opportunities. 

These trails will be managed in accordance with 

management objectives described in this RMP, 

applicable legislative mandates, and coordination 

with the State Historical Preservation Office. 

TRAIL-2 Where trails cross federal lands, 

appropriate trail markers would be erected and 

maintained by the BLM.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 109

Map 26
Resource Management Plan

110 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—General Management

TRAIL-3 The BLM will work cooperatively 

with private organizations, local interest groups, 

and other agencies interested in the protection 

and interpretation of historic trails. 

TRAIL-4 The context of historic trails will 

be protected by a 500-foot wide management 

corridor centered on the trail. Management 

actions within this corridor will be evaluated for 

impacts to the trail setting and will be compatible 

with the protection and interpretation of trail 

resources.

Applegate Trail

Between 1841 and 1860, more than 200,000 emigrants traveled the California Trail. The Applegate Trail, a branch of the California National 

Historic Trail, was developed by Oregon pioneers as a southern route to Oregon and a way of 

avoiding the treacherous descent of the Columbia 

River. Approximately one mile of the Applegate 

trail crosses public land in the monument.

Oregon-California Wagon Trail

The Oregon-California Wagon Trail served as 

the region’s main north and south travel route. 

This route was originally established by Native 

Americans as a trade route. In 1827, Peter Skene 

Ogden made his way north over this same route 

during his exploration for the Hudson Bay Company. Today the trail is more commonly known as 

the Ewing Young Route, one of 16 historic trails 

recognized by the State of Oregon in an effort to 

“develop a statewide program to research, recognize, and promote Oregon’s historic trails as 

heritage tourism resources” (HB 2966, 1995). 

TRAIL-5 The BLM will cooperate with the 

State of Oregon in management of the Ewing 

Young Route. Approximately 0.7 miles of the 

Ewing Young Route crosses public lands within 

the monument.

national scenic trails

The National Trails System Act of 1968 was 

created to ensure that visitors enjoy a meaningful 

recreation experience as well as to preserve the 

trail resources. The National Trails System 

Act identified and designated both National 

Historic and National Scenic Trails. A Scenic 

trail is an extended trail offering maximum 

outdoor recreation potential allowing visitors to 

experience scenic, historical, natural, and cultural 

resources. The National Scenic Pacific Crest Trail 

(PCT) is the only designated hiking trail within 

the CSNM. Of the 18.8 miles of PCT in the 

monument, 12.9 miles are located on public land 

(Map 2). Agreements with private landowners 

allow for access through private lands.

PCT-1 The PCT will be managed in accordance 

with the Comprehensive Management Plan for the 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (USDA 1982) 

and the national interagency Memorandum of 

Understanding between USDA Forest Service, USDI 

National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, California State Parks, and the Pacific Crest 

Trail Association (2003).

PCT-2 The BLM will not conduct thinning 

projects within 250 feet on either side of this trail.

science and research

The primary purpose for establishing the CSNM 

is to protect the scientific and historic resources 

described in the proclamation. The monument 

landscape offers outstanding opportunities for 

the study of specific resources described in the 

proclamation. In addition to the study of specific 

resources, the monument landscape allows the 

study of important issues, such as understanding 

ecological change over time; increasing our understanding of the interactions between humans 

and their environment; and improving land management practices. 

By allowing research activities to take place in 

the monument, the BLM will be able to protect 

resources using the best possible information.

SCI-1 Science and research proposals submitted 

by other agencies, non-governmental organizations, or individual researchers will be supported 

and encouraged, but intrusive or destructive 

investigations would be carefully reviewed to 

avoid conflicts with the BLM’s responsibility to 

protect and preserve scientific and historic monument resources. The monument staff will consider 

whether the proposed research can be conducted 

in a manner consistent with the protection of 

monument resources, and whether the methods 

proposed are the minimum necessary to achieve 

the desired research objective. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 111

Chapter 2—General Management

SCI-2 The collection of monument resources 

such as organisms or other natural resources can 

be authorized in cases where the collection is 

necessary to meet research objectives and that 

such collections will not threaten the continued 

persistence or recovery to historic abundance 

of “objects of biological interest” or negatively 

impact ecological processes. All research activities involving collections will require special-use 

permits.

monitoring

Monitoring is an essential component of natural 

resource management because it provides information on changes in resource use, conditions, 

processes, and trends. Monitoring is an integral 

component of the monument’s adaptive management strategy (Chapter 3), as it provides information on the effectiveness of management activities 

and strategies. 

MON-1 The implementation of this plan will 

be monitored to ensure that management actions 

follow prescribed management direction (implementation monitoring), meet desired objectives 

(effectiveness monitoring), and are based on accurate assumptions (validation monitoring).

MON-2 Effectiveness and validation monitoring will be implemented where necessary. Close 

coordination and interaction between monitoring and research are essential for this type of 

management. Data obtained through systematic 

and statistically valid monitoring can be used by 

scientists to develop research hypotheses related 

to priority issues. In addition, the results obtained through research can be used to further 

refine protocols and evaluate the effectiveness of 

implementation of this plan. Ongoing monitoring 

projects are detailed in Appendix I.

Collections/special forest

products

COLL-1 The proclamation specifically prohibits 

the removal of monument features. Removal of 

features includes, but is not limited to, the collection of any monument resources such as rocks, 

minerals, petrified wood, fossils, archaeological 

and cultural items, plants and parts of plants, fish 

and animals not regulated by ODFW, insects 

or other invertebrate animals, bones, waste, and 

other products from animals (see also REC-7 in 

the Recreation and Visitor Services section). 

COLL-2 Christmas tree cutting is prohibited 

within the monument. 

COLL-3 The above prohibitions shall not 

be deemed to diminish the responsibility and 

authority of the State of Oregon for the management of fish and wildlife, including the regulation 

of hunting and fishing.

COLL-4 Exceptions include collections authorized by permit in conjunction with authorized 

research, education, or management activities; the 

collection of fruits, nuts, berries, and mushrooms 

for personal non-commercial use, not-to-exceed 

one gallon per day; the collection of certain natural materials by Native Americans under BLM 

permit; the collection of antlers or horns as provided by ODFW regulations; and the collections 

of dead and down wood for immediate use in 

campfires, where campfires are allowed (see also 

REC-10 in the Recreation and Visitor Services 

section and NAT-1 above).

off-highway vehicular (OHV) travel

OHV-1 For the purposes of protecting the resources for which the CSNM was designated, all 

mechanized and motorized modes of surface travel, including but not limited to, OHVs, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, bicycles, 

and tractors shall be confined to the surface of 

designated open roads except for emergency, 

administrative, or other authorized use.

Gentner’s fritillary.
Resource Management Plan

112 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—General Management

hazards to facilities, visitors and 

public safety

SAFE-1 Removal of trees from within the 

monument may take place only if clearly needed 

for ecological restoration, authorized facility 

maintenance, or public safety. The felling of trees 

may occur where select trees endanger facilities, 

visitors, or public safety. Such situations are anticipated along roads, utility rights-of-way, communication sites, trails, property lines, parking 

areas, and campgrounds and high visitor-use areas 

within the Hyatt Lake Recreation Complex. 

These trees may be sold commercially only after 

it has been determined that they are not needed 

for riparian enhancement, coarse woody debris, or 

other resource values within the monument.

public outreach and education

OUT-1 The overall goal for the public outreach 

and education in the CSNM is to enhance protection of the monument’s values and resources 

through increased awareness and appreciation. 

OUT-2 Public outreach and education for the 

CSNM will focus on adjacent landowners, local 

communities, and monument visitors. 

OUT-3 The level of public outreach and education for the CSNM will correlate with the types 

of BLM management activities and the amount 

of visitor use in the monument.

Adjacent Landowners and Local 

Communities

The checkerboard nature of land ownership adjacent to CSNM boundaries necessitates a commitment by BLM to establish communication and 

cooperation with adjacent landowners and local 

communities. 

OUT-4 The BLM will engage in public outreach activities designed to keep adjacent landowners and local communities informed of new 

developments or activities related to the CSNM. 

Such outreach efforts will be designed, for example, to inform and educate the public about 

the goals, objectives, and operation of different 

management activities as needed.

OUT-5 Given that some on-the-ground management activities in the CSNM may be visible 

to the surrounding community and to monument 

visitors, the BLM will strive to build relationships 

with the surrounding community, partnerships, 

and collaborative projects. 

OUT-6 When possible, the BLM will use existing community resources for the development 

of outreach or educational materials. The BLM 

could engage the surrounding communities in 

efforts to protect, enhance, and restore the resources of the CSNM through hands-on stewardship such as monitoring, restoration projects, and 

scientific research.

OUT-7 In many cases, management activities designed to protect and restore monument 

resources may be similar to the management 

objectives of adjacent landowners. The BLM 

will identify and use common land-management 

goals as a basis for developing voluntary collaborative projects with adjacent landowners of 

the CSNM. These projects will be designed to 

promote the protection, restoration, and enhancement of resources in the monument and 

on adjacent non-federal land. For example, the 

long-term effectiveness of noxious weed control 

efforts in the monument would increase if the 

BLM and adjacent landowners worked together 

on this problem. The reduction of fire hazard in 

the monument and on adjacent non-federal lands 

is another example of a common goal. 

OUT-8 The BLM will keep the surrounding 

community informed of management activities in 

the monument and, when possible, may assist in 

providing technical or informational support to 

adjacent landowners wishing to engage in similar 

activities on non-federal land.

wildland fire suppression

The BLM has a contract with the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) to provide fire prevention, detection and suppression services. Due 

to ownership patterns and logistical constraints, 

the use of wildland fire to meet resource objectives is not possible. 

FIRE-1 The fire suppression guidelines in 

Appendix N are adopted. Areas within the 

CSNM that require special suppression methods 

designed to minimize damage to unique habitat 

and resources are listed in Appendix N.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 113

Chapter 2—General Management

FIRE-2 An integrated Fire Management Plan 

(FMP) is currently being developed for the Medford District BLM and surrounding areas. This 

cooperative planning effort will be based on the 

resource management objectives defined in land 

management plans, local, state, and federal law, 

and interagency fire policy. The FMP will incorporate the CSNM resource and management 

objectives identified in this RMP and the fire 

suppression guidelines in Appendix N.

stabilization, rehabilitation and 

restoration following wildland 

fire

Wildland fire and subsequent plant community 

changes are an integral part of natural ecosystem 

processes in the CSNM. 

REHAB-1 Stabilization, rehabilitation and restoration efforts will focus on areas where fire suppression efforts have resulted in resource damage. 

Stabilization and rehabilitation efforts in these 

areas will include the following design features:

•	 Seeding or waterbar construction may 

be necessary to prevent erosion and weed 

invasion on fire lines constructed during 

suppression activities.

•	 When seeding is necessary in order to 

prevent the establishment of non-native 

grasses and invasive plants in disturbed areas, 

native grasses and forbs suitable to the plant 

community or sterile, non-persistent, nonnatives will be used.

•	 Weed-free plant material can be used as 

mulch to offset erosion or create suitable 

environment for seedings and plantings.

REHAB-2 Burned areas undisturbed by firefighting efforts will be allowed to recover without 

intervention, unless an interdisciplinary team determines that rehabilitation is necessary in order 

to facilitate natural successional processes, protect 

monument resources, or to provide for public 

safety. In many cases, this may mean allowing the 

area to recover without intervention.

REHAB-3 A site-specific analysis of the burned 

area will precede restoration efforts. Guidelines 

will be developed on a site-specific basis to ensure 

consistency with the goals and objectives outlined 

in this RMP. 

REHAB-4 Salvage logging will not be considered as a management option.

REHAB-5 Restoration efforts for burned areas 

not impacted by suppression activities may include the following:

•	 Areas with a high component of weed species 

may be seeded with native grasses and forbs 

as a restoration measure.

•	 Tree planting can be considered in areas 

where reforestation does not occur naturally. 

The species mix of seedlings planted would 

mimic previous site conditions where possible.

•	 Burned areas will be closed to livestock grazing for at least two growing seasons following the season in which the fire occurred to 

promote recovery of burned perennial plants, 

prevent noxious weeds or other non-native 

invasive species, reduce the risk of erosion and 

associated effects to riparian areas and stream 

systems, and to protect monument resources 

and natural ecosystem processes. An interdisciplinary evaluation is required at the end 

of the second growing season to determine 

whether additional livestock exclusion is 

required to meet rehabilitation objectives. 

Livestock closures for less than two growing seasons may be justified, on a case-bycase basis, based on sound resource data and 

experience.

•	 In order to provide for human safety, snags 

and logs can be relocated where necessary 

to reduce hazards along roads, trails and in 

or adjacent to campgrounds. In most cases, 

woody material will be left on site. In cases 

where the number of snags and logs felled for 

human safety exceeds the large wood requirements on-site, these excess trees and logs may 

be stockpiled for restoration projects (instream structures or large wood placement 

in areas where this ecological component has 

been removed in the past).

fuel hazard reduction

Fuel hazard reduction involves removing the 

accumulation of fuels (dead and live vegetation) 

in order to reduce the threat, spread, or intensity 

of a wildland fire. Throughout the CSNM, the 

reduction of hazardous fuels will generally occur 

as a by-product of plant community restoration 
Resource Management Plan

114 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 2—General Management

treatments. Priority treatment areas are described 

in the OGEA management section. 

FUELS-1 A future, site-specific analysis may 

identify areas along roads, irrigation ditches, 

private land, or structures that should be treated 

specifically for fuel hazard reduction. These 

treatments will be aimed at protecting monument resources and private property by reducing 

hazardous fuels in strategic areas. Treatments that 

conflict with the resource management objectives 

described for the OGEA and DEA will not take 

place.

visual resource management

Visual Resource Management (VRM) consists 

of (1) the inventory and planning actions taken 

to identify resources; (2) establishing objectives for managing those resources; and (3) the 

management actions taken to achieve the visual 

management objectives. VRM inventory classes 

were established by BLM Manual Handbook 

H-8410-1 (Visual Resource Inventory). Criteria 

used to determine VRM classes are: scenic quality ratings, public sensitivity ratings, and distance 

zone-seen areas.

VIS-1 Class I is assigned to those areas where a 

management decision has been made previously 

to maintain a natural landscape. This includes 

areas such as national wilderness areas, the wild 

section of national wild and scenic rivers, and 

other congressionally and administratively designated areas (VRM Manual 8410-1, Section V, pg. 

5). Based on these criteria, the Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Study Area will be managed as VRM 

Class I. 

VIS-2 The objective of Class II is to retain the 

existing character of the landscape. The long-term 

management objectives in the CSNM focus on 

the preservation of the natural landscape. Past 

management activities, both federal and nonfederal have pre-empted the existence of a natural 

landscape. Therefore, the CSNM landscape 

outside the WSA will be managed to meet VRM 

Class II objectives.

valid existing rights

The proclamation states, “The establishment 

of this monument is subject to valid existing 

rights.” Valid existing rights (VERs) may include 

a variety of BLM authorizations such as rightsof-way grants, leases, reciprocal agreements, and 

withdrawals. Valid existing rights were expressly 

recognized and protected in the presidential 

proclamation. 

VER-1 As a matter of policy, the BLM does 

not intend to preclude access to private property. 

The BLM will provide reasonable access to nonfederally owned land that is surrounded by public 

land (see also TRAN-2 in the Transportation 

and Access section).

Linear Rights-of-Way

VER-2 Proposed management will continue 

to make BLM-administered lands available 

for needed rights-of-way consistent with local 

comprehensive plans, Oregon statewide planning 

goals and rules, and protection of monument 

resources. Any approved rights-of-way for hydroelectric developments will be consistent with the 

Northwest Power Planning Council guidance, 

which recommends prohibiting future hydroelectric development on certain rivers and streams 

with significant fisheries and wildlife values. 

Land use allocation guidance pertaining to the 

CSNM is as follows:

•	 Allocation of land for existing rights-ofway corridors and communication sites will 

continue as shown in Appendix O.

•	 Subject to all VERs, with the exception of 

buried lines within the prism of existing 

roads, new rights-of-way in the CSNM will 

be minimized. Rights-of-way may be granted 

when no feasible alternate route or designated 

rights-of-way corridor is available, but the 

authorization will need to be consistent with 

protecting monument objects and every 

Pinehurst Airport.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 115

Chapter 2—General Management

measure will be taken to minimize negative 

impacts to monument resources.

•	 Rights-of-way should avoid adverse impacts 

that retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. 

Where legally possible, adjust existing rightsof-way to eliminate adverse effects that retard 

or prevent the attainment of the ACS.

•	 In cases where existing rights-of-way are 

found to negatively impact monument 

resources, the BLM will work with 

authorized holders to reduce those impacts 

where feasible.

•	 The Western Regional Corridor Study 

(Clayton 1992) developed a series of maps 

that depict existing and proposed corridors 

serving the utility, transportation, and communications industries in the 11 western 

states. The Oregon map shows three existing 

corridors within the boundary of the CSNM 

as Agency Designated Corridors (Map 27). 

All three of these corridors have existing authorized facilities within them. Facilities can 

include electric power lines, gas or oil pipelines, water pipelines or canals, communication lines, transportation routes, etc. These 

Agency Designated Corridors would take 

precedence for future facility development 

over non-designated areas. Any applications 

for new facilities within a designated corridor 

will be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed for 

potential impacts to monument resources.

•	 Maintenance, access, and other established 

uses consistent with monument objectives 

and VERs will continue but may be subject 

to reasonable regulation to protect monument 

objects.

New applications for utility rights-of-way within 

the monument are driven by the public. It is 

anticipated that most new requests would be tied 

to residential development of private land within 

the greater monument boundary. This type of 

action would generally involve requests for power 

or phone service to private property and would be 

considered small-scale projects. Most often, this 

type of utility line is now buried along the edge of 

existing roads.

Requests for new utility line corridors involving 

major projects are not anticipated in the foreseeable future. However, new requests may be authorized in the existing corridors where the proposed 

use is compatible with the existing facilities. For 

example, in the past, BLM authorized the placement of a new fiber optic line within one of the 

corridors utilizing the existing structures for the 

new line. In this case the new use was compatible 

with the original authorization, and the existing 

infrastructure could be utilized to accommodate 

the new use.

Few new road ROWs are anticipated as most are 

already in place as a result of past timber practices 

on all land ownerships. Most private lands have 

major access routes completed and very limited 

new road construction across BLM lands is expected in the future.

Withdrawals

Withdrawals protect lands with important 

resource values and/or significant levels of investment by withdrawing them from the operation of 

the public land and mineral laws. They are a tool 

the government uses to avoid irreparable damage to important resources that may be caused by 

nondiscretionary activity on public lands. Developed recreation or administrative sites are generally protected under a withdrawal action.

Prior to the designation of the monument, certain 

areas had been placed under formal land withdrawals in order to provide the lands with this 

level of protection. The current withdrawals in the 

monument are identified in Appendix O. 

VER-3 The monument proclamation segregated 

all federal lands and interests in lands from all 

forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or leasing 

Powerlines on Chinquapin Mountain.
Resource Management Plan

116 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Map 27
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 117

Chapter 2—General Management

or other disposition under the public land laws, 

including but not limited to withdrawal from 

location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, 

and geothermal leasing, other than by exchange 

that furthers the protective purposes of the 

monument. 

VER-4 Land withdrawals made prior to the 

monument designation will be continued, modified, or revoked as identified in Appendix O.

Communication Sites

VER-5 Existing communication site authorizations on Soda Mountain and Chestnut Mountain 

will continue. No new facilities would be built at 

the existing communication sites. Modifications 

to existing individual facilities (i.e., buildings) can 

be made if the proposed use does not increase the 

size (footprint) of the current authorized development and there are no interference problems 

for the other authorized users. For example, the 

addition or replacement of a new transmitting 

or receiving device (e.g., antennae) on an existing tower structure would be considered if the 

proposed device was consistent with the other 

existing electronic devices in terms of size, visual 

characteristics, and frequency compatibility. 

VER-6 The BLM completed a communication 

site survey for the Soda Mountain site in 2005. A 

comprehensive communication site management 

plan addressing site efficiency, visual resources, 

and impacts of new technology is planned for 

2006 (dependent on funding). The BLM could 

permit modifications, such as a new device, following the completion of a site-specific management plan. 

VER-7 The Soda Mountain communication site 

access roads (40-3E-21.1, 

40-3E-21.2) will be improved (rocked) to reduce 

erosion, maintained to 

BLM standards, and 

gated at the junction of 

40-3E-21.1 and 40-3E21.2.

VER-8 No new communication sites will be 

developed in the CSNM.

minerals

The presidential proclamation withdrew monument lands from “location, entry and patent under 

the mining laws, and from disposition under all 

laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

other than by exchange that furthers the protective purposes of the monument.” The proclamation did not prohibit the use of common mineral 

materials from existing rock quarries in the 

monument. 

MIN-1 Common mineral materials are available 

from existing quarries for extraction, processing, 

and transport for projects approved for administrative (BLM) use within the CSNM. Approved 

projects would have to mitigate potential damage to aquatic resources, stream channels, and 

riparian habitat. If mitigation is not possible, the 

project will not be approved.

supplemental rules

SUPP-1 Following the approval of this RMP 

through the Record of Decision, the BLM will 

establish supplemental rules to govern conduct 

on all public lands within the CSNM. The BLM 

will be establishing these supplementary rules for 

the protection of persons, property, public lands 

and monument resources; to further the direction and guidance contained in the presidential 

proclamation; and to implement decisions made 

in the management plan, as provided for in 43 

CFR 8365.1-6. The supplementary rules would 

be published as a Federal Register notice and are 

a necessary tool for law enforcement officers to 

enforce management direction for the CSNM.

Soda Mountain Communication Site.
118 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 119

Chapter 3—Implementation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework

chapter 3 

implementation, 

monitoring and

adaptive management

framework

introduction

During the life of the Resource Management 

Plan (RMP), the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) expects that new information gathered 

from field inventories and assessments, research, 

other agency studies, and other sources will 

update baseline data or support new management 

techniques and scientific principles. Further, while 

this RMP contains general direction and context 

for the entire monument and makes decisions on 

specific actions for some issues (e.g., access restrictions), many management actions necessary to 

achieve broad-scale objectives (e.g., preventing the 

loss of fire-dependent plant species and communities) will require further analysis and additional 

planning. To the extent that such new information or actions address issues covered in the 

RMP, the BLM will integrate the data through a 

process called plan maintenance or updating. This 

process includes the use of an adaptive management strategy. As part of this process, the BLM 

will review management actions and the RMP 

periodically to determine whether the objectives 

set forth in this and other applicable planning 

documents are being met. Where they are not 

being met, the BLM will consider adjustments 

of appropriate scope. Where the BLM proposes 

taking or approving actions which would alter 

or not conform to overall direction of the RMP, 

the BLM will prepare a plan amendment and 

environmental analysis of appropriate scope in 

making its determinations and in seeking public 

comment.

This chapter is intended to serve as a framework 

to guide implementation, monitoring and adaptive management for the RMP. It is anticipated 

that further refinements of this process will be 

necessary as the implementation process proceeds.

timeframes for implementation

The RMP will be implemented over a roughly 

10-15 year timeframe, as funding allows. Some 

of the land use plan decisions are effective 

upon approval of this document. However, 

many decisions will take a number of years 

to implement on the ground. Project-level 

(implementation) decisions in this RMP will 

require the preparation of detailed, project-level 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analyses prior to implementation.

REFINING LANDSCAPE DECISIONS 

AND INFORMATION TO SITE-SPECIFIC

LEVELS

The RMP contains general direction and context 

for the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument 

(CSNM) and makes decisions on specific actions 

for some issues. The RMP reviews the information at the larger landscape scale and sets the 

context and priorities for subsequent planning 

and decisions at finer scales. Many management 

actions necessary to achieve landscape objectives 

(e.g., forest restoration treatments, livestock management) will require further site-specific analysis 

and additional decisions. This additional analysis 

will:

•	 Validate, refine, or add to information 

concerning current and historical resource 

conditions;

•	 Address issues not appropriately addressed at 

the landscape scale;

•	 Prioritize efforts to maximize the likelihood 

of meeting management goals and objectives;

•	 Guide the type, location, and sequence of 

appropriate management activities; and

•	 Identify monitoring and research needs.

This process is designed to ensure that landscape 

decisions are viewed within the context of sitespecific conditions, and that site-specific decisions 

are made within the context of landscape goals 

and objectives.

Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis).
Resource Management Plan

120 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 3—Implementation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework

ing projects may be developed as part of plan 

implementation.

Monitoring results will provide managers with 

the information to determine whether an objective has been met, and whether to continue or 

modify the management direction. Findings 

obtained through monitoring, research, and other 

new information, will provide a basis for changing monument management. The monitoring 

strategy will be periodically evaluated to ensure 

that the monitoring questions and standards are 

still relevant. Adjustment to the monitoring strategy will be made as appropriate. Some monitoring items may be discontinued and others may 

be added as knowledge and issues change with 

implementation. Priorities will be given for monitoring mandated by executive order or legislation.

Determining the specific monitoring approach for 

any question depends on knowledge of detailed 

information on existing conditions. For example, 

trend assessment requires first gathering baseline 

or status information. The collection of baseline 

information is currently being conducted in the 

monument. Landscape-scale vegetation assessments, range utilization transects, archaeology 

inventories, surveys and monitoring for special 

status species, and visitor-use inventories are just a 

few of the multi-year projects that have occurred 

or are continuing within the monument. Data 

from these projects are integral to monitoring 

trends. Monitoring strategies must also identify 

other techniques (remote sensing, sample-based 

studies, modeling) that may be necessary to get 

a complete picture of structure and pattern of 

monument resources. Successful implementation 

of large-scale monitoring may require a combination of approaches.

The monitoring process will collect information in 

the most cost-effective manner possible, and may 

involve sampling or remote sensing. Monitoring 

could be cost prohibitive if not designed carefully. 

Therefore, it is not be necessary or desirable to 

monitor every management action or direction. 

Unnecessary detail and unacceptable costs will be 

avoided by focusing on key monitoring questions 

and proper sampling methods. The level and 

intensity of monitoring will vary, depending on 

the sensitivity of the resource, process or trend 

and the scope of the proposed management 

FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING, 

EVALUATION AND ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management, as defined here, is a 

process for continually improving management 

actions and policies by learning from the 

outcomes of operational programs and 

new scientific information. Using adaptive 

management, plans and activities are treated as 

“works-in-progress” rather than final solutions 

to complex problems. The process generally 

includes four phases: planning, implementation, 

monitoring, and evaluation (Figure 3-1). 

The planning and implementation phases 

are discussed above. This section focuses on 

monitoring and evaluation, which will lead 

to changes in planning and implementation 

activities.

Figure 3-1. Adaptive management process.

This section provides a framework for developing a specific monitoring and evaluation program 

which will measure the conditions and trends 

in the monument. The information developed 

through the monitoring process will be used to 

assess management strategies, alter decisions 

(which may require a plan amendment), change 

implementation, or maintain current management 

direction.

monitoring

An initial step in developing a monitoring program is to define the questions which need to be 

answered in order to evaluate the attainment of 

landscape management goals and objectives in 

the plan. These questions can be used to develop 

a monitoring strategy on appropriate issues and 

avoid gathering information that has limited 

value. Ongoing and proposed monitoring projects 

are detailed in Appendix I. Additional monitor-
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 121

Chapter 3—Implementation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework

activity. As mentioned above, the design of the 

monitoring program will allow flexibility to 

add data collection needs identified through the 

assessments and planning processes. Monument 

planning, however, will also incorporate 

monitoring and evaluation information to ensure 

that the latest information is used in the selection 

of management actions.

evaluation

Evaluation is the next key component of the 

adaptive management process. Evaluation is the 

process in which the plan and monitoring data are 

reviewed to see if management goals and objectives are being met and if management direction 

is sound. This portion of the adaptive management strategy examines the monitoring data and 

uses it to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated goals and objectives and, if not, why. The conclusions are used 

to make recommendations on whether to continue current management strategies or to make 

changes in management practices to meet plan 

goals and objectives.

Formal plan evaluation will occur at about fiveyear intervals and evaluate:

1. whether management actions are resulting in 

satisfactory progress toward objectives;

2. whether actions are consistent with current 

policy;

3. whether original assumptions were correctly 

applied and impacts correctly predicted;

4. whether mitigation measures are satisfactory;

5. whether the RMP is consistent with the plans 

and policies of state and local government, 

other federal agencies and Indian Tribes;

6. whether new data are available that would 

require alteration of the plan; and

7. whether the RMP is still valid or needs to be 

amended or revised.

adaptive management

The evaluation process will generate new information that needs to be incorporated into 

management actions. Ongoing assessments and 

integrated activity planning will also uncover new 

information that can be used to make changes to 

projects, strategies, objectives, and monitoring 

elements. New information may result in any of 

the following:

•	 Concluding that management actions are 

moving the landscape towards the plan objectives. In this case, management actions are 

affirmed and may not need to be adjusted.

•	 Concluding that further research needs to be 

initiated or actions must be adjusted to more 

efficiently achieve landscape objectives. If new 

information or research demonstrates better 

ways to achieve plan objectives, changes in 

activity planning and project implementation can be made (i.e., plan maintenance). 

Depending upon the nature of the management changes, NEPA analysis may be 

required.

•	 Concluding that landscape objectives should 

be altered based on new information. If the 

new information indicates reconsideration 

of plan objectives, a plan amendment could 

be considered to re-examine targeted future 

conditions and the means to reach those 

conditions.

Osprey nest on Hyatt Lake.
Resource Management Plan

122 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Chapter 3—Implementation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework

role of csnm staff

The monument technical staff is responsible for 

implementing monitoring and adaptive management protocols and ensuring that documentation 

is sufficient to facilitate feedback into the adaptive 

management process. These specialists, representing the major land management disciplines (e.g., 

botany, fisheries, hydrology, ecology, wildlife, 

range, forestry and recreation) are responsible 

for ensuring that monitoring results and other 

new information are compiled, evaluated, and 

incorporated into future rounds of planning and 

implementation.

The credibility of an adaptive management 

process rests in part on the routine application 

of an outside check on the use of technical and 

scientific information, including monitoring. Independent reviews and partnerships with outside 

groups (e.g., Oregon State University, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service) can provide verification that 

plans, evaluation and changes in management 

strategies are consistent with current scientific 

concepts. In addition, collaboration with the local 

communities, monument interest groups, and 

users of the monument ensure credibility and the 

success of managing the unique elements of the 

CSNM.

consultation, Coordination and 

collaboration

This RMP has been prepared with close coordination and collaboration with other Federal agencies; 

state, local and tribal governments; and other interested parties. Collaborative approaches to implementation are necessary to assure success. While 

the BLM retains the responsibility and authority 

for land management decisions, these decisions are 

more meaningful, effective, and longer lasting if 

done in a collaborative and open process. Therefore, 

close working relationships between management 

and regulatory agencies need to be developed and 

maintained. In addition, others outside of the BLM 

(e.g., state and local agencies, universities, volunteers) should be involved in subsequent analysis, 

monitoring, evaluation, research, and adaptive 

management processes. Efforts will include forming partnerships to complete assessments, establish 

baseline data, monitor, and modify management 

actions as a result of these processes.

Jenny Creek at the former Box O Ranch.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP 123

List of Preparers

list of preparers

Steve Bridges, Fire Prevention and Supression 

Specialist: B.S. Northern Arizona University; 25 

years Oregon Department of Forestry.

Dennis Byrd, Park Ranger/Outdoor Recreation 

Planner: B.S. Forest Recreation Resources, Oregon State University; 7 years BLM. 

Greg Chandler, Fuels Specialist: B.S./M.S. 

Forestry, Southern Illinois University; 26 years 

BLM.

John Gerritsma, Monument Manager: B.S. Forest Management, Northern Arizona University; 

28 years Forest Service, 1 year BLM.

Steve Godwin, Wildlife Biologist: B.S. Wildlife, 

Dana College, Nebraska; 16 years BLM.

Kimberly Hackett, Range Management Specialist: B.S. Wildlife Science/Range Science Emphasis, New Mexico State University; 19 years BLM.

Joseph Hoppe, Reality Specialist: B.A. Geography, University of Montana; B.S. Forestry, 

Oregon State University; 27 years BLM. 

Paul Hosten, Ecologist: Ph.D, Utah State University; M.S., University of Natal; B.S.(hons), 

Rhodes University, South Africa; B.S., University 

of Port Elizabeth, South Africa; 11 years BLM. 

Howard Hunter, Assistant Monument Manager: 

B.S. Forest Management/Recreation, Humboldt 

State University; 29 years BLM. 

Laurie Lindell, Hydrologist: M.S. Hydrology and 

Water Resources, Colorado State University; 27 

years BLM. 

Charley Martin, Fire Ecologist: B.S. Geography/

Forestry, Southern Illinois University; Graduate 

Studies, Colorado State University and Washington State University; 21 years USDA Forest 

Service, 7 years BLM.

Mark Mousseaux, Botanist: B.S. Forest 

Resources and M.S. Forest Science, University 

of Idaho; 16 years USDA Forest Service, 7 years 

BLM. 

Kathy Minor, Monument Planner/Geographic 

Information Specialist: M.F. Forest Engineering 

with Minor in Hydrology, Oregon State University; B.S. Forest Management, Humboldt State 

University; 17 years Forest Service, 5 years BLM. 

Chris Owens, Law Enforcement Ranger: B.A. 

Criminal Justice, Southeastern Oklahoma State 

University; Graduate NRPT-301, Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center; 5 years BLM.

Dave Russell, Silviculturist: B.S. Forestry 

and M.S. Forest Pathology, Michigan State 

University; 27 years BLM. 

John Samuelson, Supervisory Forester/Lead 

Engineer: B.S. Forest Management, University 

of Minnesota; Graduate Study, Oregon State 

University; 29 years BLM.

Steve Slavik, Range Management Specialist: B.S. 

Rangeland/Forest Management, Colorado State 

University; 3 years City of Boulder, CO, 17 years 

BLM. 

Jennifer Smith, Fisheries Biologist: M.S. 

Environmental Science/Education, Southern 

Oregon University; B.S. Biology, University 

of Oregon; 15 years as fisheries and riparian 

biologist working for various federal, state, and 

private agencies. 
124 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
cascade-siskiyou national monument

appendices
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix A—Presidential Proclamation

A-1

appendix a

Presidential Proclamation 7318

June 9, 2000

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CASCADESISKIYOU NATIONAL MONUMENT

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION

With towering fir forests, sunlit oak groves, 

wildflower-strewn meadows, and steep canyons, 

the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is 

an ecological wonder, with biological diversity 

unmatched in the Cascade Range. This rich 

enclave of natural resources is a biological 

crossroads -- the interface of the Cascade, 

Klamath, and Siskiyou ecoregions, in an area of 

unique geology, biology, climate, and topography.

The monument is home to a spectacular variety of 

rare and beautiful species of plants and animals, 

whose survival in this region depends upon its 

continued ecological integrity. Plant communities present a rich mosaic of grass and shrublands, 

Garry and California black oak woodlands, 

juniper scablands, mixed conifer and white fir 

forests, and wet meadows. Stream bottoms 

support broad-leaf deciduous riparian trees and 

shrubs. Special plant communities include rosaceous chaparral and oak-juniper woodlands. The 

monument also contains many rare and endemic 

plants, such as Greene’s Mariposa lily, Gentner’s 

fritillary, and Bellinger’s meadowfoam.

The monument supports an exceptional range of 

fauna, including one of the highest diversities of 

butterfly species in the United States. The Jenny 

Creek portion of the monument is a significant 

center of fresh water snail diversity, and is home 

to three endemic fish species, including a longisolated stock of redband trout. The monument 

contains important populations of small mammals, reptile and amphibian species, and ungulates, including important winter habitat for deer. 

It also contains old growth habitat crucial to the 

threatened Northern spotted owl and numerous 

other bird species such as the western bluebird, 

the western meadowlark, the pileated woodpecker, the flammulated owl, and the pygmy nuthatch.

The monument’s geology contributes substantially 

to its spectacular biological diversity. The majority of the monument is within the Cascade Mountain Range. The western edge of the monument 

lies within the older Klamath Mountain geologic 

province. The dynamic plate tectonics of the area, 

and the mixing of igneous, metamorphic, and 

sedimentary geological formations, have resulted 

in diverse lithologies and soils. Along with periods of geological isolation and a range of environmental conditions, the complex geologic history 

of the area has been instrumental in producing 

the diverse vegetative and biological richness seen 

today.

One of the most striking features of the Western 

Cascades in this area is Pilot Rock, located near 

the southern boundary of the monument. The 

rock is a volcanic plug, a remnant of a feeder vent 

left after a volcano eroded away, leaving an outstanding example of the inside of a volcano. Pilot 

Rock has sheer, vertical basalt faces up to 400 

feet above the talus slope at its base, with classic 

columnar jointing created by the cooling of its 

andesite composition.

The Siskiyou Pass in the southwest corner of the 

monument contains portions of the Oregon/California Trail, the region’s main north/south travel 

route first established by Native Americans in 

prehistoric times, and used by Peter Skene Ogden 

in his 1827 exploration for the Hudson’s Bay 

Company.

Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 

225, 16 U.S.C. 43 1), authorizes the President, 

in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric 

structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands 

owned or controlled by the Government of the 

United States to be national monuments, and to 

reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits 

of which in all cases shall be confined to the 

smallest area compatible with the proper care and 

management of the objects to be protected.

WHEREAS it appears that it would be in the 

public interest to reserve such lands as a national 

monument to be known as the Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument:
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix A—Presidential Proclamation

A-2

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. 

CLINTON, President of the United States 

of America, by the authority vested in me by 

section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 

225, 16 U.S.C. 43 1), do proclaim that there are 

hereby set apart and reserved as the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument, for the purpose of 

protecting the objects identified above, all lands 

and interests in lands owned or controlled by the 

United States within the boundaries of the area 

described on the map entitled “Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument” attached to and forming a 

part of this proclamation. The Federal land and 

interests in land reserved consist of approximately 

52,000 acres, which is the smallest area 

compatible with the proper care and management 

of the objects to be protected.

All Federal lands and interests in lands within 

the boundaries of this monument are hereby 

appropriated and withdrawn from all forms of 

entry, location, selection, sale, or leasing or other 

disposition under the public land laws, including 

but not limited to withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from 

disposition under all laws relating to mineral and 

geothermal leasing, other than by exchange that 

furthers the protective purposes of the monument.

There is hereby reserved, as of the date of this 

proclamation and subject to valid existing rights, 

a quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes for which this monument is established. 

Nothing in this reservation shall be construed as 

a relinquishment or reduction of any water use 

or rights reserved or appropriated by the United 

States on or before the date of this proclamation.

The commercial harvest of timber or other 

vegetative material is prohibited, except when 

part of an authorized science-based ecological 

restoration project aimed at meeting protection 

and old growth enhancement objectives. Any 

such project must be consistent with the purposes 

of this proclamation. No portion of the monument shall be considered to be suited for timber 

production, and no part of the monument shall be 

used in a calculation or provision of a sustained 

yield of timber. Removal of trees from within 

the monument area may take place only if clearly 

needed for ecological restoration and maintenance 

or public safety.

For the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, the Secretary of the Interior shall 

prohibit all motorized and mechanized vehicle 

use off road and shall close the Schoheim Road, 

except for emergency or authorized administrative 

purposes.

Lands and interests in lands within the monument not owned by the United States shall be 

reserved as a part of the monument upon acquisition of title thereto by the United States.

The Secretary of the Interior shall manage the 

monument through the Bureau of Land Management, pursuant to applicable legal authorities 

(including, where applicable, the Act of August 

28, 1937, as amended (43 U.S.C. 11 8 la-I 18 lj)), 

to implement the purposes of this proclamation.

The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare, within 

3 years of this date, a management plan for this 

monument, and shall promulgate such regulations 

for its management as he deems appropriate. The 

management plan shall include appropriate transportation planning that addresses the actions, 

including road closures or travel restrictions, 

necessary to protect the objects identified in this 

proclamation.

The Secretary of the Interior shall study the 

impacts of livestock grazing on the objects of 

biological interest in the monument with specific 

attention to sustaining the natural ecosystem 

dynamics. Existing authorized permits or 

leases may continue with appropriate terms and 

conditions under existing laws and regulations. 

Should grazing be found incompatible with 

protecting the objects of biological interest, the 

Secretary shall retire the grazing allotments 

pursuant to the processes of applicable law. 

Should grazing permits or leases be relinquished 

by existing holders, the Secretary shall not 

reallocate the forage available under such permits 

or for livestock grazing purposes unless the 

Secretary specifically finds, pending the outcome 

of the study, that such reallocation will advance 

the purposes of the proclamation.

The establishment of this monument is subject to 

valid existing rights.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix A—Presidential Proclamation

A-3

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed 

to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the 

State of Oregon with respect to fish and wildlife 

management.

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to 

revoke any existing withdrawal,

reservation, or appropriation; however, the national monument shall be the dominant reservation.

Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove 

any feature of this monument and not to locate or 

settle upon any of the lands thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 

set my hand this ninth day of June, in the year of 

our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence 

of the United States of America the two hundred 

and twenty-fourth.

 

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
A-4 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix B—Antiquities Act

B-1

appendix b

Antiquities act of 1906

Act of June 18, 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433 (Popularly known as the Antiquities Act of 1906)

The following is the text of the Antiquities Act 

of 1906, under the authority of which President 

Clinton established the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

16 U.S.C. § 431 National monuments; reservation of lands; relinquishment of private claims:

The President of the United States is authorized, 

in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric 

structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands 

owned or controlled by the Government of the 

United States to be national monuments, and may 

reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits 

of which in all cases shall be confined to the 

smallest area compatible with the proper care and 

management of the objects to be protected. When 

such objects are situated upon a tract covered by 

a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private 

ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may 

be necessary for the proper care and management 

of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts 

in behalf of the Government of the United States.
B-2 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix C—Conservation Measures for ESA Species

C-1

appendix c

conservation measures for

endangered species act species

Northern Spotted Owl

Gentner’s Fritillary

Bald Eagle
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix C—Conservation Measures for ESA Species

C-2 Table C-1. Conservation Measures for Listed Species

ACTIVI

T

Y LISTED SPECIE

S

Tree Harvest Bald Eagle Northern Spotted Owl Gentner’s FritillaryTimber harvest (includes tree salvage)/ large tree thinning /oak woodland restoration 

•	No harvest of eagle nest, perch, or

roost trees.

•	No eagle habitat removal within

1⁄4 mile of nests/roosts.

•	No suitable/potential perches

removed within 1⁄2 mile of nests/roosts—public safety is an exception (see Hazard Tree Removal below).

•	No work or other activities above

ambient levels permitted within 1⁄4 mile of active nests/roosts (non line-of-sight), or 1⁄2 mile (line-ofsite) from January 1- August 31 (nesting season) and November 15 – March 15 (winter roosting).

•	No blasting within 1 mile of

active nest sites from January 1–August 31.

•	No work activities that produce noise above

ambient levels are permitted within specified distances (see below) of active or unsurveyed nest and activity centers between March 1 and June 30, or until 2 weeks after fledging.

Examples of activities and restricted distances:

•	 Blasting (> 2# explosive – 1 mi.)•	 Blasting (< 2# explosive – 360 ft •	 Helicopters/Planes

– 360 ft.

•	 Chainsaws

– 195 ft.

•	 Jackhammers

– 180 ft.

•	 Heavy Equipment

– 105 ft.

•	Restrictions can be waived if protocol

surveys show non-nesting or failed nesting.

•	Pre-decisional surveys required.•	25-foot radius no activity buffer around

occurrence boundary.

•	100-foot no equipment buffer around

occurrence boundary.

•	No new landings within 300 feet of known

sites.

•	Use of existing landing within 100 feet of

known sites not allowed. 

•	Manual treatment through buffers allowed if

canopy retention over plants is greater than 40% and during the dormant period (August–February). 

•	Cut material piled outside buffers.

Hazard Tree Removal See tree harvest restrictions. 

However, if necessary, restrictions can be waived to provide for public safety. Waiver requires Level 1Team review.

See tree harvest restrictions. However, if necessary, restrictions can be waived to provide for public safety. 

None

– site specific conservation measures

discretionary.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix C—Conservation Measures for ESA Species

C-3

Vegetation Management Bald Eagle Northern Spotted Owl Gentner’s FritillaryYoung stand and understory thinning. 

See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	Pre-decisional surveys if more than 5

years since last survey.

•	25-foot buffers.•	Manual treatment allowed in buffers if

canopy retention greater than 40% and during the dormant period (August – February).

•	100-foot no equipment buffer.

Gopher trapping See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. No trapping within 25-foot buffers.Mechanical thinning / brushing or heavy equipment.

See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. 100-foot no equipment buffer.

Tree Planting See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. No tree planting within 100 feet of 

occurrence boundary.

Hand Pruning See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. Allowed through buffered sites, remove 

material from buffer.

Fertilizing See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. No fertilization within 50 feet of buffered 

occurrences.

Special Forest ProductsSFP Collections See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. No SFP collection within known sites

(25 feet). 

Watershed RestorationBlasting and low level air-operations

See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. See culvert installation/replacement below.

Culvert installation/ replacement

See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	Survey suitable, intact habitat and

protect occurrence by site specific mitigation. 

•	Surveys of previously disturbed sites

within the prism and cut-bank inlet and fill outlet are not required. 

In-stream work and equipment

See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	Survey suitable habitat in equipment

access corridors. 

•	Buffer known sites by 100 feet.

Table C-1. Conservation Measures for Listed Species

ACTIVI

T

Y LISTED SPECIE

S
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix C—Conservation Measures for ESA Species

C-4

Fuels Management Bald Eagle Northern Spotted Owl Gentner’s Fritillary(Includes air operations, slashing, prescribed burning)

•	See tree harvest restrictions.•	Burning or air operations will not take place

within 1⁄2 mile of active eagle nests/roosts from January 1-August 31 (nests) and November 15-March 15 (roosts).

•	When burning within 1 mile of an active

nest/roost, ensure that the prescription incorporates smoke management goals.

•	See tree harvest restrictions.•	Broadcast burning will not take place

within 1⁄4 mile of active nests from March 1-June 30 or until two weeks after fledging.

•	Helicopter operations over suitable

NSO habitat will be greater than 360 feet above ground level.

•	Minimum 25-foot no-treatment buffer

for fuels treatments.

•	Hand slashing (chain/brush saws)

during the dormant period allowed if a minimum of 40% canopy cover retained. If canopy already less than 40%, then no treatment in the buffer is needed.

•	Remove cut slash from the 25-foot

buffer and place 25 feet from the buffer edge. No slash piling or burning within 50 feet of the occurrence. 

•	Broadcast burning through buffers

allowed during the dormant period (August-February).

•	No mechanical treatments within 100

feet of occurrence; 100-foot buffer required.

Table C-1. Conservation Measures for Listed Species

ACTIVI

T

Y LISTED SPECIE

S
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix C—Conservation Measures for ESA Species

C-5

Wildland Fire Bald Eagle Northern Spotted Owl Gentner’s Fritillary

•	Minimize noise disturbance from January 1

- August 31 within 1 mile of active nests. 

•	Minimize repeated aircraft flights over nests

when the flights are less than 1,500 feet above ground level. 

•	Do not fly over nest sites with buckets (except

to protect the nest).

•	Minimize use of explosives within 1 air mile 

of nests. 

•	Place camps and staging areas over a mile

from nest sites prior to August 31.

•	Make available to line officers and incident

commanders all information on listed species to minimize impacts and protect sites when possible.

•	If implementation of conservation

measures causes human safety risks, then implementation is discretionary and emergency consultation may be required.

•	Minimize noise disturbance from

March 1– June 30 within 360 feet of occupied stands. 

•	Minimize repeated aircraft flights less

than 360 feet above ground level. 

•	Minimize use of explosives within 1

air mile of nests. 

•	Make available to line officers and 

incident commanders all information on listed species locations to minimize impacts and protect sites when possible.

•	If implementation of conservation

measures causes human safety risks, then implementation is discretionary and emergency consultation may be required.

•	Protect known sites occurrences

from high severity fire and ground disturbing activities (line building) if possible.

•	Make available to line officers and 

incident commanders all information on listed species locations to minimize impacts and protect sites when possible.

•	If implementation of conservation 

measures causes human safety risks, then implementation is discretionary and emergency consultation may be required.

Table C-1. Conservation Measures for Listed Species

ACTIVI

T

Y LISTED SPECIE

S
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix C—Conservation Measures for ESA Species

C-6

Recreation Bald Eagle Northern Spotted Owl Gentner’s FritillaryNew recreation facilities construction and trail construction

Do not construct facilities or trails within 1⁄2 mile of active nests or roosts. 

See tree harvest restrictions above. •	Surveys of suitable habitat.

•	Protect occurrences with 100 foot

buffers.

Recreation maintenance (including trail maintenance, brushing, signing, post holes)

See tree harvest restrictions above. See tree harvest restrictions above. •	No surveys required.

•	Develop site specific conservation

measures to protect known sites.

Recreation use Restrict picnicking, camping, firearm use, and

low level aircraft operations within 1⁄2 mile of active nests and roosts from January 1- August 31 (nests) and November 15-March 15 (roosts).

None. None required

– if possible, monitor sites

and develop site specific conservationmeasures to protect known sites. 

Livestock GrazingExisting permitted grazing None. None. Monitor sites and develop site specific

conservation measures to protect known sites. 

Allotment renewals / new permits & allotments

None. None. Pre-decisional surveys and

implementation of site specific protectionmeasures (e.g., change timing, intensity, duration, or fence populations).

Table C-1. Conservation Measures for Listed Species

ACTIVI

T

Y LISTED SPECIE

S
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix C—Conservation Measures for ESA Species

C-7

Table C-1. Conservation Measures for Listed Species

ACTIVI

T

Y LISTED SPECIE

S

Road/Engineering Bald Eagle Northern Spotted Owl Gentner’s FritillaryRoad construction See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	Pre-disturbance surveys of suitable

habitat.

•	100-foot buffer for existing sites.

Road maintenance See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	No pre-disturbance surveys.

•	Protect known sites on road edge

with site specific mitigation.

Decommissioning See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	Disturbance within the road prism

– no surveys.

•	Disturbance outside the road prism.

Road Use &Special Use PermitsROW & Road use permits Consult on individual projects if there is a “may 

affect” determination.

Consult on individual projects if there is a “may affect” determination. 

None

Special uses – Facilities construction

Consult on individual projects if there is a “may affect” determination.

See tree harvest restrictions above •	Survey suitable intact habitat.

•	Protect occurrences by 100 foot noactivity buffer.

Special uses - Maintenance See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	No surveys.

•	Protect known sites by site specific

conservation measures.

Research collection permits Collection permit from USFWS required Collection permit from USFWS required. Collection permit from USFWS 

required.

Quarry/Rock PitsNew quarries

& development

of existing quarries

 See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	Survey suitable habitat for quarry

development.

•	Protect sites by a 100-foot buffer.

Quarry reclamation See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	Surveys if intact suitable habitat

affected; no surveys required within the disturbed quarry. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix C—Conservation Measures for ESA Species

C-8

Cultural Resources Bald Eagle Northern Spotted Owl Gentner’s Fritillary

See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	Areas proposed for excavation in

suitable habitat must be surveyed and occupied sites identified. 

•	No digging of plants allowed.

Noxious Weed ControlRoadside weeds See tree harvest restrictions. None. •	No surveys required within the

previously disturbed road prism (cut-slope, bed, & fill slope).

•	Protect known sites and individual

plants from weed treatments. 

Non-roadside See tree harvest restrictions. See tree harvest restrictions. •	Survey suitable habitat.

•	25-foot buffers.•	Manual treatments (hand pulling,

hot foam, chemical wicking) allowed in buffered occurrences only on individual weeds.

•	No spot spraying within 25-foot

buffer.

•	Reseed with native species at

density appropriate for the location.

Table C-1. Conservation Measures for Listed Species

ACTIVI

T

Y LISTED SPECIE

S
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix D—Wildland Fire Occurance and Risk Assessment

D-1

appendix d

wildland fire occurance and 

risk assessment

Overview

This appendix explains some of the different 

variables and tools used throughout the planning 

process to help determine the role that fire has 

played in shaping the monument’s ecosystem, the 

effects of fire exclusion and other human influences on the ecosystem, and the degree to which 

fire hazard has been elevated across the landscape 

and the risk this poses to monument and human 

resources. These variables are listed below and are 

discussed in more detail in the remainder of this 

appendix: 

•	 Wildland fire history 

•	 Fire suppression data

•	 Fire risk

•	 Fire hazard rating

•	 Natural fire regimes

•	 Degree of departure from natural fire regime 

(condition class)

Wildfire History 

In terms of its history throughout southwest 

Oregon, fire is recognized as a key natural 

disturbance process (Atzet and Wheeler 1982). 

Human-caused and lightning fires have been a 

source of disturbance to the landscape for thousands of years. Native Americans influenced 

vegetation patterns for over a thousand years by 

igniting fires to enhance values that were important to their culture (Pullen 1995). Eventually, 

early Euro-American settlers to this area used fire 

to improve grazing and farming and to expose 

rock and soil for mining. Thus, fire has played an 

important role in influencing vegetative successional processes. Observations based on fire scars 

and vegetative patterns indicate that large fires 

were a common occurrence in the area and were 

of varying severity.

Fire Suppression Data

Fire suppression data over the past 37 years show 

that 143 of the 250 fires that occurred within the 

greater monument boundary were on public land. 

One hundred and seven fires started on private 

land. Most of the fires (81 percent) were less 

than 0.25 acres; 43 fires were between 0.26 and 

10 acres; four fires were between 10.01 and 100 

acres; and the largest fire during this time period 

was 441 acres. Initial attack was done primarily 

(95 percent) with hand crews and engines. Approximately 50 percent of the fires occurred under 

high to extreme fire danger ratings (as determined 

by the Oregon Department of Forestry). 

Of all the fires that started between 1967 and 

2003, lightning accounted for 136 fires (54 percent). Lightning was the main cause of fires that 

started on public land (64 percent), while humancaused fires where the main source of fire starts 

on private land (59 percent).

Fire Risk

The following formula was used to determine the 

monument’s fire occurrence rate per decade per 

1,000 acres: 

Fire Occurrence Rate/Decade/1,000 Acres = 

{(X/Y)*10}/Z, where

X = number of starts recorded for the area from 

the fire start data base,

Y = period of time covered by the data base,

Z = number of acres analyzed (displayed in 

thousands).

Thus, using the fire history data for the past 37 

years, the fire occurrence rate within the greater 

monument boundary is calculated as follows:

{(250/37)*10}/85.173 = 0.79 fires/decade/1,000 

acres

This fire occurrence rate corresponds to the moderate fire risk category below which projects that 

one fire will occur every 11 to 20 years on each 

1,000 acres.

•	 Low Risk: fire occurrence rate = 0 - 0.49 

fires/decade/1,000 acres; this projects one fire 

every 20 or more years/thousand acres.

•	 Moderate Risk: fire occurrence rate = 0.5 - 

0.99 fires/decade/1,000 acres; this projects 

one fire every 11 - 20 years/thousand acres.

•	 High Risk: fire occurrence rate = greater than 

0.99 fires/decade/1,000 acres; this projects 

one fire every 0 - 10 years/thousand acres.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix D—Wildland Fire Occurance and Risk Assessment

D-2

This risk category is consistent with the fire risk 

for the same time period over the entire Medford 

District.

Fire Hazard Rating 

To determine a “fire hazard rating” vegetation 

is first assessed by type, arrangement, volume, 

condition, and location. Next, the analysis looks 

at how these characteristics combine to determine 

the threat of ignition, the spread of fire, and difficulty of control. Fire hazard rating is a useful 

tool in the planning process because it helps in 

prioritizing watersheds and broad areas within 

a watershed in need of fuels management treatment. For purposes of this plan, fire hazard rating 

was determined at a broad-scale level (utilizing 

satellite data in combination with other factors); 

planning for site-specific projects would further 

analyze assumptions made in this plan.

In the fall of 1995, a team of fuel management 

specialists from the Medford BLM and Rogue 

River National Forest developed a standard method for assigning a fire hazard rating to local areas. 

Based on knowledge of fire behavior of southwest 

Oregon, the following factors were determined to 

be necessary in order to assign a fire hazard rating 

to an area: 

•	 fuel model

•	 presence of ladder fuels

•	 slope

•	 aspect

•	 elevation

The following point system was then developed 

by the team and assigned to each factor to determine the fire hazard rating for the monument: 

Fuel Models (fuel models are defined in 

Appendix K of the draft plan)

1. Fuel Models 1,2,3,8 ........ 0 points

2. Fuel Models 5,6,9 .......... 5 points

3. Fuel Models 11,10 ......... 10 points

4. Fuel Models 4,12,13 ....... 15 points

Presence of Ladder Fuels ..... 10 points

Slope

< 20% slope ......................................5 points

20% - 45% slope............................ 10 points

> 45% slope ................................... 25 points

Aspect

315 - 360 & 0 - 68 degrees ........... 5 points

68 - 135 & 293 - 315 degrees ......10 points

135 - 293 degrees .....................15 points

Elevation

> 4,500 feet ............................10 points

Hazard ratings are based on the total number of 

points assigned to each of the factors above (Table 

D-1): 

Table D-1. Hazard Rating Classes

Points Hazard Rating

0 - 24 Low

25 - 50 Moderate

> 50 High

Field inventory and satellite data were used to establish fuel models and the presence of ladder fuels for conifer stands within the CSNM. Satellite 

data was used for oak woodlands, shrublands and 

grasslands to establish fuel models. This information was analyzed in GIS along with information 

on slope, aspect and elevation to estimate a broad 

hazard rating for all lands within the greater 

monument boundary. 

A majority of the CSNM is estimated to have 

moderate or high fire hazard based on the factors 

described above (Table D-2).

Table D-2. Fire Hazard Ratings for the 

CSNM

Fire Hazard Rating Percentage of Acres in 

Each Category

Low hazard 2%

Moderate hazard 66%

High hazard 32%

Fire hazard ratings are developed at the landscape level. Actual fire hazard incorporating all 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix D—Wildland Fire Occurance and Risk Assessment

D-3

landscape features, including natural fuel breaks, 

would be used to assess fire hazard at the site-specific level. Fire hazard, in conjunction with fire 

risk and values at risk aid in prioritizing where 

fuels reduction work may be needed.

Fire Regime

A natural fire regime is a general classification of 

the role fire would play across a landscape in the 

absence of modern human intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 

1993, Brown 1995). Five broad-scale definitions 

for “natural”, or historic, fire regimes have been 

developed by Hardy et al. (2001) and Schmidt et 

al. (2002); these were subsequently interpreted for 

fire and fuels management by Hann and Bunnell 

(2001). The five natural fire regimes are classified 

based on the average number of years between 

fires (fire frequency) combined with the fire severity (amount of replacement) on the dominant 

overstory vegetation. 

Climate and topography combine to create the 

fire regimes found throughout the CSNM. As 

mentioned above, fire regime refers to the frequency, severity and extent of fires that would 

have naturally occurred in an area given the 

existing vegetation types (Agee 1991). The draft 

plan originally identified and mapped three 

fire regimes in the CSNM. Since the draft, the 

planning team determined that expanding the 

number of fire regimes would better reflect the 

diversity of the area. These regimes are used nationally as a foundation for “A Cohesive Strategy 

for Protecting People and Natural Resources” 

(Hardy et al. 2001, Schmidt et al. 2002, Hann 

and Brunnell 2001). 

As the scale of application becomes finer, these 

regimes may be defined with more detail, or any 

one regime may be further divided. Due to the 

wide variation of fire affects on vegetation and 

in some cases the longevity of return interval 

between fire events in the Pacific Northwest, the 

nationally developed fire regime categories have 

been supplemented by the regional ecology group 

to account for fire effect on ecosystem qualities. Listed below are the fire regimes that are 

recognized to exist within the Pacific Northwest 

region. Although they are still a broad evaluation 

for the monument site, they reflect more closely 

the effects of past fire activity on the vegetation of 

this local area at a landscape scale. 

A mid-scale assessment of fire regime and condition class based on plant series for southwest Oregon is currently being developed. Specific plant 

communities within the CSNM and the variation 

in their fire regimes would need to be assessed on 

a site-by-site basis and then considered with their 

relationship to the landscape as a whole. To derive 

vegetation descriptions of the historic landscapes 

for use as a reference condition, the planning 

team is using literature searches of historic accounts of the area, photo documentation, and surveyor accounts. From these historic descriptions, 

the fire regimes for the landscapes throughout the 

CSNM will be determined. 

When additional analysis is available, the monument’s five fire regimes will be mapped. With 

these delineations in place, it will be possible to 

qualitatively measure the effects of recent human 

activities and management on the ecosystems 

within the CSNM. 

Frequent Fire Regime Interval

Fire Regime I: Frequent fire return interval 

with surface fires of low severity 

A low-severity regime is characterized by nearly 

continual summer drought and frequent (0 - 35 

years) widespread fires that burn with low intensity. In general, these are savannah-type vegetation structures maintained by frequent fire. Fire 

Regime I also includes some frequent mixed-severity fires that created a mosaic of different aged 

post-fire open forest, early to mid-seral forest 

structural stages, and shrub or herb-dominated 

patches. In the monument, this regime is characterized by vegetation types such as open stands of 

hardwoods and mixed hardwood and pine, which 

are similar to the Interior Valley Vegetative Zone 

of Franklin and Dyrness (1988). These stands are 

located in the Siskiyou Foothills ecoregion (Map 

3) and at the lower elevation and more exposed 

sites of the monument’s other ecoregions. These 

plant communities historically recovered rapidly 

from fire and can be directly or indirectly dependent on fire for their continued persistence. The 

dominant trees within this regime are adapted to 

resist fire due to the thick bark they develop at a 

young age.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix D—Wildland Fire Occurance and Risk Assessment

D-4

In contrast, large areas of grasslands and woodlands of the CSNM appear to deviate from this 

pattern. Some plant communities of the southwest portion of the CSNM (including the Mariposa Lily Botanical Area) and along Highway 

66 show little change in aerial photo comparison 

(1939 versus current) and repeat photo analysis. Factors other than fire that may play a role 

in maintaining the static appearance of these 

grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands include 

soil characteristics, conversion to annual grass 

understory, or local extirpation of woody species 

by historic, season-long grazing practices. Areas 

within the monument that deviate from these 

general site qualities and the historic reference 

would be addressed at the site-specific level. 

Other influences to the sites, such as grazing, may 

have contributed in combination with missed fire 

cycles to affect their current condition.

Fire Regime II: Frequent fire return interval; high or replacement severity 

Typically, these are shrub or grasslands that are 

maintained by frequent fires. Fires may kill or 

consume non-sprouting shrubs, but the seed 

source in the soil is often stimulated by the fire’s 

heat. Fire removes the tops of sprouting shrubs, 

which typically resprout, becoming dominant 

within 5 - 15 years. More frequent fire return 

intervals can result in the local extirpation of both 

seed and resprout-dependent shrubs. The fires 

tend to kill most of the tree regeneration, such 

as juniper, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine. This 

regime would be represented in the CSNM by 

the thickets of wedgeleaf ceanothus (ceanothus 

cuneatus), whiteleaf manzanita (arctostaphylos 

viscida), and some of the open meadows. Frequent fire return intervals can range up to 50 

years. It is important to note that fire return 

intervals are difficult to determine for shrublands 

and chaparral. 

Infrequent Fire Regime Interval

Fire Regime III: Infrequent fire return interval with mixed fire severity 

Generally these sites display a mosaic of different age class vegetation that often ranges from 

post-fire open forest to early to mid-seral forest 

structural stages, with occasional shrub or herb 

dominated patches. This regime is associated with 

the Mixed Conifer Vegetative Zone of Franklin 

and Dyrness (1988). It is further characterized by 

long summer dry periods; fires are infrequent (35 

- 100 years). It is the most difficult fire regime to 

characterize and is often located in a transitional 

position between low and high elevation forests 

or plant communities. Fires burn with different 

degrees of severity within this regime and patches 

of varying sizes of mortality to all strata of the 

vegetation occur. Stand replacement fires, as well 

as low-intensity fires can occur, depending on 

burning conditions. The overall effect of fire on 

the landscape in this regime is a mosaic burn. The 

frequency with which the historic regimes vary 

across the Pacific Northwest—and in southwest 

Oregon, in particular—are of importance in understanding the departure in the current vegetation character from the historic character. The 

following variations in fire frequency and severity are recognized by the Oregon/Washington 

regional assessment for this fire regime:

Fire Regime III(a): < 50 years with mixed 

severity

Typical potential plant communities include 

mixed conifer, and very dry site westside Douglas-fir. Lower severity fires predominate in many 

events historically. Some of the monument mixed 

conifer sites will tend into this classification. 

Fire Regime III(b): 50 - 100 years with mixed 

severity

The amount of severe fire effects across landscapes 

in these historic events would range between the 

III(a) and III(c) Regimes. Within the monument 

the mid-elevation dry site white fir and some of 

the mixed conifer stands would fall into this classification. 

Fire Regime III(c): 100 - 200 years with mixed 

severity

Higher severity fires in larger patches of mortality 

dominated many of these historic events. High 

elevation stands of white fir and mixed conifer 

within the monument may be included in this 

classification. 

Fire Regime IV: Infrequent fire return interval with replacement fire severity

These sites are usually characterized by large 

patches (100+ acres) of similar age post-fire shrub 

or herb-dominated structures, or early to midseral forest cycled by infrequent fires. When fire 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix D—Wildland Fire Occurance and Risk Assessment

D-5

occurs on these sites, a high rate of mortality to 

the above-ground vegetation is seen over large 

portions of the landscape. In both Regimes III 

and IV, the fire return interval can be up to 200 

years. The main descriptors that provide the difference between Regimes III and IV are the fire 

effects on the above-ground vegetation.

The following variations in fire frequency and severity are recognized by the Oregon/Washington 

regional assessment for this fire regime: 

Fire Regime IV(a): 35 - 100 years high severity 

fires

These are forested stands that would typically 

be considered long-return fire interval, but are 

positioned upslope from shorter return interval 

systems. Often these upslope communities will 

show effects from more frequent fires and still 

retain qualities of longer return interval sites. 

Fire Regime IV(b): 100+ years high severity, 

patchy arrangement; typical interval 100 - 

150 years

Some high elevation white fir sites within the 

monument may be represented by this classification. These sites include the upper reaches of 

Chinquapin, Hobart and Soda mountains. 

Fire Regime IV(c): 100 - 200 years high severity

This regime is characterized by the White Fir 

Vegetation Zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). 

This environment typically has moist, cool 

conditions with infrequent fires. Accurate fire 

return intervals have not been calculated because 

of the long intervals between fires. When fires 

occur, they are due to unusual conditions, such 

as drought periods associated with high winds. 

Fires are of high intensity and normally are stand 

replacement fires. High elevation white fir stands 

within the CSNM would be represented by this 

fire disturbance regime. These include mesic sites 

present on the upper reaches of Chinquapin, 

Hobart and Soda mountains.

Long Interval Fire Regime

Fire Regime V: Rare or long fire return interval with replacement fire severity

Sites that rarely burn are described much the 

same as Fire Regime IV due to the similar effects 

to above ground vegetation. The key difference 

is the interval period between episodes is usually 

much longer (100 - 200+ years). This fire regime 

does not occur in the monument.

A close approximation of past frequency of fire 

occurrence, extent, and severity on particular sites 

is important in understanding the relative difference in vegetation and dead and down debris 

on these sites today. The change or departure on 

these sites in the amount of these materials has 

a direct relationship to the type of fire behavior and post-fire effects these sites will support 

today when compared to the past. Interruption of 

disturbance processes by excluding fire is only one 

management practice that has had an affect on 

specific areas within the monument. Other elements (e.g., climatic variation) and management 

practices in combination with fire exclusion are 

important to consider. In an assessment of sitespecific conditions, classifying the site’s current 

condition compared to a reference will give some 

indication of the change to the type of fire severity or fire behavior characteristics. The ability to 

predict potential fire behavior characteristics is 

important for understanding the risk to people 

and key ecological resources. 

Condition Classes

Characteristic vegetation and fuel conditions (as 

described above) are considered to be those that 

occurred within the natural, or historical fire regime. Uncharacteristic conditions are considered 

to be those that did not occur within the natural fire regime, such as invasive species (weeds), 

“high graded” forest composition and structure 

(e.g., large trees removed by harvesting timber), 

or repeated annual grazing that maintains grassy 

fuels across relatively large areas at levels that will 

not carry a surface fire. Further uncharacteristic 

conditions created by changes in structure and 

density contribute to more destructive insect and 

disease occurrence.

A fire regime condition class (FRCC) is based 

on a relative measure describing the degree of 

departure from the natural fire regime (Hann 

and Bunnell 2001). The condition class scale was 

developed to exhibit the departure in severity, 

intensity, and frequency of fires burning in the 

ecosystem in its current condition as compared 

to its historic condition. This departure results in 

changes to one (or more) of the following ecologi-
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix D—Wildland Fire Occurance and Risk Assessment

D-6

cal components: vegetation characteristics (species 

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy 

closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other 

associated disturbances (e.g., insect and diseasedrelated mortality, grazing, and drought). 

Determination of amount of departure is based 

on comparison of a composite measure of fire 

regime attributes (vegetation characteristics; fuel 

composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern) 

to the central tendency of the natural fire regime. 

The amount of departure is then classified to 

determine the fire regime condition class.

The means for making an assessment on how 

much fire exclusion, other human activity and 

management practices, and evolutionary tendencies, has affected an ecosystem is through classifying the current condition of the site based on 

a reference. This reference (fire regime) is usually 

historical, pre-dating when fire exclusion, the 

introduction of non-native species, and Eurosettlement activity and management, became an 

influence in these systems. Reference conditions 

are very useful as indicators of ecosystem function 

and sustainability, but do not necessarily represent 

desired future conditions, i.e., they may not reflect sustainable conditions under current climate, 

land use, or managerial constraints, and they may 

not be compatible with social expectations. 

Using the above delineations of the historic fire 

regimes, an assessment will be made as to the departure from the current condition of these landscapes compared to the historic reference. The risk 

of losing key components of the system from fire 

or other disturbance increases as the condition 

classes rise on the scale from one to three:

 

Condition Class 1 

For the most part, these ecosystems are currently 

within historical ranges. Key components of the 

ecosystem are not at risk of being lost due to 

wildfire effects. 

Condition Class 2

These ecosystems are moderately altered from 

their historical range at the patch and/or landscape scale by either increased or decreased fire 

frequency. They are at moderate risk of losing key 

components of their systems due to fire effects. 

Condition Class 3

These lands have been significantly altered from 

their historic range. Because fire regimes have 

been altered they are at risk of losing key components of their systems due to fire effects.

Although condition classes in the monument 

have not been determined, current information 

indicates that a component of grasslands, oak 

woodlands, and chaparral show the same vegetation structure depicted by cadastral surveys, 

historic photos, and archived aerial photos. These 

plant communities would be considered to be 

within the range of natural variability and thus 

in Condition Class 1. Other forest and woodland 

communities showing change throughout the 

monument would be in Condition Classes 2 and 

3. Much of the high elevation timbered lands 

of the CSNM are of the longer return intervals; 

these communities burn with stand replacement 

characteristics over moderately long periods of 

time between fire episodes. Examples of these 

vegetative types within the CSNM area are high 

elevation white fir, in a Condition Class 1 or 2 

based on the fire regime criteria.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix E—Prescribed Fire

E-1

appendix e

prescribed fire

Introduction

Prescribed burning is defined as fire applied by 

qualified personnel in a knowledgeable manner 

to vegetation (fuels) on a specific land area under 

selected weather conditions to accomplish predetermined, well-defined resource management 

objectives. Ash returns vital nutrients to life-supporting soils, which in turn provide for healthy 

vegetation and habitat for wildlife and birds. Fire 

reduces the number of small, competing trees, allowing established trees to grow healthier with a 

greater share of water and nutrients. Most importantly, prescribed fire can help protect public and 

private lands from the devastation of a wildfire 

by removing tangled undergrowth, accumulated 

dead material, and fine fuels. 

Prescribed fire is a complex tool. Only a certified fire management official is allowed to burn. 

Proper site analysis and detailed planning are 

mandatory before every prescribed burn. 

Policies and Plans

The 1995/2001 Revised Federal Wildland Fire 

Policy directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between suppression of wildfire to protect 

life, property, and resources, and fire use to 

regulate fuels and maintain healthy ecosystems. 

The policy requires that every area with burnable 

vegetation have an approved Fire Management 

Plan (FMP).

All use of prescribed fire is a coordinated interdisciplinary effort supported by resource and fire 

management. Resource management is responsible for managing vegetation, wildlife and soils. 

Fire management is responsible for identifying 

hazardous fuels situations and managing ignitions. The Fire Management Plan described here 

serves as the document to initiate, analyze, and 

provide the basis for using prescribed fire to meet 

resource objectives. Moreover, the FMP is the 

program strategy document for prescribed fire 

activities; it captures and quantifies the overall 

fuels management program needs of the area. The 

FMP identifies how prescribed fire, along with 

other fire management strategies, will be used to 

meet the overall land management goals identified in the RMP and in reality becomes part of 

the RMP. 

An integrated Fire Management Plan (FMP) is 

currently being written and includes the Medford/Coos BLM Districts, Rogue Siskiyou NF, 

Oregon Caves National Monument, SW Oregon 

Department of Forestry, and Coos Fire Protective Association. This cooperative planning effort 

will be based on resource management objectives 

from existing and developing Resource and Land 

Management Plans, local, state, and federal law, 

and interagency fire policy. In as much, the lands 

comprised within the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument will be addressed in this FMP in 

coordination with the resource and management 

objectives detailed in the monument’s final management plan and record of decision. 

Implementation of Prescribed Fire

Site Study

The first step in using prescribed fire is to study 

fire behavior, fire and smoke management, burning laws, plant responses, animal needs, and animal responses. Information of concern to locals 

is collected through public outreach and through 

collaboration with local landowners, businesses 

and ranchers. An interdisciplinary team of specialists in the areas of fuels, vegetation (botany, 

range), wildlife, soils, hydrology, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, etc., then 

compile a document that describes current and 

future desired resource management options. The 

end result is an Environmental Assessment (EA). 

An EA for fuels hazard reduction contains all of 

the acceptable fire and fuels management options 

for the area of interest.

Burn Plan

The prescribed fire (burn) plan is a site-specific 

operational plan that describes the purpose, 

resource and fire objectives, and operation procedures required to properly plan, safely implement, 

monitor (observation, measurement), and evaluate 

fire and resource objectives for this type of treatment. It is a stand-alone document that provides 

the project manager with all the information 

needed to implement the project. Fire managers 

maintain close coordination and communication 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix E—Prescribed Fire

E-2

among interdisciplinary team members and other 

involved participants.

The prescribe fire plan contains the following 

information:

Source Documents: Land use plans are the 

primary planning documents through which 

prescribed fire projects will be identified. The 

CSNM management plan identifies the management goals and constraints that project planners and coordinators need for development of a 

prescribed fire plan.

Preliminary site review: Resource specialists 

and fire management personnel and/or the fuels 

management specialist would conduct an on-site 

review to determine the potential success of a 

proposed prescribed fire project. Outside groups 

and individuals are included, as appropriate. 

Project objectives: The desired resource objectives will be discussed and confirmed. Specific 

prescribed fire treatment objectives are written to 

describe the fire treatments needed to meet the 

resource objectives. Project constraints are also 

identified. 

Concurrences: Other program input is included 

and the amount of time and personnel commitment needed to develop and implement the 

project is identified.

Data collection: Data needs are identified and 

data are collected (e.g., botanical and archaeological information, and fuel inventories). Monitoring data from previous projects is reviewed and 

lessons learned are incorporated into the current 

project.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance: NEPA compliance is required for all prescribed fire projects. The environmental analysis 

reveals the effects of using or not using prescribed 

fire in a specific geographic area at a specific time. 

NEPA compliance usually takes the form of a 

programmatic environmental assessment (EA) 

that covers a number of related treatments (mechanical and prescribed fire) in association with 

the fire management plan.

Clearances and permits: Several types of clearances, permits and other authorization documents 

may be required. These generally are cultural resource clearances, threatened/endangered species 

clearances, and air quality permits, and may also 

include land owner agreements or releases and 

assistance or cooperative agreements.

Review and approval: The completed Prescribed 

Fire Plan receives a technical review by a qualified individual. The plan is then submitted for 

approval by the Agency Administrator.

Determination of Complexity 

A complexity rating will be completed for each 

prescribed fire project. The determination of the 

prescribed fire complexity will be based upon an 

assessment of risk (the probability or likelihood 

of an unexpected event or situation occurring), 

potential consequences (some measure of the 

cost or result of an undesirable event or situation 

occurring), and technical difficulty (the level of 

skills needed to complete the project and deal 

with expected events).

Smoke Management Considerations

According to the Clean Air Act (Public Law 95-

95), compliance with federal, state and local air 

quality regulations is mandatory and will require 

coordination with state and local air quality 

authorities. Smoke management can also be a 

significant part of determining the complexity of 

a prescribed fire project. 

The operational guidance for the Oregon Smoke 

Management Program is managed by the Oregon 

State Forester. The policy of the State Forester is 

to:

•	 Regulate prescribed burning operations on

forest land.

•	 Achieve strict compliance with the smoke

management plan.

•	 Minimize emissions from prescribed burning.

For the purpose of maintaining air quality, the 

State Forester and the Department of Environmental Quality shall approve an Oregon Smoke 

Management Plan for the purpose of managing 

smoke in areas they designate. The authority for 

the State administration is ORS 477.513(3)(a).
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix E—Prescribed Fire

E-3

ORS468A.005 through 468A.085 authorizes the 

DEQ to establish air quality standards including emission standards for the entire state or an 

area of the state. Under this authority the State 

Forester coordinates the administration and operation of the plan. The State Forester also issues 

additional restrictions on prescribed burning in 

situations where air quality of the entire State or 

part thereof is, or would likely become, adversely 

affected by smoke. 

In compliance with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan, prescribed burning activities in the 

Medford District require pre-burn registration 

of all prescribed burn locations with the Oregon 

State Forester. Registration includes specific location, size of burn, topographic and fuel characteristics. Advisories or restrictions are received from 

the State Forester on a daily basis concerning 

smoke management and air quality conditions.

The amount of smoke that constitutes a nuisance 

is not often defined but generally includes a property use or behavior that significantly impairs the 

use of other property due to some health, safety, 

or economic consideration. The specific concentration or duration of smoke that constitutes a 

nuisance is subjective and site specific.

In order to avoid creating or continuing nuisance 

situations, the BLM has implemented smoke 

management guidelines. The guidelines used for 

each fire include:

•	 Identify critical smoke sensitive targets during

the planning stage that may be affected by 

smoke.

•	 Prescribe weather and burning conditions

that would direct smoke away from critical 

sensitive targets, such as wind direction and 

speed. Others include burning conditions that 

maximize the amount of smoke lifted and 

weather conditions that maximize dispersal 

(i.e., mixing height, transport wind speed and 

probability of air mass stagnation). 

•	 On the afternoon prior to burning, obtain

a weather forecast and smoke management 

forecast to make sure the prescribed weather 

and burning conditions will be met. 

•	 On the morning of the burn, check to see

if the weather and smoke management 

forecasts are favorable. If so, initiate any 

planned mitigation measures, light the fire 

and begin monitoring fire/smoke behavior 

for unanticipated situations. Be prepared to 

cease ignition and /or begin suppression if 

unanticipated situations cannot be controlled 

or mitigated. Also, be prepared to patrol 

smoke sensitive roadways through the night if 

the fire is still producing significant smoke at 

dusk.

•	 Whenever possible, burn when large fuel

(3”+ in diameter) and duff moisture levels are 

high to minimize emissions. This may be best 

accomplished by burning under spring-like 

conditions.

•	 Whenever possible, pile fuels prior to burning. 

Piled fuels result in fewer emissions per ton 

of fuel consumed and have greater seasonal 

flexibility. 

•	 Whenever possible, burn only fuel

concentrations rather than the entire area.

•	 Whenever possible burn during periods of

atmospheric instability for better smoke 

dispersal.

Consultation With and Notification of 

Grazing Lessees

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 4110.3 

(Changes in permitted use) and CFR 4110.3-2 

(decreasing permitted use), provide guidance to 

land managers when addressing issues that affect 

range management. This includes prescribed 

burning on grazing allotments.

The heart and soul of this authority centers on 

“consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

with affected permittees or lessees, ... and the 

interested public”. The approach most often used 

(and most preferable) involves contacting lessees and giving them the chance to comment on 

the proposed fuels treatment during the NEPA 

planning process. Options, as well as time frames, 

are explained during this process, and agreement 

with the interested public is sought. 

In general, during team meetings to draft the 

burn plan, areas proposed for prescribed burn 

treatment(s) are overlain with grazing allotments 

through the use of Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS). At that point a team member will 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix E—Prescribed Fire

E-4

begin the consultation process by contacting individuals or groups of lessees, depending on the size 

and scope of the project area. It may be necessary 

to remove cattle up to one year before a prescribed 

fire to allow fuels to build up and up to two 

years after a prescribed fire to allow vegetation 

to recover. Recovery time varies and may be less 

with a low-intensity burn, or more, with a severe, 

stand replacing burn. Specialists, as members of 

the planning team, consider many different factors when recommending how long the recovery 

period will need to be for the project area. Each 

area would be monitored following the prescribed 

fire to determine recovery rate and necessary rest 

for the following year. 

During the decision-making process, discussions 

would include possible impacts and disruption to 

the livelihood of livestock operations. Every effort 

will be made to incorporate the burn plan into 

the local grazing use and rotation to minimize 

possible impacts to operations. Options available 

to the lessees could include, but are not limited to: 

identifying alternative areas for stock to go; fencing out the project area to close only a portion of 

the allotment to grazing; using natural barriers to 

keep cattle out of the project area; modifying the 

season of use; allowing for non-use of the allotment; etc.

One year prior to treatment, a letter would be 

sent to lessees asking for voluntary cooperation 

in resting allotments or modifying grazing use. 

Preferably, an agreement is reached with the 

lessee(s) and a document is drafted to record the 

details. If an agreement is not reached, a proposed 

decision could be issued by the Authorized Officer, explaining the need for the burn treatment 

and asserting the authority necessary to complete 

planned resource management. 

Notification of Neighbors, Media, and the 

Public

As general practice, press releases are issued at the 

critical stages of the entire planning process. At 

the beginning of the process, a scoping letter usually includes a description of the project area and 

is intended to solicit input from the public about 

concerns and desired outcomes for the project. An 

open house or field trips could be held at the beginning of the project with resource specialists or 

members of the interdisciplinary planning team 

(ID team) on hand to answer questions from the 

public. Once the planning process and required 

surveys are complete, land managers will be able 

to begin prescribed burning along with other 

fuels treatments. 

Closer to the impending project date, a letter is 

mailed to local landowners outlining the intended 

burn plans, the number of acres to be burned, potential smoke impacts and a general fact sheet or 

brochure regarding prescribed burning. The letter 

invites those interested to contact their local fuels 

specialist so that their concerns can be addressed. 

A few days prior to a burn, public notices are usually posted at local businesses in the project area. 

The Burn

The burn manager will arrange for and communicate with firefighting personnel, obtain burn 

permits, check to determine that equipment is 

in working order, develop an adequate fuel load 

(fairly dry leaves and plant stems), and prepare 

fireguards. 

Obtaining weather information one day prior to 

the burn date is imperative. Fuel will not burn 

when wet or will not burn adequately when the 

humidity is high. Conversely, fire control is compromised when the humidity is below 25%. 

Fire behavior and the location of the fire front are 

monitored during ignition. Fire weather should 

be monitored not only during the ignition phase, 

but for the entire length of time during which fire 

remains in the unit. Throughout the prescribed 

fire, comparisons are made of the predicted and 

observed fire behavior.

Safety Considerations

The safety of fire fighters and the public is the 

number one priority when planning and implementing a prescribed fire project. Every person 

involved in a prescribed fire project is responsible 

for identifying and reporting safety issues and 

concerns. All personnel will be briefed prior to 

any prescribed fire assignment. The briefing will 

ensure that all involved parties understand how 

the project will be implemented and what their 

assignments are. 

Exposure to smoke during prescribed fire operations can be a significant safety concern. Research 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix E—Prescribed Fire

E-5

has shown the smoke exposure on prescribed 

fires, especially in the holding and ignition positions, often exceeds that of wildfires. The prescribed fire project planners and prescribed fire 

burn bosses take precautions to reduce exposure 

to smoke for firefighters, as well as neighbors.

Monitoring

Monitoring is the consistent collection and 

analysis of repeated observations or measurements 

to evaluate changes in condition and progress toward meeting management objectives. Prescribed 

fire monitoring can be defined as a systematic 

process for collecting and recording information 

to provide a basis for evaluating and adjusting 

resource and fire treatment objectives, prescriptions, and implementation practices. In prescribed 

fire monitoring, information is also gathered to 

document the treatment itself.

Monitoring allows land managers to record preburn ecosystem variables and fire characteristics 

and then to follow fire-induced changes to the 

ecosystem over several years. Each BLM Field 

Office develops a minimum monitoring program 

that will allow fire and resource managers to determine if the fire treatment and resource objectives are being met. 

The minimum monitoring requirements established for individual prescribed fire projects 

include weather during the fire, observed fire 

behavior and whether fire treatment objectives 

have been met. 

Post-burn monitoring activities include both 

observations and measurement in order to determine whether fire treatment objectives were met. 

Post-burn data is collected at the same locations 

where data were obtained before the fire.
E-6 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix F—Noxious Weed Strategy

F-1

appendix f

strategy for controlling the 

spread of noxious weeds and 

other invasive grasses in the 

cascade-siskiyou national

monument

WEED ABATEMENT MANAGEMENT 

STRATEGY

This appendix describes the strategy and objectives for weed management and provides 

a framework to control the spread of noxious 

weeds and other invasive grasses in the monument. Although this strategy is specific to the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (CSNM), 

it incorporates decisions and guidance provided in 

the following documents:

•	 The Decision Record, signed June 5, 1998, for

the Integrated Weed Management Plan with 

the associated FONSI and Medford District 

Integrated Weed Management Plan. 

•	 Instruction Memo OR 91-302 Approved 

Herbicides for Noxious Weed Control states: “A 

copy of this memorandum should be made 

a permanent part of your reference copy of 

the Record of Decision for the Northwest 

Area Noxious Weed Control Program..., 

BLM offices in Oregon and Washington are 

authorized to use these herbicides for noxious 

weed control in accordance with BLM Manual 

H-9011-1.”

•	 The Supplemental Record of Decision, signed

May 5, 1987 for the Northwest Area Noxious 

Weed Control Program and the associated 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(March 1987).

The primary goal of monument management is to 

maintain, protect, and restore habitat and ecological processes critical to richness and abundance 

of the objects of biological interest for which the 

monument was proclaimed. The proliferation of 

weeds across the landscape is an obstacle to this 

goal, and is a management concern throughout 

the monument, especially in the Diversity Emphasis Area. Current objectives for weed management have been developed and are described below. Additional weed abatement objectives could 

be developed through research and pilot studies 

following the adaptive management strategy in 

Chapter 3 of this RMP.

Spatial analysis in GIS indicates that weeds are 

associated with roads, sites of acute disturbance 

(past timber harvest, pastures and other tilled areas), and areas of high livestock utilization. Some 

of the major ecological problems associated with 

grass/shrub/woodlands involve annual grasses, 

yellow starthistle, and Canada thistle displacing the native bunchgrasses found in the monument. Limiting disturbance, therefore, is critical 

to controlling weeds; reduction of soil surface 

disturbance and increased shading of the soil can 

help favor the growth of native bunchgrasses over 

noxious weeds and other invasive grasses. 

The literature supports the following formulation 

of a general management strategy incorporating aspects of vegetation management and weed 

control: 

Maintain healthy herbaceous plant communities as a barrier to weed invasions.

•	 Limit ground-disturbing activities.

•	 Collect and maintain sources of native grass

and forb seed for emergency restoration.

•	 Sow with native seed where natural or

ground-disturbing management activities take 

place.

Improve condition of stands that have a 

mixture of weeds and remnant native herbaceous species. 

•	 Apply manual or spot herbicide treatments.

•	 Utilize prescribed burning where appropriate.

•	 Restore native species by seeding and/or

planting.

•	 Utilize different grazing strategies to reduce 

disturbance.

Eradicate and restore small isolated 

weed patches to native herbaceous plant 

domination.

•	 Apply manual or spot herbicide treatment.

•	 Protect sensitive resources (e.g., wetlands,

riparian, and rare plants). If herbicide 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix F—Noxious Weed Strategy

F-2

treatments occur in riparian areas, use 

appropriate herbicides labeled for use in these 

communities. 

•	 Seed areas with native grass and forbs.

Survey and treat primary travel corridors 

that serve as vectors for weed spread.

•	 Inventory roads and power line corridors.

•	 Apply manual or spot herbicide treatments in

a systematic manner.

•	 Work with power companies, the county,

and adjacent land owners to reduce periodic 

disturbance and treat weeds on adjacent nonfederal land. 

•	 Re-vegetate treated areas with native grass

and forbs.

Isolate and treat large extensive weed 

areas.

•	 Minimize soil disturbance and activities that

could spread weeds, especially during the wet 

season.

•	 Manually or spot spray large patches working

from the “outside” in toward the center of the 

infestation.

•	 Seed or plant treated locations with native

vegetation.

Implement a long-term restoration/management plan for extensive weedy areas 

(>1 acre) 

•	 Work with local groups and land owners on

noxious weed education and management.

•	 Identify high-priority treatment areas.

•	 Avoid disturbance in large patches.

•	 Monitor efficacy of treatment(s).

•	 Apply adaptive management strategy.

POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT TOOLS 

Education and cooperative partnerships 

with adjacent landowners and local groups

Educating private land owners within the greater 

monument boundary on weed issues and treatment strategies is paramount to succeeding in 

controlling and eradicating weeds in the monument. Partnerships and cost-sharing projects, 

moreover, are an efficient way to treat larger landscape areas. Working with adjacent land owners, including companies under BLM-permitted 

activities (e.g., power companies), to prevent the 

spread of weeds across ownership boundaries, and 

addressing noxious weeds in all land management 

activities is critical to success for the landscape as 

a whole. Identification booklets, preventive strategies, and recommended treatment methods could 

be a valuable tool for educating and developing 

partnerships with the monument public. 

Weed inventories

The use of surveys and inventories contribute to 

the understanding of the pattern and distribution 

of weeds within the monument, informing ongoing creation of adaptive strategies to control and 

eliminate such weeds from the monument. Surveys identify new species and patches becoming 

established, such that they become a treatment 

priority before they spread. Focused inventories 

along identified primary travel corridors and areas 

of primary concern will help target specific weed 

populations for containment and eradication. 

Weed prevention and treatments

Weed prevention is an important tool to stop the 

introduction and spread of weeds. Prevention 

activities can reduce the spread and introduction of weeds. These activities include the use of 

“weed-free” hay, mulch, and seed for restoration 

activities; routinely washing the under-carriage of 

equipment and vehicles; and keeping vehicles and 

livestock out of heavily infested areas (i.e., reduce 

disturbance). All available means to effectively 

and efficiently prevent and treat weeds could 

be used in the monument, including manual 

weeding, hot foam treatments, cultural control, 

biological control, herbicides, prescribed fire, or 

grazing. Various treatments are discussed below 

in more detail. 

Manual weeding can effectively remove target 

species over small- to medium-sized areas. 

Extensive manual weeding can also cause severe 

damage to micro-topography and microphytic 

crust through trampling, potentially leading to soil 

surface instability. 

Hot foam treatment is a manual method that 

utilizes hot steam with foam (formulated from 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix F—Noxious Weed Strategy

F-3

sugar extracts from corn and coconut). This 

treatment is used along roadways and other 

accessible areas to treat weeds. The steam and 

foam is delivered through a hose with a wand. 

The foam holds the temperature of the steam for 

several minutes, killing the unwanted vegetation. 

The hot foam method is used on individual weed 

plants, usually in the rosette stage. The hot steam 

(212 degrees) can kill individual special status 

plants if treated, but pre-disturbance surveys for 

special status plants will identify plants to be 

protected. 

Cultural treatments, such as disking or plowing, 

consist of entire plant removal from a specific 

site, but do have some negative side effects. For 

example, these treatments require precise timing 

to control the desired species; the acute ground 

disturbance resulting from these treatments 

can destroy the remnant native vegetation and 

promote additional weed invasion; and these 

treatments are difficult to apply in rough or rocky 

terrain, and will not occur in the monument 

with perhaps the exception of road-beds during 

decommissioning. Mowing or clipping removes 

the above-ground parts of all plants which 

is harmless to native bunchgrasses. Mowing 

can result in light to moderate damage to the 

soil surface, depending on the technique used. 

Mowing and manual seed head clipping can 

be effective in reducing a single year seed crop, 

although it does not kill the plants. However, 

some weeds, like starthistle or knapweeds, adapt 

quickly and will flower closer to the ground 

following mowing. Mowing may require multiple 

applications and can lead to soil surface instability. 

Mowing is not likely to be used in the monument 

except perhaps along road edges. 

Bio-control involves the use of insects to control 

noxious weeds. Insect releases for starthistle in 

the monument are ongoing. This method is only 

effective in certain locations. Currently, there are 

no effective bio-controls available for other weeds 

like Canada thistle, Dyer’s woad, cheatgrass or 

medusahead. As new bio-controls are developed 

in the future, these could be incorporated into the 

monument’s weed strategy.

Spot spraying with herbicides can target specific 

plants in specific areas. Herbicide application 

is the most cost-effective weed treatment over 

large areas and has a low level of soil disturbance. 

Within the monument, only spot spraying or 

individual plant wicking or wiping with approved 

chemicals will be used so as to reduce secondary 

harm to other life forms. In riparian areas, only 

chemicals approved for such areas will be used in 

weed treatment.

Prescribed fire can be used to reduce cheatgrass, 

medusahead, and starthistle when the timing and 

intensity of the application is carefully controlled. 

Prescribed fire also reduces litter build-up and 

rejuvenates bunchgrasses over large areas. While 

prescribed fire can result in mortality for some 

woody plant species and lichens, it can also serve 

to rejuvenate others.

Livestock grazing prescribed at the right time and 

intensity may allow removal of specific plants and 

weeds. When applied correctly, prescribed grazing 

may reduce litter and rejuvenate bunchgrasses 

over large areas. Changing the grazing system 

(e.g., rest-rotation) can serve to allow recovery 

of the native plant community in heavily utilized 

areas in combination with other treatment 

methods. Controlled grazing by goats could also 

be used to control starthistle. Insufficient livestock 

control, however, can result in degradation of 

adjacent biological resources from over-utilization 

(e.g., in wetlands, springs, and riparian areas). 

Livestock are also vector for weed spread. 

Vegetative restoration

Native seed application is best used several years 

following weed control treatments, or in areas of 

acute ground disturbance to prevent weeds from 

becoming established. Local, adapted native 

sources of grass and forb species have been established. Planting native shrubs and trees, especially along treated riparian areas will help restore 

and maintain healthy plant communities that are 

resistant to weed invasion. Sowing or planting 

appropriate native plants following under-story 

burning can re-establish the native plant community and facilitate succession. 

 

Monitoring

Implementation and validation monitoring of 

treated areas is critical to the adaptive management process. Multiple years are often involved in 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix F—Noxious Weed Strategy

F-4

successful containment and eradication. Successful weed treatments could involve different 

or multiple treatment methods, depending on 

the local site conditions, the species of targeted 

weeds, and infestation levels. 

A thorough literature review on control measures 

for noxious weeds can be found in the CSNM 

Draft Resource Management plan, Appendix 

GG, pages 396-411. 

PRIORITY TREATMENT AREAS

The following list of focus areas is intended to 

provide a relative prioritization of areas in which 

to survey and treat noxious weeds. These focus areas are of major concern and include the primary 

travel corridors that can function to spread weeds. 

In general, these are the areas that contain higher 

densities of weed populations; containment and 

eventual eradication is the objective. The methods for containment and eradication can vary, 

depending on site-specific issues, but, in general, 

working from the outside into the center of the 

infestations is the model for manual or herbicide 

treatments. 

Given the annual fluctuations in operational 

funds to treat weeds, not all areas will be treated 

annually. New areas may be added over time as 

new populations are discovered; as monitoring 

shows successful treatment, areas will be dropped. 

The focus areas outlined below are a starting 

point for controlling noxious weeds in the monument and are not intended to be an exhaustive 

list. Numerous small populations occur that are 

also important to treat before they spread. Knapweeds, for example, are new to the monument. 

Because they are forming new starts, they are a 

high priority for eradication while populations are 

small. 

Infestations in areas utilized by livestock are also 

high on the list of treatment priorities so as to 

prevent further weed spread and to improve the 

range condition. Some of these infested areas 

targeted for weed treatment are around seeps, 

springs, and stock ponds. In some areas, pasture 

rotation or even rest for several years from grazing could be beneficial for recovery while they are 

treated.

The focus areas are listed by local name, township, range, and section and/or BLM road segments. Weed infestations in adjacent areas on 

private lands may also be of concern, but are not 

listed. When possible, partnerships with adjacent 

land owners will be formed to treat weeds within 

the sub-watershed across ownerships. 

Focus areas (not in priority order):

•	 Soda Mountain area (T40S, R3E, sections 21,

27, 28)

•	 Box O ranch area (T40S, R4E, sections 21,

22, 27, 28) 

•	 Parsnip Lakes (T40S, 3E, section 10)

•	 Agate Flat,T41S, R4E, sections 6 and 7

•	 Hobart Lake (T40S, 3e, section 16)

•	 Eastern Schoheim road (Camp Creek) T41S,

R3E, Sections 11, 12 including road 41-2E10.1

•	 Scotch Creek RNA (T41S, R3E, section 8,9)

•	 Jenny Creek (below the Box O to the 

California Border)

•	 Mariposa Lily Botanical Area (T41S, R 2E, 

Sections 8, 9)

•	 Buck Rock (T40S, 2E, section 11) and roads

39-2E-34 and 40-2E-1

•	 Chinquapin area (T39S, R3E, sections 23, 26,

35)

As important as actual infested acres are, linear 

features that serve as vectors for spread also require attention. The major roadways coming into 

the monument and the large PacifiCorp power 

line corridor that bisect the monument are areas 

that receive some level of periodic disturbance 

from vehicles, maintenance, and animals. Weeds 

are spreading along these areas, mostly by seed 

on vehicles, equipment, and animals, including 

livestock. Wind and water also serve as vectors. 

The periodic disturbance in these areas provides 

available habitat for weed species to become 

established and then spread to adjacent areas 

outside the corridors. In some areas, grazing is 

confined to accessible areas along the roads. These 

linear features need to be continually surveyed 

and monitored, and as infestations are detected, 

treatment will prevent further weed spread.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix F—Noxious Weed Strategy

F-5

Primary travel routes

•	 PacifiCorp power line and associated access 

road: (T40S, R3E, section 16, 17, 21, 27, 35; 

•	 T41S, R3E, sections 1, 12; T41S, R4E,

sections 6, 7, 8);

•	 Tyler Creek Road (BLM road 40-3E-5);

•	 Upper Jenny Creek and Roads 39-4E-6, -7.5, 

-8);

•	 Keene Creek/Lincoln creek/Rancore Pass

roads (40-3E-12-12.1);

•	 Soda Mountain Road (39-3E-32.3);

•	 Lower Keene creek road (40-3E-12.2, 40-3E7).

MITIGATING MEASURES

RODEO® (glyphosate) would be used as the primary herbicide in efforts to control noxious weeds 

listed by Oregon Department of Agriculture in 

the monument. Manual and biological treatments 

may also occur in conjunction with the control efforts. Treatment operations would generally occur 

between March 15th and October 31st. 

The following mitigating measures apply to noxious weed treatments in the monument: 

•	 Human buffer – None of the products may 

be applied within 500 feet of any residence or 

other place of human occupation unless the 

occupant or resident gives their consent in 

writing.

•	 Cropland buffer – Commercial products 

will not be applied within 100 feet of any 

cropland.

•	 25-foot water buffer – Commercial products 

applied by ground vehicles equipped with 

boom sprayers will not be applied within 

25 feet of any water, flowing/moist (i.e., not 

dry) streams, springs, and wetlands (saturated 

ground). 

•	 10-foot water buffer – Spot treatments with 

vehicle-mounted handguns or with backpack 

sprayers will not be applied to within 10 feet 

of water. To add an extra measure of security, 

a ten-foot buffer “no spray” buffer will be 

respected along all flowing/moist (i.e., not 

dry) streams, springs, and wetlands. This will 

eliminate the potential for any drift entering 

waters (Hatterman-Valenti et al. 1995). 

Ground application within 10 feet of any 

flowing/moist waters will only be done by 

hand-wicking, wiping, or painting.

•	 Spraying Prohibitions – Spraying operations 

will be prohibited when wind velocity 

exceeds 5 mph; when temperatures exceed 

80 degrees; when air turbulence would 

affect spray pattern; or in the event of any 

other kind of adverse weather conditions 

that could cause the glyphosate to impact 

non-target plants. These requirements would 

eliminate the potential for spray drift entering 

the stream channels. 

•	 Dry season application – The herbicide 

treatment would occur only during months 

with little rain. These months will almost 

always be June - September; however, during 

some years, May can be hot and dry and 

weeds will ripen and begin to set seed early. 

Moreover, every few years, April can be 

almost rainless with weeks of temperatures in 

the high 70s. In such situations, glyphosate 

may be applied during April or May.

•	 Weather Monitoring – During application, 

weather conditions will be monitored 

periodically by trained personnel at spray sites. 

Weather will be monitored frequently during 

the first days of a prolonged project, especially 

projects within Riparian Reserves. Additional 

weather monitoring will occur whenever a 

weather change may affect safe placement of 

the herbicide on the target area. The intent is 

to ensure that weather conditions are within 

the parameters of this document and/or other 

regulatory restrictions.

•	 Communication – Prior to beginning 

treatment each year, the District Weed 

Specialist and/or Resource Area staff 

will provide the Resource Area Fisheries 

Biologists with the following information:

•	 Locations to be treated

•	 Riparian Reserves and approximate acres 

to be treated

•	 Application method

•	 Herbicide to be used

•	 Approximate date of treatment

•	 “No rain” rule – Glyphosate would never 

be applied when weather reports predict 

precipitation within 24 hours of application, 

before or after. This ensures that glyphosate 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix F—Noxious Weed Strategy

F-6

would not be washed off by precipitation into 

small rivulets, or enter ground water. From a 

practical perspective, glyphosate would not be 

as effective if sprayed when rain could wash it 

off. 

•	 Mixing and Loading Restrictions

– Herbicides will be mixed and loaded into 

tanks at least 100 feet from any stream 

channel or surface water or at a location 

where an accidental spill would not flow into 

or contaminate a stream or body of water.

•	 Tank Washing and Disposal – Spray tanks 

will not be washed or rinsed within 100 feet 

of any waters. All chemical containers will be 

disposed of at sites approved by the Oregon 

State Department of Environmental Quality.

•	 Application Concentrations – RODEO® 

and ACCORD® will be applied at or below 

concentrations allowable on the labels. 

•	 Quality Control – Regular testing on field 

calibration and calculation will take place to 

prevent gross application errors. A licensed/

certified herbicide applicator will oversee all 

spray projects. Dye or a similar method will 

be used to ensure that chemical application 

occurs only in target areas. (See “Monitoring” 

below.)

•	 Spill Safety – The BLM contract inspector 

will review the BLM spill response procedures 

outlined in the BLM manual 9011-1 with 

each applicator before commencing herbicide 

application operations. All hand-operated 

application equipment must be leak- and 

spill-proof.

•	 Parsimony Rule – Only the minimum area 

necessary for the control of noxious weeds 

will be treated.

•	 Monitoring – Spray cards, dye, or other type 

of indicator to monitor chemical drift will 

be used at the water’s edge on a small sample 

(no less than five sites) of riparian treatment 

areas. These indicators will provide visual 

verification that the application methods are 

minimizing risk to listed fish species. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix G—Old-Growth Emphasis Area Treatment Design

G-1

appendix g

Old-Growth Emphasis Area

(OGEA) Treatment Design based 

on Ecoregion Characteristics

and Individual Stand Structures

introduction

Appendix G provides additional criteria for the 

design and implementation of projects in the OldGrowth Emphasis Area (OGEA). Previous field 

inventory work identified differences in the structure, density, and species composition of Habitat 

Types 1 & 2. Differences were also noted for each 

habitat type throughout the monument’s four 

ecoregions. Subsequent management activities 

will be developed with the intention of mimicking, as well as possible, historic forest conditions 

at both the landscape or ecoregion level and 

specific site or stand level. This appendix includes 

the following information:

•	 a general overview of OGEA forests in 

relationship to monument ecoregions;

•	 an overview of what is typically found in each

of the McKelvie Habitat Types (1, 2, 3 and 5) 

by ecoregion;

•	 how to use Habitat Type 1 & 2 stands as

reference conditions;

•	 descriptions of proposed treatments by habitat

type with more detail than Chapter 2; and

•	 standards and guidelines regarding snag 

retention and coarse woody debris (CWD) 

levels.

Overview of Ecoregion

Characteristics

Ecoregions are defined by a number of factors 

that include: 

•	 physiography (including elevation and local

relief ); 

•	 geology (surficial material and bedrock);

•	 soil (order, common soil series, temperature

and moisture regimes);

•	 climate (mean annual precipitation, mean

annual frost-free days, mean January and July 

min/max temperature);

•	 potential natural vegetation;

•	 land use (recreation, forestry, watershed); and

•	 land cover (vegetation present).

Four ecoregions (Map 5) have been identified in 

the monument. The following synopsis of these 

ecoregions is based on Pater (1997a and 1997b). 

Southern Cascades (4g)

The Southern Cascades Ecoregion (2,600-5,800 

feet) is characterized by gently sloping mountains, broad valleys, a long summer drought, and 

high vegetation diversity. White fir (Abies concolor) is common. At low elevations, Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) and ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa) are prevalent. Compared to the other 

ecoregions in the CSNM, the Southern Cascades Ecoregion contains the most white fir plant 

communities as the potential natural vegetation 

(Atzet et al. 1996), and the highest percentage of 

late-successional and old-growth northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat in 

the OGEA. 

Southern Cascade Slope (9i)

The Southern Cascade Slope Ecoregion (3,600-

6,300 feet) is a transitional zone between the 

Cascades (4) and the drier Eastern Cascade 

Slopes and Foothills (9). The Southern Cascade 

Slope Ecoregion within the CSNM tends to 

be predominantly gently sloping to flat ponderosa pine-dominated landscapes. White fir and 

Douglas-fir grow at higher elevations. Much of 

the Southern Cascade Slope ecoregion typically 

receives more precipitation than the Eastern 

Cascade Slopes and Siskiyou Foothills ecoregions. 

Meadows and grasslands are often found associated with forest stands.

Siskiyou Foothills (78b)

The Siskiyou Foothills Ecoregion (1,500-4,000 

feet) is affected by a mediterranean climate, similar to that of the Rogue Valley. The driest area 

occurs east of Medford and is dominated by oak 

woodlands, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir. This 

ecoregion is the western-most and lowest in elevation in the CSNM. Few white fir are present. 

Pacific madrone, generally absent from the other 

ecoregions of the CSNM, is a common hardwood 

component of the forest in this ecoregion.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix G—Old-Growth Emphasis Area Treatment Design

G-2

Klamath River Ridges (78g)

The Klamath River Ridges Ecoregion (3,800-

7,000 feet) has a dry continental climate. Low 

elevation and south-facing slopes have more 

drought-resistant vegetation than elsewhere in 

the Klamath Ecoregion (78), such as juniper, 

chaparral and ponderosa pine. Mid-elevation 

forests are composed of sugar and ponderosa 

pine, as well as incense cedar and Douglas-fir. 

Higher and north-facing ridges are covered by 

Douglas-fir and white fir. A significant portion 

of the Klamath River Ridges in the CSNM does 

not have the potential capacity to become suitable 

habitat for northern spotted owls and therefore 

is not part of the OGEA because it is comprised 

of low elevation, south facing slopes. Most of this 

ecoregion is in the Diversity Emphasis Area.

Historic canopy closures vary by ecoregion (Table 

G-1).

Table G-1. Historic Crown Closure for Ecoregions in the OGEA (OWEB 2004)

Ecoregion Historic Crown 

Closure (%)

Subwatersheds All or Partially Included in Ecoregion

Southern Cascades (4g) 40 - 45 Upper Emigrant Creek, Upper Jenny Creek, 

Middle Jenny Creek, Keene Creek 

Southern Cascade Slope (9i) < 30 Upper Jenny Creek, Johnson Creek, Middle Jenny Creek, 

Lower Jenny Creek, Fall Creek

Siskiyou Foothills (78b) > 50 Upper Emigrant Creek 

Klamath River Ridges (78g) > 30 Upper Emigrant Creek, Keene Creek, Lower Jenny Creek, 

Camp Creek, Scotch Creek, East Fork Cottonwood Creek, 

Middle Cottonwood Creek

POTENTIAL TREATMENT DESIGNS IN THE

OGEA

Potential Treatments for Habitat Type 1

No management activities are planned in Habitat Type 1. With respect to stand density and 

the species mix of large trees, Habitat Type 1 

provides the closest current representation of the 

OGEA’s historic condition prior to fire exclusion. 

However, the in-growth of shade-tolerant species currently found in the understory along with 

midsized trees generally less than 100 years old is 

not representative of historic conditions.

A 1998 inventory measured forest tree structure/

size and density within Habitat Types 1 and 2 

in the area that is now the CSNM (Tables G-2 

through G-4). The variability of tree sizes is represented by three to five age classes. Tree stands 

generally consist of small, densely packed shadetolerant conifers and an overstory of uneven-aged 

conifers with individual trees exceeding 35 inches 

dbh. Tables G-2, G-3, and G-4 provide a modeling guide to be used during the project planning 

process within the major plant communities and 

ecoregions which may vary by aspect and elevation. The species mix and size classes noted in 

these tables are particularly important when 

conducting management activities designed to 

promote the development of late-successional and 

old-growth conditions in Habitat Types 3 and 5. 

The more xeric mixed conifer community 

(Table G-2) is typical of the mid-elevation 

Klamath River Ridges and the Siskiyou Foothills 

Ecoregions.

The drier mixed conifer community is representative of the higher elevation Klamath River Ridges 

and Southern Cascade Slope Ecoregions (Table 

G-3).

The white fir plant community is primarily located in the Southern Cascades and higher Klamath 

River Ridges Ecoregions (Table G-4).
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix G—Old-Growth Emphasis Area Treatment Design

G-3

Table G-2. Dry Douglas-Fir/Pine Community (xeric) – Habitat Types 1 & 2 

Species

Trees per Acre by Species and Size Class (DBH in Inches)

00-06 07-10 11-14 15-18 19-22 23-26 27-30 31-34 35+ Total

Ponderosa Pine 16.0 39.5 7.7 17.5 10.6 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.0 95.1

Douglas-Fir 78.0 54.9 24.6 11.5 8.4 2.4 0.5 0.4 1.1 181.8

Incense Cedar 25.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.7 1.1 0.4 29.7

Sugar Pine 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.6 1.4 0.9 0.8 8.8

White Fir 25.0 0.0 1.0 26.0

Summary 144.0 94.4 33.3 34.6 22.3 6.0 3.1 1.8 1.9 341.4

>10” dbh 33.3 34.6 22.3 6.0 3.1 1.8 1.9 103.0

>19” dbh 22.3 6.0 3.1 1.8 1.9 35.1

>30” dbh 1.8 1.9 3.7

Table G-3. Mixed Conifer Plant Community (mesic) – Habitat Types 1 & 2 

Species

Trees per Acre by Species and Size Class (DBH in Inches)

00-06 07-10 11-14 15-18 19-22 23-26 27-30 31-34 35+ Total

Ponderosa Pine 25.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 3.6 0.6 1.3 0.3 2.3 36.0

Douglas-Fir 166.0 47.6 41.6 25.2 11.6 2.5 0.9 0.4 0.9 296.7

Incense Cedar 8.0 4.5 0.0 2.7 4.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.8 21.2

Sugar Pine 4.0 0.0 4.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

White Fir 29.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5

California Black 

Oak

45.0 0.0 8.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1

Summary 277.0 52.1 63.1 36.1 20.1 3.7 2.7 0.7 4.0 459.5

>10” dbh 63.1 36.1 20.1 3.7 2.7 0.7 4.0 130.4

>19” dbh 20.1 3.7 2.7 0.7 4.0 31.2

>30” dbh 0.7 4.0 4.7

Table G-4. White Fir Plant Community – Habitat Type 1 & 2

Species

Trees per Acre by Species and Size Class (DBH in Inches)

00-06 07-10 11-14 15-18 19-22 23-26 27-30 31-34 35+ Total

Ponderosa Pine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.7

Douglas-Fir 33.0 0.0 7.7 2.9 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.3 2.5 47.8

Incense Cedar 0.0 8.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.3 15.0

Sugar Pine 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.6 5.1

White Fir 132.0 32.7 21.0 17.5 9.2 7.3 3.6 2.0 4.4 229.7

Summary 165.0 40.8 32.8 22.1 10.0 8.6 5.8 4.1 9.1 298.3

>10” dbh 32.8 22.1 10.0 8.6 5.8 4.1 9.1 92.5

>19” dbh 10.0 8.6 5.8 4.1 9.1 37.6

>30” dbh 4.1 9.1 13.2
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix G—Old-Growth Emphasis Area Treatment Design

G-4

Potential Treatments for Habitat Type 2 

(Dispersal Habitat)

As a result of fire exclusion or harvest, the composition of overstory species in Habitat Type 2 

stands has been shifting from Douglas-fir, sugar 

pine, ponderosa pine, and incense cedar, toward 

white fir. A dense understory of small white fir 

trees has filled the gaps created by harvesting, 

disease, windfall, and other disturbance factors, shifting stands toward less stability and fire 

resistance. 

Pilot projects could take place in Habitat Type 

2 stands outside of the Oregon Gulch Research 

Natural Area (OGRNA). These pilot projects 

could include thinning from below, prescribed 

burning, and creating openings around large pine 

trees.

The following management actions are designed 

to protect and enhance the late-successional characteristics of Habitat Type 2 stands:

•	 Design treatments within and adjacent to 

Habitat Type 2 in order to increase patch size 

(the amount of contiguous late-successional 

habitat) and protect un-entered stands and 

existing owl cores.

•	 Leave some untreated patches in stands

selected for treatment. 

•	 Thin from below to improve canopy structure

and mimic pre-fire exclusion species 

composition.

•	 Use prescribed burning (usually done in

association with thinning) to move vertical 

and horizontal fuel profiles to pre-fire 

exclusion levels.

•	 Promote snags and CWD levels where 

deficient.

•	 Vary tree spacing in thinning projects. No

canopy layer should be totally removed when 

thinning from below.

•	 Green trees designated for removal from the

stand may be left standing (girdled) or felled 

on site and left where existing CWD levels 

are low. 

•	 Reduce fire hazard by removing ladder fuels 

(generally white fir understory) adjacent to 

large trees.

•	 Use thinning to encourage large trees of

ecologically preferred species, size, and vigor.

•	 Create openings (generally less than 1/4

acre) around and adjacent to pines to 

provide for regeneration opportunities and 

to improve the health of these large pines. 

Larger white fir may be removed in stands 

where they compete with mature sugar 

pine and ponderosa pine. These treatments 

would emphasize retaining and enhancing 

the existing pine components and promote 

opportunities for pine regeneration while 

retaining adequate canopy cover throughout 

the stands treated.

•	 Plant blister-rust resistant sugar pine

seedlings when planting is necessary. 

•	 Openings around individual or groups of large

pines would not take place within northern 

spotted owl activity centers.

Potential Treatments for Habitat Type 3 

(Young stands)

Following the strategy described in Chapter 2, 

management actions could potentially take place 

in all Habitat Type 3 stands. Most of these young 

stands were artificially established as pine plantations in historic clearcuts. Because of altered 

natural disturbance regimes (including fire exclusion, the proliferation of pathogens and insects, 

accelerated fragmentation, and shifts in species 

composition), many of these stands are on developmental paths that may not provide adequate 

late-successional and old-growth structure and 

characteristics. The overall management objective 

for these young stands is to mimic more closely 

historic forest development in order to provide 

structure and habitat for late-successional and 

old-growth associated species. 

Treatments that would be used to promote latesuccessional and old-growth habitat include the 

following:

•	 Density management in young plantations

and natural stands would promote the growth 

and development of desired tree species. 

Thinning and release efforts could be used 

to select individual trees specifically for large 

crowns and limbs, disease resistance (sugar 

pine rust resistance), selective tree species 

composition, and other mortality or habitat 

attributes consistent with OGEA objectives.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix G—Old-Growth Emphasis Area Treatment Design

G-5

Habitat Type 2 - Descriptions by Ecoregions

Habitat Type 2 – Southern Cascades Ecoregion (4g)

Most stands have been entered for harvest or are younger in age and have smaller trees than Habitat 

Type 1 stands. Pure white fir stands that have been opened up by thinning are affected by wind throw 

and pockets of Phellinus sp. root rot. Additionally, these stands have become infected with Annosus

sp. root rot through stumps from previous thinning projects. Over time, all of these factors have 

contributed to decreased canopy cover. 

Multi-species stands which include sugar pine, incense cedar, and white fir are more resilient and show 

some recovery from harvest disturbance with release of species resistant to root rot after harvest. Multispecies composition stands tend to have more developed canopy levels. Stands are approaching 60 

percent canopy cover. Canopy gaps are often filled with species resistant to root rot. Snags and CWD 

are sometimes deficient in numbers.

Habitat Type 2 – South Cascade Slope Ecoregion (9i)

Ponderosa pine-dominated stands occur on the east side of the Cascades. The sites are generally flat 

and dry. A Douglas-fir and white fir understory has developed in the absence of fire. Overall, the stands 

tend to be more open than forest stands in the other ecoregions. Tree diameter is less than in Habitat 

Type 1. Most of these stands have been entered for harvest and canopy closure has been reduced. 

The canopy may or may not be single-layered. Snags and CWD are generally deficient due to past 

management practices.

Habitat Type 2 – Siskiyou Foothills Ecoregion (78b)

Most mixed conifer stands have been entered for harvest. Late-successional and old-growth 

characteristics are present in varying amounts. Douglas-fir generally fills gaps where large trees have 

been removed. Dwarf mistletoe on Douglas-fir is common and sometimes heavy due to past logging 

practices. Canopy closure has been reduced. Although the canopy is generally not single-layered, 

forest structural diversity is less than in un-entered stands. The mean stand diameter is less than in 

Habitat Type 1. The vigor of ponderosa pine and black oak trees has decreased due to competition 

from Douglas-fir and incense cedar. Snags and CWD are sometimes deficient due to past management 

practices.

Habitat Type 2 – Klamath River Ridges (78g)

Most mixed conifer stands have been entered for harvest. Late-successional and old-growth 

characteristics are present in varying amounts. Gaps exist where large trees have been removed. White 

fir commonly fills gaps to the exclusion of pine. Although large trees are still present in these stands, the 

mean stand diameter and stand age is less than in Habitat Type 1. Many residual trees present are over 

80 years old and often exceed 250 years of age. Canopy closure has been reduced. The canopy may or 

may not be single-layer, but vertical forest structure is reduced and is more open and discontinuous than 

in un-entered stands. White fir trees grow around residual old-growth conifers. Sugar and ponderosa 

pine vigor is decreased due to competition with in-grown white fir. Snags and CWD are often deficient.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix G—Old-Growth Emphasis Area Treatment Design

G-6

•	 Thinning would favor historic species

composition at the stand level. Options will 

be limited due to the near-monoculture 

ponderosa pine component present in many 

of these stands.

•	 Treatments would include substantially

varied spacing in order to provide for 

the development of late-successional 

characteristics as quickly as possible. Some 

areas of heavy canopy closure and structural 

complexity would be maintained and the 

growth of a variety of species appropriate to 

the site and the late-successional and oldgrowth objectives would be encouraged.

•	 Prescribed fire is not always an option in

Habitat Type 3; trees may be small and 

susceptible to fire damage. Some limited 

underburning or pile burning in older pine 

plantations may be possible after thinning. 

Potential Treatments for Habitat Type 5 

(Dispersal Habitat)

Habitat Type 5 stands are more varied than Habitat Type 3 as they have often retained some vertical structure, CWD, and variable species composition after logging. Habitat Type 5 stands are 

commonly the result of partially harvested stands 

where large old-growth trees were removed. Some 

Habitat Type 5 stands are characterized by 80 to 

120-year-old, overly dense, even-aged trees that 

resulted from a stand replacement fire. Because of 

altered natural disturbance regimes – including 

fire exclusion, the proliferation of pathogens and 

insects, and shifts in species composition – many 

of these stands are on developmental paths that 

may not provide adequate late-successional and 

old-growth characteristics in the future. The 

overall objective of stand management would be 

to mimic more closely historic forest development 

in order to provide structure and habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth associated species, 

and would include the following:

•	 Thinning from below in order to remove some

portion of small suppressed and intermediatesize trees could occur. Trees targeted for 

removal would generally be the in-growth of 

small Douglas-fir and white fir that developed 

Habitat Type 3 - Descriptions by Ecoregion

Habitat Type 3 – Southern Cascades Ecoregion (4g)

Young pine plantations with generally low stocking levels are found at higher elevations in white fir 

forests. Stocking levels are generally medium or low and not always candidates for thinning. CWD and 

snags are always deficient due to previous post-harvest burning.

Habitat Type 3 – Southern Cascades Slope Ecoregion (9i)

Very little Habitat Type 3 exists in this ecoregion. Most of the Habitat Type 3 present is young pine 

plantations.

Habitat Type 3 – Siskiyou Foothills Ecoregion (78b)

This habitat type is represented primarily by mixed conifer species. White fir is generally lacking. Black 

oak and madrone are common. A few pine plantations are present as well.

Habitat Type 3 – Klamath River Ridges Ecoregion (78g)

This habitat type is represented by mixed conifer advanced reproduction and pine plantations 

originating from clearcuts in the Lincoln Creek and Rosebud area. Trees are generally less than 25 years 

old. Tree density is currently too high to allow for the development of late-successional habitat or old 

growth. Understory vegetation consists of grasses, manzanita, and ceanothus.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix G—Old-Growth Emphasis Area Treatment Design

G-7

during the last 100 years of fire exclusion. 

•	 Thinning would substantially vary the spacing

of residual trees in order to (1) provide 

for the development of late-successional 

characteristics as quickly as possible; (2) 

maintain some areas of heavy canopy closure; 

and (3) enhance structural complexity. 

Treatments would encourage the growth and 

development species appropriate to the site in 

order to promote late-successional and oldgrowth characteristics.

•	 Thinning would also focus on reducing the

density of trees growing in gaps created 

during previous harvests of old-growth trees.

•	 Canopy closure is a key component of spotted 

owl dispersal habitat. Treatments would be 

designed to retain a canopy sufficient to 

provide for spotted owl dispersal habitat. 

•	 Pile burning could be used to remove slash

resulting from thinning activities conducted 

in canopy openings. The removal of ladder 

fuels and pile burning would be conducted 

in order to protect smaller trees prior to any 

prescribed underburn.

Snags and Coarse Woody Debris (CWD)

In 1998 sixteen Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) 

activity centers in the monument were sampled 

for snags and CWD. The activity centers are 

distributed quite evenly among the monument’s 

ecoregions. Based on the assumption that the 

NSO activity centers represent the most functional late successional and old-growth habitat in 

the monument, the data derived from this study 

will provide the basis for snag and CWD management for projects in the Old-Growth Emphasis Area. In addition, “Guidelines for Snag and 

Down Wood Prescriptions in Southwest Oregon” 

(White 2000) and DecAID (Mellen et al. 2003) 

would be used in the management of snags and 

CWD.

Habitat Type 5 - Descriptions by Ecoregion

Habitat Type 5 – Southern Cascades Ecoregion (4g)

Forest stands have often been thinned as shelterwoods. Some stands may be open-grown, intertwined 

with meadows, or exhibit naturally low stocking levels. Stands are open with little canopy development 

and have few seedlings due to exposure on cold, harsh sites even though canopy cover is greater than 

40 percent. Root rot is a problem, particularly in stands dominated by white fir. Windfall is common 

and stands decrease in stocking levels, canopy closure, and complexity over time, especially in stands 

dominated by white fir trees. Snags and CWD are deficient due to past management practices.

Habitat Type 5 – Southern Cascades Slope Ecoregion (9i)

Many of these stands were heavily thinned and some were selectively cut to remove larger trees. A few 

are younger stands or have low tree densities due to disturbance or poor soils, or are intermixed with 

natural meadows. Stands are open and canopy cover is generally limited with minimal layering. Snags 

and CWD are often deficient.

Habitat Type 5 – Siskiyou Foothills Ecoregion (78b)

Many of these stands were heavily and selectively thinned. These stands are now composed of heavy 

brush and hardwoods, as well as residual conifers. Some stands are younger in age than other Type 5 

stands and have low tree densities due to disturbance or poor soils. Residual Douglas-fir with dwarf 

mistletoe were often left in the stand during previous harvests. Canopy cover is generally less than 40 

percent with minimal layering. CWD and snags are usually limited.

Habitat Type 5 – Klamath River Ridges Ecoregion (78g)

Many of these stands were more heavily thinned than thinned stands elsewhere in the CSNM and are 

often a result of shelterwood cuts, overstory removal, or multiple entries. Some are younger stands or have 

lower tree densities due to disturbance, poor soils, or low-site forest lands. Canopy cover is limited, little 

layering exists, and understory stocking levels are often poor. Snags and CWD are almost always deficient.
G-8 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-1

appendix h

Standards for Rangeland Health and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND

GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT 

FOR PUBLIC LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

IN THE STATES OF OREGON AND WASHINGTON 

AUGUST 12, 1997

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... H-2

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health....................................................................................................... H-2

Standards for Rangeland Health ............................................................................................................ H-2

Standards and Guidelines in Relation to the Planning Process.............................................................. H-3

Indicators of Rangeland Health ............................................................................................................. H-3

Assessments and Monitoring ................................................................................................................. H-4

Measurability.......................................................................................................................................... H-4

Implementation...................................................................................................................................... H-5

Standards for Rangeland Health ............................................................................................................ H-5

Standard 1 Watershed Function – Uplands.................................................................................. H-5 

Standard 2 Watershed Function - Riparian/Wetland Areas......................................................... H-6

Standard 3 Ecological Processes ................................................................................................... H-7

Standard 4 Water Quality............................................................................................................. H-8

Standard 5 Native, T&E, and Locally Important Species............................................................. H-8

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management .................................................................................... H-8

General Guidelines....................................................................................................................... H-9

Livestock Grazing Management................................................................................................... H-9

Facilitating the Management of Livestock Grazing ................................................................... H-10

Accelerating Rangeland Recovery ........................................................................................................ H-10

Glossary................................................................................................................................................ H-11
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-2

Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines

for Livestock Grazing 

Management for

Public Lands in Oregon and 

Washington

Introduction

These Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington 

were developed in consultation with Resource 

Advisory Councils and Provincial Advisory 

Committees, tribes and others. These standards 

and guidelines meet the requirements and intent of 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 

4180 (Rangeland Health) and are to be used as 

presented, in their entirety. These standards and 

guidelines are intended to provide a clear statement of agency policy and direction for those 

who use public lands for livestock grazing, and for 

those who are responsible for their management 

and accountable for their condition. Nothing in 

this document should be interpreted as an abrogation of Federal trust responsibilities in protection 

of treaty rights of Indian tribes or any other statutory responsibilities including, but not limited to, 

the Taylor Grazing Act, the Clean Water Act, 

and the Endangered Species Act.

Fundamentals of Rangeland 

Health 

The objectives of the rangeland health regulations 

referred to above are: “to promote healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public rangelands to 

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

industry and communities that are dependent 

upon productive, healthy public rangelands.” 

To help meet these objectives, the regulations on 

rangeland health identify fundamental principles 

providing direction to the States, districts, and 

on-the-ground public land managers and users 

in the management and use of rangeland ecosystems. 

A hierarchy, or order, of ecological function 

and process exists within each ecosystem. The 

rangeland ecosystem consists of four primary, 

interactive components: a physical component, a 

biological component, a social component, and 

an economic component. This perspective implies 

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

the physical and biological components of the 

ecosystem provides the basic needs of society and 

supports economic use and potential.

The Fundamentals of Rangeland Health stated in 

43 CFR 4180 are: 

1. Watersheds are in, or are making significant 

progress toward, properly functioning physical 

condition, including their upland, riparianwetland, and aquatic components; soil and 

plant conditions support infiltration, soil 

moisture storage and the release of water that 

are in balance with climate and landform 

and maintain or improve water quality, water 

quantity and the timing and duration of flow. 

2. Ecological processes, including the hydrologic 

cycle, nutrient cycle and energy flow, are 

maintained, or there is significant progress 

toward their attainment, in order to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities. 

3. Water quality complies with State water 

quality standards and achieves, or is making 

significant progress toward achieving, 

established Bureau of Land Management 

objectives such as meeting wildlife needs.

4. Habitats are, or are making significant progress 

toward being, restored or maintained for 

Federal threatened and endangered species, 

Federal Proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal 

candidate and other special status species. 

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

biological health with elements of law relating to 

water quality, and plant and animal populations 

and communities. They provide direction in the 

development and implementation of the standards 

for rangeland health.

Standards for Rangeland Health 

The standards for rangeland health (standards), 

based on the above fundamentals, are expressions 

of the physical and biological condition or degree 

of function necessary to sustain healthy rangeland 

ecosystems. Although the focus of these stan-
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-3

dards is on domestic livestock grazing on Bureau 

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

uses. 

Standards that address the physical components 

of rangeland ecosystems focus on the roles and 

interactions of geology and landform, soil, climate and water as they govern watershed function and soil stability. The biological components 

addressed in the standards focus on the roles 

and interactions of plants, animals and microbes 

(producers, consumers and decomposers), and 

their habitats in the ecosystem. The biological 

component of rangeland ecosystems is supported 

by physical function of the system, and it is recognized that biological activity also influences and 

supports many of the ecosystem’s physical functions. 

Guidance contained in 43 CFR 4180 of the regulations directs management toward the maintenance or restoration of the physical function and 

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

rangelands is expected to provide for the maintenance, enhancement, or creation of future social 

and economic options. 

The standards are based upon the ecological 

potential and capability of each site. In assessing 

a site’s condition or degree of function, it must be 

understood that the evaluation compares each site 

to its own potential or capability. Potential and 

capability are defined as follows: 

Potential – The highest level of condition or 

degree of function a site can attain given no 

political, social or economic constraints. 

Capability – The highest level of condition 

or degree of function a site can attain 

given certain political, social or economic 

constraints. For example, these constraints 

might include riparian areas permanently 

occupied by a highway or railroad bed that 

prevent the stream’s full access to its original 

flood plain. If such constraints are removed, 

the site may be able to move toward its 

potential. 

In designing and implementing management 

strategies to meet the standards of rangeland 

health, the potential of the site must be identified, 

and any constraints recognized, in order that plan 

goals and objectives are realistic and physically 

and economically achievable.

Standards and Guidelines in

Relation to the Planning Process

The standards apply to the goals of land use 

plans, activity plans, and project plans (Allotment Management Plans, Annual Operating 

Plans, Habitat Management Plans, etc.). They 

establish the physical and biological conditions 

or degree of function toward which management 

of publicly-owned rangeland is to be directed. In 

the development of a plan, direction provided by 

the standards and the social and economic needs 

expressed by local communities and individuals 

are brought together in formulating the goal(s) of 

that plan. 

When the standards and the social and economic 

goals of the planning participants are woven 

together in the plan goal(s), the quantifiable, 

time specific objective(s) of the plan are then 

developed. Objectives describe and quantify the 

desired future conditions to be achieved within a 

specified timeframe. Each plan objective should 

address the physical, biological, social and economic elements identified in the plan goal. 

Standards apply to all ecological sites and land 

forms on public rangelands throughout Oregon 

and Washington. The standards require sitespecific information for full on-ground usability. 

For each standard, a set of indicators is identified 

for use in tailoring the standards to site-specific 

situations. These indicators are used for rangeland 

ecosystem assessments and monitoring and for 

developing terms and conditions for permits and 

leases that achieve the plan goal. 

Guidelines for livestock grazing management offer guidance in achieving the plan goal and objectives. The guidelines outline practices, methods, 

techniques and considerations used to ensure that 

progress is achieved in a way, and at a rate, that 

meets the plan goal and objectives.

Indicators of Rangeland Health 

The condition or degree of function of a site in 

relation to the standards and its trend toward or 

away from any standard is determined through 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-4

the use of reliable and scientifically sound indicators. The consistent application of such indicators 

can provide an objective view of the condition and 

trend of a site when used by trained observers. 

For example, the amount and distribution of 

ground cover can be used to indicate that infiltration at the soil surface can take place as described 

in the standard relating to upland watershed 

function. In applying this indicator, the specific 

levels of plant cover necessary to support infiltration in a particular soil should be identified using 

currently available information from reference 

areas, if they exist; from technical sources like soil 

survey reports, Ecological Site Inventories, and 

Ecological Site Descriptions, or from other existing reference materials. Reference areas are lands 

that best represent the potential of a specific ecological site in both physical function and biological health. In many instances potential reference 

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

absence of suitable reference areas, the selection 

of indicators to be used in measuring or judging 

condition or function should be made by an interdisciplinary team of experienced professionals and 

other trained individuals. 

Not all indicators identified for each standard 

are expected to be employed in every situation. 

Criteria for selecting appropriate indicators and 

methods of measurement and observation include, but are not limited to: 1. the relationship 

between the attribute(s) being measured or observed and the desired outcome; 2. the relationship between the activity (e.g., livestock grazing) 

and the attribute(s) being measured or observed; 

and 3. funds and workforce available to conduct 

the measurements or observations.

Assessments and Monitoring 

The standards are the basis for assessing and 

monitoring rangeland condition and trend. Carrying out well-designed assessment and monitoring is critical to restoring or maintaining healthy 

rangelands and determining trends and conditions. 

Assessments are a cursory form of evaluation 

based on the standards that can be used at different landscape scales. Assessments, conducted 

by qualified interdisciplinary teams (which may 

include but are not limited to physical, biological 

and social specialists, and interagency personnel) 

with participation from lessees and other interested parties, are appropriate at the watershed 

and sub-watershed levels, at the allotment and 

pasture levels and on individual ecological sites or 

groups of sites. Assessments identify the condition or degree of function within the rangeland 

ecosystem and indicate resource problems and issues that should be monitored or studied in more 

detail. The results of assessments are a valuable 

tool for managers in assigning priorities within an 

administrative area and the subsequent allocation 

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

may also be used in making management decisions where an obvious problem exists. 

Monitoring, which is the well documented and 

orderly collection, analysis and interpretation of 

resource data, serves as the basis for determining 

trends in the condition or degree of function of 

rangeland resources and for making management 

decisions. Monitoring should be designed and 

carried out to identify trends in resource conditions, to point out resource problems, to help 

indicate the cause of such problems, to point out 

solutions, and/or to contribute to adaptive management decisions. In cases where monitoring 

data do not exist, professional judgement, supported by interdisciplinary team recommendation, may be relied upon by the authorized officer 

in order to take necessary action. Review and 

evaluation of new information must be an ongoing activity. 

To be effective, monitoring must be consistent 

over time, throughout administrative areas, and 

in the 

methods of measurement and observation of 

selected indicators. Those doing the monitoring must have the knowledge and skill required 

by the level or intensity of the monitoring being 

done, as well as the experience to properly interpret the results. Technical support for training 

must be made available.

Measurability 

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

sometimes be a long-term process to restore some 

rangelands to properly functioning condition. It 

is intended that in cases where standards are not 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-5

being met, measurable progress should be made 

toward achieving those standards, and significant 

progress should be made toward fulfilling the 

fundamentals of rangeland health. Measurability 

is defined on a case-specific basis based upon the 

stated planning objectives (i.e., quantifiable, time 

specific), taking into account economic and social 

goals along with the biological and ecological 

capability of the area. To the extent that a rate of 

recovery conforms with the planning objectives, 

the area is allowed the time to meet the standard 

under the selected management regime. 

Implementation

The material contained in this document will be 

incorporated into existing Land Use Plans and 

used in the development of new Land Use Plans. 

According to 43 CFR 4130.3-1, permits and 

leases shall incorporate terms and conditions that 

ensure conformance with 43 CFR 4180. Terms 

and conditions of existing permits and leases will 

be modified to reflect standards and guidelines at 

the earliest possible date with priority for modification being at the discretion of the authorized 

officer. Terms and conditions of new permits and 

leases will reflect standards and guidelines in 

their development. 

Indicators identified in this document will serve 

as a focus of interpretation of existing monitoring data and will provide the basis of design for 

monitoring and assessment techniques, and in the 

development of monitoring and assessment plans. 

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

start of the next grazing year upon determining, 

through assessment or monitoring by experienced 

professionals and interdisciplinary teams, that a 

standard is not being achieved and that livestock 

are a significant contributing factor to the failure 

to achieve the standards and conform with the 

guidelines. 

Standards for Rangeland Health 

Standard 1 Watershed Function – Uplands 

Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage and stability 

that are appropriate to soil, climate and 

landform. 

Rationale and Intent 

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

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

flows of quality water from the watershed. 

To achieve and sustain rangeland health, watersheds must function properly. Watersheds consist of three principle components: the uplands, 

riparian/wetland areas and the aquatic zone. This 

standard addresses the upland component of the 

watershed. When functioning properly, within its 

potential, a watershed captures, stores and safely 

releases the moisture associated with normal precipitation events (equal to or less than the 25 year, 

5 hour event) that falls within its boundaries. 

Uplands make up the largest part of the watershed and are where most of the moisture received 

during precipitation events is captured and stored. 

While all watersheds consist of similar components and processes, each is unique in its individual makeup. Each watershed displays its own 

pattern of landform and soil, its unique climate 

and weather patterns, and its own history of use 

and current condition. In directing management 

toward achieving this standard, it is essential to 

treat each unit of the landscape (soil, ecological 

site, and watershed) according to its own capability and how it fits with both smaller and larger 

units of the landscape. 

A set of potential indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used 

to determine if this standard is being met. The 

appropriate indicators to be used in determining 

attainment of the standard should be drawn from 

the following list. 

Potential Indicators 

Protection of the soil surface from raindrop 

impact; detention of overland flow; maintenance 

of infiltration and permeability, and protection of 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-6

the soil surface from erosion, consistent with the 

potential/capability of the site, as evidenced by 

the: 

•	 amount and distribution of plant cover

(including forest canopy cover); 

•	 amount and distribution of plant litter;

•	 accumulation/incorporation of organic matter;

•	 amount and distribution of bare ground;

•	 amount and distribution of rock, stone, and

gravel; 

•	 plant composition and community structure;

•	 thickness and continuity of A horizon;

•	 character of micro-relief;

•	 presence and integrity of biotic crusts;

•	 root occupancy of the soil profile;

•	 biological activity (plant, animal, and insect);

and 

•	 absence of accelerated erosion and overland

flow. 

Soil and plant conditions promote moisture storage as evidenced by: 

•	 amount and distribution of plant cover

(including forest canopy cover); 

•	 amount and distribution of plant litter;

•	 plant composition and community structure;

and

•	 accumulation/incorporation of organic matter.

Standard 2 Watershed Function - Riparian/

Wetland Areas 

Riparian-wetland areas are in properly 

functioning physical condition appropriate 

to soil, climate, and landform. 

Rationale and Intent 

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

such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows; 

and 2. lotic, or moving water systems such as rivers, streams, and springs. Wetlands are areas that 

are inundated or saturated by surface or ground 

water at a frequency and duration to support, and 

which under normal circumstances do support, 

a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to 

life in saturated soil conditions. Riparian areas 

commonly occupy the transition zone between 

the uplands and surface water bodies (the aquatic 

zone) or permanently saturated wetlands. 

Properly functioning condition of riparian and 

wetland areas describes the degree of physical 

function of these components of the watershed. 

Their functionality is important to water quality in the capture and retention of sediment and 

debris, the detention and detoxification of pollutants, and in moderating seasonal extremes of 

water temperature. Properly functioning riparian 

areas and wetlands enhance the timing and duration of streamflow through dissipation of flood 

energy, improved bank storage, and ground water 

recharge. Properly functioning condition should 

not be confused with the Desired Plant Community (DPC) or the Desired Future Condition 

(DFC) since, in most cases, it is the precursor to 

these levels of resource condition and is required 

for their attainment. 

A set of indicators has been identified for which 

site-specific criteria will be used to determine if 

this standard is being met. The criteria are based 

upon the potential (or upon the capability where 

potential cannot be achieved) of individual sites 

or land forms. 

Potential Indicators 

Hydrologic, vegetative, and erosional/depositional 

processes interact in supporting physical function, 

consistent with the potential or capability of the 

site, as evidenced by: 

•	 frequency of floodplain/wetland inundation;

•	 plant composition, age class distribution, and

community structure; 

•	 root mass;

•	 point bars revegetating;

•	 streambank/shoreline stability;

•	 riparian area width; 

•	 sediment deposition;

•	 active/stable beaver dams;

•	 coarse/large woody debris;

•	 upland watershed conditions;

•	 frequency/duration of soil saturation; and

•	 water table fluctuation.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-7

Stream channel characteristics are appropriate for 

landscape position as evidenced by: 

•	 channel width/depth ratio;

•	 channel sinuosity;

•	 gradient;

•	 rocks and coarse and/or large woody debris;

•	 overhanging banks;

•	 pool/riffle ratio;

•	 pool size and frequency; and

•	 stream embeddedness.

Standard 3 Ecological Processes 

Healthy, productive and diverse plant and 

animal populations and communities appropriate to soil, climate and landform are 

supported by ecological processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow and the hydrologic 

cycle. 

Rationale and Intent 

This standard addresses the ecological processes 

of energy flow and nutrient cycling as influenced 

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

proportions of plant and animal community compositions. While emphasis may be on native species, an ecological site may be capable of supporting a number of different native and introduced 

plant and animal populations and communities 

while meeting this standard. This standard also 

addresses the hydrologic cycle which is essential 

for plant growth and appropriate levels of energy 

flow and nutrient cycling. Standards 1 and 2 

address the watershed aspects of the hydrologic 

cycle. 

With few exceptions, all life on earth is supported 

by the energy supplied by the sun and captured 

by plants in the process of photosynthesis. This 

energy enters the food chain when plants are 

consumed by insects and herbivores and passes 

upward through the food chain to the carnivores. 

Eventually, the energy reaches the decomposers 

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

The ability of plants to capture sunlight energy, to 

grow and develop, to play a role in soil development and watershed function, to provide habitat 

for wildlife and to support economic uses depends 

on the availability of nutrients and moisture. Nutrients necessary for plant growth are made available to plants through the decomposition and metabolization of organic matter by insects, bacteria 

and fungi, the weathering of rocks and extraction 

from the atmosphere. Nutrients are transported 

through the soil by plant uptake, leaching and by 

rodent, insect and microbial activity. They follow 

cyclical patterns as they are used and reused by 

living organisms. 

The ability of rangelands to supply resources and 

satisfy social and economic needs depends on the 

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

site degradation, as these lands become increasingly deficient in the nutrients plants require. 

Some plant communities, because of past use, 

frequent fire or other histories of extreme or continued disturbance, are incapable of meeting this 

standard. For example, shallow-rooted winter-annual grasses that completely dominate some sites 

do not fully occupy the potential rooting depth 

of some soils, thereby reducing nutrient cycling 

well below optimum levels. In addition, these 

plants have a relatively short growth period and 

thus capture less sunlight than more diverse plant 

communities. Plant communities like those cited 

in this example are considered to have crossed the 

threshold of recovery and often require great expense to be recovered. The cost of recovery must 

be weighed against the site’s potential ecological/

economic value in establishing treatment priorities. 

The role of fire in natural ecosystems should be 

considered, whether it acts as a primary driver or 

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

flows. 

A set of indicators has been identified for which 

site-specific criteria will be used to determine if 

this standard is being met. 

Potential Indicators 

Photosynthesis is effectively occurring throughout 

the potential growing season, consistent with the 

potential/capability of the site, as evidenced by 

plant composition and community structure. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-8

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

evidenced by: 

•	 plant composition and community structure;

•	 accumulation, distribution, incorporation of

plant litter and organic matter into the soil; 

•	 animal community structure and composition;

•	 root occupancy in the soil profile; and

•	 biological activity including plant growth,

herbivory, and rodent, insect and microbial 

activity.

Standard 4 Water Quality 

Surface water and groundwater quality, influenced by agency actions, complies with 

State water quality standards. 

Rationale and Intent 

The quality of the water yielded by a watershed is 

determined by the physical and chemical properties of the geology and soils unique to the watershed, the prevailing climate and weather patterns, 

current resource conditions, the uses to which the 

land is put and the quality of the management 

of those uses. Standards 1, 2 and 3 contribute to 

attaining this standard. 

States are legally required to establish water quality standards and Federal land management agencies are to comply with those standards. In mixed 

ownership watersheds, agencies, like any other 

land owners, have limited influence on the quality 

of the water yielded by the watershed. The actions 

taken by the agency will contribute to meeting 

State water quality standards during the period 

that water crosses agency administered holdings. 

Potential Indicators 

Water quality meets applicable water quality standards as evidenced by: 

•	 water temperature; 

•	 dissolved oxygen;

•	 fecal coliform;

•	 turbidity;

•	 pH;

•	 populations of aquatic organisms; and

•	 effects on beneficial uses (i.e., effects of

management activities on beneficial uses as 

defined under the Clean Water Act and State 

implementing regulations). 

Standard 5 Native, T&E, and Locally 

Important Species 

Habitats support healthy, productive and 

diverse populations and communities 

of native plants and animals (including 

special status species and species of local 

importance) appropriate to soil, climate 

and landform.

Rationale and Intent

Federal agencies are mandated to protect threatened and endangered species and will take appropriate action to avoid the listing of any species. 

This standard focuses on retaining and restoring 

native plant and animal (including fish) species, 

populations and communities (including threatened, endangered and other special status species 

and species of local importance). In meeting the 

standard, native plant communities and animal 

habitats would be spatially distributed across the 

landscape with a density and frequency of species suitable to ensure reproductive capability and 

sustainability. Plant populations and communities 

would exhibit a range of age classes necessary to 

sustain recruitment and mortality fluctuations. 

Potential Indicators 

•	 essential habitat elements for species,

populations and communities are present 

and available, consistent with the potential/

capability of the landscape, as evidenced by: 

•	 plant community composition, age class 

distribution, productivity; 

•	 animal community composition, productivity;

•	 habitat elements;

•	 spatial distribution of habitat;

•	 habitat connectivity; and 

•	 population stability/resilience.

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management

Guidelines for livestock grazing management 

offer guidance in achieving plan goals, meeting 

standards for rangeland health and fulfilling the 

fundamentals of rangeland health. Guidelines are 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-9

applied in accordance with the capabilities of the 

resource in consultation, cooperation, and coordination with lessees and the interested public. 

Guidelines enable managers to adjust grazing 

management on public lands to meet current and 

anticipated climatic and biological conditions. 

General Guidelines 

1. Involve diverse interests in rangeland 

assessment, planning and monitoring. 

2. Assessment and monitoring are essential to 

the management of rangelands, especially in 

areas where resource problems exist or issues 

arise. Monitoring should proceed using a 

qualitative method of assessment to identify 

critical, site-specific problems or issues 

using interdisciplinary teams of specialists, 

managers, and knowledgeable land users. 

Once identified, critical, site-specific problems 

or issues should be targeted for more intensive, 

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

to those areas that are ecologically at-risk where 

benefits can be maximized given existing budgets 

and other resources. 

Livestock Grazing Management 

1. The season, timing, frequency, duration and 

intensity of livestock grazing use should 

be based on the physical and biological 

characteristics of the site and the management 

unit in order to: 

a. provide adequate cover (live plants, plant 

litter and residue) to promote infiltration, 

conserve soil moisture and to maintain soil 

stability in upland areas; 

b. provide adequate cover and plant 

community structure to promote 

streambank stability, debris and sediment 

capture, and floodwater energy dissipation 

in riparian areas. 

c. promote soil surface conditions that 

support infiltration; 

d. avoid sub-surface soil compaction that 

retards the movement of water in the soil 

profile; 

e. help prevent the increase and spread of 

noxious weeds; 

f. maintain or restore diverse plant 

populations and communities that fully 

occupy the potential rooting volume of the 

soil;

g. maintain or restore plant communities to 

promote photosynthesis throughout the 

potential growing season; 

h. promote soil and site conditions 

that provide the opportunity for the 

establishment of desirable plants; 

i. protect or restore water quality; and

j. provide for the life cycle requirements, and 

maintain or restore the habitat elements 

of native (including T&E, special status, 

and locally important species) and desired 

plants and animals. 

2. Grazing management plans should be tailored 

to site-specific conditions and plan objectives. 

Livestock grazing should be coordinated 

with the timing of precipitation, plant growth 

and plant form. Soil moisture, plant growth 

stage and the timing of peak stream flows 

are key factors in determining when to graze. 

Response to different grazing strategies varies 

with differing ecological sites. 

3. Grazing management systems should consider 

nutritional and herd health requirements of 

the livestock. 

4. Integrate grazing management systems into 

the year-round management strategy and 

resources of the permittee(s) or lessee(s). 

Consider the use of collaborative approaches 

(e.g., Coordinated Resource Management, 

Working Groups) in this integration. 

5. Consider competition for forage and browse 

among livestock, big game animals, and wild 

horses in designing and implementing a 

grazing plan. 

6. Provide periodic rest from grazing for 

rangeland vegetation during critical growth 

periods to promote plant vigor, reproduction 

and productivity. 

7. Range improvement practices should be 

prioritized to promote rehabilitation and 

resolve grazing concerns on transitory grazing 

land. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-10

8. Consider the potential for conflict between 

grazing use on public land and adjoining land 

uses in the design and implementation of a 

grazing management plan. 

Facilitating the Management of Livestock 

Grazing 

1. The use of practices to facilitate the 

implementation of grazing systems should 

consider the kind and class of animals 

managed, indigenous wildlife, wild horses, 

the terrain and the availability of water. 

Practices such as fencing, herding, water 

development, and the placement of salt and 

supplements (where authorized) are used 

where appropriate to: 

a. promote livestock distribution; 

b. encourage a uniform level of proper grazing 

use throughout the grazing unit; 

c. avoid unwanted or damaging concentrations of livestock on streambanks, in riparian areas and other sensitive areas such as 

highly erodible soils, unique wildlife habitats and plant communities; and 

d. protect water quality. 

2. Roads and trails used to facilitate livestock 

grazing are constructed and maintained 

in a manner that minimizes the effects 

on landscape hydrology; concentration of 

overland flow, erosion and sediment transport 

are prevented; and subsurface flows are 

retained. 

Accelerating Rangeland Recovery 

1. Upland treatments that alter the vegetative 

composition of a site, like prescribed burning, 

juniper management and seedings or 

plantings must be based on the potential of 

the site and should:

a. retain or promote infiltration, permeability, 

and soil moisture storage; 

b. contribute to nutrient cycling and energy 

flow; 

c. protect water quality; 

d. help prevent the increase and spread of 

noxious weeds; 

e. contribute to the diversity of plant 

communities, and plant community 

composition and structure; 

f. support the conservation of T&E, other 

special status species and species of local 

importance; and 

g. be followed up with grazing management 

and other treatments that extend the life of 

the treatment and address the cause of the 

original treatment need. 

2. Seedings and plantings of non-native 

vegetation should only be used in those 

cases where native species are not available 

in sufficient quantities; where native species 

are incapable of maintaining or achieving the 

standards; or where non-native species are 

essential to the functional integrity of the site. 

3. Structural and vegetative treatments and 

animal introductions in riparian and wetland 

areas must be compatible with the capability 

of the site, including the system’s hydrologic 

regime, and contribute to the maintenance or 

restoration of properly functioning condition. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-11

Glossary 

Appropriate action–implementing actions 

pursuant to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130 and 4160 

of the regulations that will result in significant 

progress toward fulfillment of the standards and 

significant progress toward conformance with the 

guidelines (see significant progress below). 

Assessment–a form of evaluation based on the 

standards of rangeland health, conducted by an 

interdisciplinary team at the appropriate landscape scale (pasture, allotment, sub-watershed, 

watershed, etc.) to determine conditions relative 

to standards. 

Compaction layer–a layer within the soil profile 

in which the soil particles have been rearranged 

to decrease void space, thereby increasing soil 

bulk density and often reducing permeability. 

Crust, Abioti–(physical crust) a surface layer on 

soils, ranging in thickness from a few millimeters 

to a few centimeters, that is much more compact, 

hard and brittle, when dry, than the material immediately beneath it. 

Crust, Bioti–(microbiotic or cryptogamic crust) a 

layer of living organisms (mosses, lichens, liverworts, algae, fungi, bacteria, and/or cyanobacteria) occurring on, or near the soil surface. 

Degree of function–a level of physical function 

relative to properly functioning condition commonly expressed as: properly functioning, functioning-at-risk, or non-functional. 

Diversity–the aggregate of species assemblages 

(communities), individual species, and the genetic variation within species and the processes 

by which these components interact within and 

among themselves. The elements of diversity are: 

1. community diversity (habitat, ecosystem), 2. 

species diversity; and 3. genetic diversity within a 

species; all three of which change over time. 

Energy flow–the processes in which solar energy 

is converted to chemical energy through photosynthesis and passed through the food chain until 

it is eventually dispersed through respiration and 

decomposition. 

Groundwater–water in the ground that is in the 

zone of saturation; water in the ground that exists 

at, or below the water table. 

Guideline–practices, methods, techniques and 

considerations used to ensure that progress is 

made in a way and at a rate that achieves the 

standard(s). 

Gully–a channel resulting from erosion and 

caused by the concentrated but intermittent flow 

of water usually during and immediately following heavy rains. 

Hydrologic cycle–the process in which water 

enters the atmosphere through evaporation, transpiration, or sublimation from the oceans, other 

surface water bodies, or from the land and vegetation, and through condensation and precipitation 

returns to the earth’s surface. The precipitation 

then occurring as overland flow, stream flow, 

or percolating underground flow to the oceans 

or other surface water bodies or to other sites 

of evapo-transpiration and recirculation to the 

atmosphere. 

Indicators–parameters of ecosystem function 

that are observed, assessed, measured, or monitored to directly or indirectly determine attainment of a standard(s). 

Infiltration–the downward entry of water into 

the soil. 

Infiltration rate–the rate at which water enters 

the soil.

Nutrient cycling–the movement of essential 

elements and inorganic compounds between the 

reservoir pool (soil, for example) and the cycling 

pool (organisms) in the rapid exchange (i.e., moving back and forth) between organisms and their 

immediate environment. 

Organic matter–plant and animal residues accumulated or deposited at the soil surface; the 

organic fraction of the soil that includes plant and 

animal residues at various stages of decomposition; cells and tissues of soil organisms, and the 

substances synthesized by the soil population. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-12

Permeability–the ease with which gases, liquids 

or plant roots penetrate or pass through a bulk 

mass of soil or a layer of soil. 

Properly functioning condition–

Riparian-wetland: adequate vegetation, landform, 

or large (coarse) woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water 

flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving 

water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, 

and aid in flood plain development; improve 

flood-water retention and ground water recharge; 

develop root masses that stabilize streambanks 

against cutting action; develop diverse channel 

and ponding characteristics to provide the habitat 

and water depth, duration and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and 

other uses; and support greater biodiversity. The 

result of interaction among geology, soil, water, 

and vegetation. 

Uplands: soil and plant conditions support the 

physical processes of infiltration and moisture 

storage and promote soil stability (as appropriate 

to site potential); includes the production of plant 

cover and the accumulation of plant residue that 

protect the soil surface from raindrop impact, 

moderate soil temperature in minimizing frozen 

soil conditions (frequency, depth, and duration), 

and the loss of soil moisture to evaporation; root 

growth and development in the support of permeability and soil aeration. The result of interaction among geology, climate, landform, soil, and 

organisms. 

Proper grazing use–grazing that, through the 

control of timing, frequency, intensity and duration of use, meets the physiological needs of the 

desirable vegetation, provides for the establishment of desirable plants and is in accord with the 

physical function and stability of soil and landform (properly functioning condition). 

Reference area–sites that, because of their 

condition and degree of function, represent the 

ecological potential or capability of similar sites 

in an area or region (ecological province); serve 

as a benchmark in determining the ecological 

potential of sites with similar soil, climatic, and 

landscape characteristics. 

Rill–a small, intermittent water course with steep 

sides; usually only a few inches deep. 

Riparian area–a form of wetland transition 

between permanently saturated wetlands and 

upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or 

physical characteristics reflective of permanent 

surface or subsurface water influence. Lands 

along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and stream, 

glacial potholes, and shores of lakes and reservoirs 

with stable water levels area typical riparian areas. 

Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or 

washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. 

Includes, but is not limited to, jurisdictional 

wetlands. 

Significant progress–when used in reference to 

achieving a standard: (actions), the necessary land 

treatments, practices and/or changes to management have been applied or are in effect; (rate), a 

rate of progress that is consistent with the anticipated recovery rate described in plan objectives, 

with due recognition of the effects of climatic 

extremes (drought, flooding, etc.), fire, and other 

unforeseen naturally occurring events or disturbances. Monitoring reference areas that are ungrazed and properly grazed may provide evidence 

of appropriate recovery rates. (See Proper Grazing 

Use) 

Soil density–(bulk density)--the mass of dry soil 

per unit bulk volume. 

Soil moisture–water contained in the soil; commonly used to describe water in the soil above the 

water table. 

Special status species–species proposed for 

listing, officially listed (T/E), or candidates for 

listing as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of the Interior under the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act; those listed or proposed 

for listing by the State in a category implying potential endangerment or extinction; those designated by each Bureau of Land Management State 

Director as sensitive. 

Species of local importance–species of significant importance to Native American populations 

(e.g., medicinal and food plants). 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix H—Rangeland Health and Livestock Grazing Management

H-13

Standard–an expression of the physical and biological condition or degree of function necessary 

to sustain healthy rangeland ecosystems. 

Uplands–lands that exist above the riparian/

wetland area, or active flood plains of rivers and 

streams; those lands not influenced by the water 

table or by free or unbound water; commonly 

represented by toe slopes, alluvial fans, and side 

slopes, shoulders and ridges of mountains and 

hills. 

Watershed–an area of land that contributes to 

the surface flow of water past a given point. The 

watershed dimensions are determined by the 

point past, or through which, runoff flows. 

Watershed function–the principal functions of a 

watershed include the capture of moisture contributed by precipitation; the storage of moisture 

within the soil profile, and the release of moisture through subsurface flow, deep percolation 

to groundwater, evaporation from the soil, and 

transpiration by live vegetation. 

Wetland–areas that are inundated or saturated 

by surface or ground water at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and which under 

normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated 

soil conditions.

 
H-14 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-1

appendix I

Monitoring Strategy and Projects

table of contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................I-3

Baseline Data............................................................................................................................................I-3

Historical Plant Community Change ......................................................................................................I-3

Ecosystem Dynamics ...............................................................................................................................I-3

Monitoring of Management Activities.....................................................................................................I-4

Individual Monitoring Projects Contributing to Understanding the CSNM Landscape: 

Terrestrial...........................................................................................................................................I-4

Habitat Type 1 & 2 vs. 5 Effectiveness Monitoring .................................................................................I-4

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-4

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-4

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-4

Analytical Process........................................................................................................................I-4

Root Rot Incidence and Insect Activity in CSNM..................................................................................I-4

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-4

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-4

Methods and Materials .............................................................................................................I-4

Analytical Process........................................................................................................................I-5

Individual Monitoring Projects Contributing to Understanding the CSNM Landscape: 

Aquatic (Physical And Biological).....................................................................................................I-5

Landscape Hydrologic/Riparian Surveys .................................................................................................I-5

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-5

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-5

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-5

Baseline Stream Temperature Monitoring ...............................................................................................I-5

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-5

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-5

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-5

Gaging Station and Staff Gages: Flow and Water Quality Assessment...................................................I-6

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-6

Objectives ...........................................................................................................................I-6

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-6

Stream Channel Cross Sections Throughout the CSNM.........................................................................I-6

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-6

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-6

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-6

Lower Jenny Creek Rain Gage ................................................................................................................I-6

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-6

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-6

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-6

Jenny Creek Riparian Restoration Aerial Photo Monitoring...................................................................I-7

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-7

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-7
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-2

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-7

Jenny Creek Riparian Restoration Stream Temperature Monitoring .......................................................I-7

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-7

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-7

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-7

Jenny Creek Riparian Restoration Channel Morphology Monitoring.....................................................I-7

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-7

Objectives ...........................................................................................................................I-7

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-7

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring ...................................................................................................I-8

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-8

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-8

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-8

Patterns of Fish Habitat Use throughout Jenny Creek/Response to Watershed Change over Time........I-8

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-8

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-8

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-8

Analytical Process........................................................................................................................I-8

Keene Creek and Jenny Creek Channel Restoration Monitoring ............................................................I-8

Introduction. ...........................................................................................................................I-8

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-9

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-9

Jenny Creek Sucker Spawning Areas........................................................................................................I-9

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................I-9

Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................I-9

Methods and Materials ...............................................................................................................I-9

CSNM Visitor Use Monitoring.............................................................................................................I-10

Introduction...............................................................................................................................I-10

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................I-10

Implementation .........................................................................................................................I-11

Peregrine Falcon Site Inventory and Monitoring...................................................................................I-11

Introduction...............................................................................................................................I-11

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................I-11

Methods and Materials..............................................................................................................I-11

Spotted Owl Site Inventory ...................................................................................................................I-11

Introduction...............................................................................................................................I-11

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................I-12

Methods and Materials..............................................................................................................I-12
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-3

INTRODUCTION

The presidential proclamation for the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument (CSNM) calls for 

protecting the objects considered special to the 

monument. These include Greene’s mariposa lily, 

Gentner’s fritillary, Bellingers meadowfoam, populations of long-isolated fish species, special plant 

communities (rosaceous chaparral and Oregon 

white oak-juniper woodlands), mixed conifer, 

winter deer habitat, old-growth conifer habitat 

crucial for spotted owl, as well as the diversity 

of butterfly and snail species associated with the 

assemblage of plant communities dispersed across 

the landscape.

The call to consider ecosystem dynamics (change 

over time) and ecosystem integrity (whether all 

the components of the ecosystem are present and 

functioning) requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to consider biological objects 

and ecosystem variables relative to the range of 

processes occurring within the CSNM landscape. 

The monitoring of key species and variables indicative of ecosystem functioning is critical to understanding the health of the ecosystems within 

the monument. While most monitoring projects 

identified in this appendix contribute to an understanding of ecological integrity and ecosystem 

functioning, there are other important processes 

that need to be monitored; these include forest 

succession, weed invasion, hydrology, and monitoring of individual species considered indicative 

of habitat conditions required by a broader suite 

of species.

Of particular concern within the monument is 

the impact of livestock on the biological elements 

considered characteristic of the CSNM and mentioned within the presidential proclamation. The 

ongoing livestock impact study will address these 

concerns.

There are four primary categories of monitoring 

needed to assess the array of resources and potential impacts of management actions throughout 

the CSNM. Monitoring within each category is 

necessary to provide a comprehensive ecological 

perspective at the landscape scale. Each of the 

four monitoring efforts is described below:

Baseline Data

Forest systems in the monument will be monitored to determine trends related to disturbance 

agents such as insects, disease, and fire. Landscape-level plant community surveys will be conducted on the ground and supported by satellite 

imagery in order to determine long-term trends. 

Baseline data gathering methodologies will be 

initiated as soon as possible.

Historical Plant Community Change 

Several monitoring projects and surveys are 

planned to provide a better understanding of 

historical and more recent impacts of livestock, 

human, and natural disturbance on ecosystem 

dynamics across the CSNM landscape. Monitoring and surveying will be conducted to examine 

present landscape-level conditions, past plant 

community changes, the distribution of special 

plant community/wildlife habitat, and noxious 

weed invasion. Aerial and satellite imagery may 

provide additional baseline data with which to 

conduct future, more detailed examinations of 

the above dynamics.

Landscape-level surveys of plant community, 

wildlife habitat, weed abundance, surface hydrology, riparian condition, and livestock utilization 

will provide the context for more intense monitoring at specific sites on the landscape. Full use 

is being made of existing data to provide seamless 

maps of plant communities across the CSNM 

landscape.

Fence-line contrasts and existing livestock 

exclosures coupled with ground-nesting bird 

surveys will allow limited assessment of past 

plant community change and wildlife nesting 

habitat associated with livestock impact. A reexamination of vegetation plots associated with 

old soil and vegetation surveys will allow further 

assessment of long-term change for the range of 

plant communities within the monument. Aerial 

photos taken in 1939 will provide visual evidence 

of change at specific locations within the CSNM.

Ecosystem Dynamics

Several projects will provide insight to ecosystem 

dynamics as defined by the proclamation. Inference about ecosystem dynamics will be obtained 

through studies of insect and arthropod popula-
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-4

tions, changes in plant community composition, 

weed invasion, coarse woody debris, tree vigor 

and disease, and insects within spotted owl cores 

and adjacent areas, within the context of past disturbance and ecological process (timber harvest, 

grazing, wildland fire, weed invasion, etc.).

Monitoring of Management Activities

The monument supports a variety of forest and 

non-forest plant communities with changing 

compositional and structural characteristics. 

Any activities initiated within the monument 

that change or affect plant communities require 

monitoring and research that support or validate 

management objectives. Issues related to this are 

grass/shrubs/woodland plant community health, 

forest health, and livestock grazing. Plant community trends need to be measured with the best 

technology available in a manner that will identify environmental processes over time, creating a 

long-term archive in the process.

Future management activities (prescribed fire, 

weed eradication, small tree thinning, etc.) will be 

monitored using permanently marked monitoring 

sites following standard protocols established for 

the CSNM. Where feasible, care will be taken to 

establish monitoring protocols that are compatible 

with existing data.

INDIVIDUAL MONITORING PROJECTS 

CONTRIBUTING TO UNDERSTANDING THE

CSNM LANDSCAPE: TERRESTRIAL

Habitat Type 1 & 2 vs. 5, Effectiveness 

Monitoring

Introduction

The purpose of this project is to establish longterm, permanent plots using forest stand data and 

Firemon data. Habitat Types 1, 2, and 5 compare 

trends with management at the project level. 

The existing or pretreatment information will 

be the baseline data for monitoring treatments 

and trends in CSNM. Various pre- and posttreatment stand density, growth and fuels data, 

etc., will help to determine effectiveness in 

meeting goals and objectives during management 

activities.

Objectives

Objective 1: Monitor stand structural 

characteristics, stocking levels, 

canopy, fuels, CWD and snags 

over time. 

Objective 2: Determine effectiveness 

in meeting protection and 

maintenance goals after 

treatments. 

Objective 3: Use information to further assist 

decision making and planning 

future activities.

Methods and Materials

Establish plots in the habitat types during designed projects in order to monitor post-treatment 

effects such as fire and thinning activities. Use 

BLM stand exam to collect data and maintain 

database. Use Firemon data for post-fire effects.

Analytical Process

Compare pre- and post-treatment data and any 

other information available using existing forest, 

fuels or botany data systems available.

Root Rot Incidence and Insect Activity in 

CSNM 

Introduction

Root rots and insects, especially bark beetles, are 

common agents of disturbance in CSNM. This 

will be a project aimed at developing baseline data 

in determining the location of and the extent to 

which root rots and beetles are affecting forest 

stands in the monument.

Objectives

Objective 1: The insect and root rot baseline data 

would be linked to annual aerial 

flights to assist in tracking trends 

and aiding in decision-making in the 

monument.

Methods and Materials 

Annual flights will continue to map out insect 

occurrence in CSNM. Locations will be field 

checked. Root rot occurrence and severity has 

been and will continue to be added to the database as inventory work is accomplished. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-5

Analytical Process

Develop maps, determine severity, link to effectiveness monitoring involving established plots 

and input into the decision-making process for 

prioritizing treatments in forest stands. Specifically, protection of late-successional and oldgrowth habitat types is desired.

INDIVIDUAL MONITORING PROJECTS 

CONTRIBUTING TO UNDERSTANDING

THE CSNM LANDSCAPE: 

AQUATIC (PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL)

Landscape Hydrologic/Riparian Surveys

Introduction

Management, protection, and monitoring 

of aquatic/riparian resources can only be accomplished if the location of those resources is 

known. Detection of change in many of those 

resources, especially due to the site-specific nature 

of many aquatic/riparian features, can be accomplished only through the collection of existingcondition data, and then monitoring change over 

time.

Objectives

Objective 1: Provide general hydrologic/

riparian spatial information, 

morphologic description, flow 

regime, and ecological condition, 

as context for other studies, input 

to transportation planning, and 

protection of aquatic/riparian 

objects identified. Will serve as 

baseline for long-term monitoring. 

Objective 2: Provide data to assist in assessment 

 of all Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

 (ACS) objectives. 

Methods and Materials

Location, flow duration, channel classification/

morphology data for streams, wetlands, and 

other hydrologic features; instream large wood; 

impact descriptions and restoration opportunities, especially related to livestock, transportation, and vegetation throughout the monument. 

Assess functioning condition. Conduct surveys 

using the Ashland Resource Area Stream Survey 

Protocol. On BLM lands within the monument, 

initial data collection in the Keene Creek and a 

portion of the middle Jenny Creek subwatersheds 

was completed in 1999; portions in the upper 

Emigrant Creek subwatershed were completed 

in 2000. Portions in Fall, Camp, Scotch, upper 

Cottonwood, lower Cottonwood, upper Jenny, 

lower Jenny, and the remainder of middle Jenny 

Creek subwatersheds are proposed for initial data 

collection. Surveys would be repeated at 10-25 

year intervals.

Baseline Stream Temperature 

Monitoring

Introduction

Changes in vegetative cover, channel dimensions, 

and bank/floodplain water storage are known to 

influence stream temperatures. Changes in riparian management, upland management to increasingly protect riparian resources, and cooperative 

restoration activities targeted at meeting ACS objectives and state water quality standards should 

lead to detectable changes in summer stream 

temperature at locations throughout and adjacent 

to the CSNM as stream and riparian function 

improves. 

Objectives

Objective 1: Monitor for long-term changes in 

stream temperatures, as context for 

judging success of riparian/aquatic 

management, restoration, and 

protection. 

Objective 2: Provide data to assist in assessment 

of ACS objectives 2, 4, and 9, for 

assessment of compliance with 

state water quality standards, and 

to assist in development of State 

of Oregon/EPA-required Water 

Quality Management Plans for 

this area.

Methods and Materials

Collect seasonal 30-minute interval stream 

temperature data using USGS and Oregon DEQestablished methodologies. Collect data at 13 

existing and 10 proposed sites in addition to the 9 

project-specific sites listed above. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-6

Gaging Station and Staff Gages: Flow and 

Water Quality Assessment

Introduction

Calculation and assessment of peak, high, and 

low flows is extremely difficult without actual 

field measurement and reference over time. Flow 

data is also required for the meaningful analysis 

of water quality parameters. Because of rapid 

fluctuation in stream levels, continuous records 

are required at a key location to interpret data 

collected in non-continuous sampling from other 

locations.

Objectives 

Objective 1: Provide flow and water quality 

information at key locations as 

context for other types of aquatic 

condition assessment. 

Objective 2: Provide data to assist in the 

 assessment of ACS objectives 1, 

 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and to moni-

 tor compliance with state water 

 quality standards.

Methods and Materials

Perform monthly grab sample collection of turbidity, air temperature, H2O temperature, pH, 

flow, fecal coliform, and dissolved oxygen at 11 

existing and five proposed locations. Do a continuous record (15-minute interval) of stream stage, 

water and air temperature at one location. Standard methods will be undertaken using USGS, 

Oregon DEQ and EPA approved protocols.

Stream Channel Cross Sections throughout 

the CSNM

Introduction

Calculation and assessment of peak, high, and 

low flows is extremely difficult without actual 

field measurement and reference over time. Flow 

data is also required for the meaningful analysis of water quality parameters. Cross-sections 

provide a reference point from which to document 

changes in channel morphology, conduct flow 

measurements, and estimate flood flows. Documentation of changes in channel morphology 

provides an indication of stability and functioning 

of the upstream surface hydrologic system.

Objectives

Objective 1: Provide site-specific trend of 

width/depth ratios, entrenchment, 

and other indicators of channel 

form, and provide reference points 

for assessment of large flood flows. 

Objective 2: Provide data to assist in the 

assessment of ACS objectives 1, 2, 

3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. 

Methods and Materials

Perform cross-section measurement to calculate 

entrenchment, width/depth ratio; bankfull channel length to calculate slope and sinuosity. Measurement methodologies will include standard 

cadastral survey techniques and those outlined in 

Rosgen (1996). Twelve existing and five proposed 

monumented sites measured at ~5-year intervals 

and after major flood events.

Lower Jenny Creek Rain Gage 

Introduction

Assessment of hydrologic response and water 

quality parameters, as well as many other aspects 

of ecosystem function, can only be analyzed 

accurately in the context of recent precipitation. 

Although year-to-year trends in precipitation 

tend to be uniform over an area of this size, there 

is substantial variability in precipitation between 

locations based on terrain, elevation, etc. Precipitation data from a number of sites at varying 

elevations and locations in and around the monument is needed for interpretation of related data 

including hydrologic, vegetation conditions, etc.

Objectives

Objective 1: Provide rainfall data as context for 

 flow assessment and other types of 

 monitoring. 

Objective 2: Provide data to assist in assessment

 of ACS objectives 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Methods and Materials

Collect rainfall data at 15-minute intervals at one 

site in lower Jenny Creek using tipping bucket 

rain gauge. Collect daily precipitation at Howard Prairie Dam (NOAA), Parker Mountain 

(RAWS), and Buckhorn Springs (RAWS). Collect daily snowfall and snow-on-the-ground at 

Howard Prairie Dam (NOAA).
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-7

Jenny Creek Riparian Restoration Aerial 

Photo Monitoring

Introduction

Past practices in vegetation management and utilization, stream channelization, and flood control 

have dramatically changed riparian condition 

and morphologic character of portions of Jenny 

Creek. Changes in management, riparian vegetation restoration activities, and removal of flood 

control structures should allow the stream channel of Jenny Creek to recover from a straightened 

and constrained state to an increasingly sinuous, 

non-entrenched condition as described by Rosgen 

(1996) and others. The extent and size of woody 

riparian vegetation should likewise increase. 

Aerial photo monitoring of this change over time 

is a relatively inexpensive technique that can dramatically demonstrate the magnitude of change 

occurring.

Objectives

Objective 1: Aerial photo monitoring of change 

in riparian and morphologic 

condition in a portion of Jenny 

Creek undergoing restoration 

activities. 

Objective 2: Provide data to assist in assessment

 of ACS objectives 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 

 and 9.

Methods and Materials

Capture digitally-orthocorrected GIS layer photo 

mosaics of Jenny Creek and tributaries in 40S 4E 

sections 22, 27, and 28 using photos from 1939, 

1953, 1962, 1966, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1991, 1996, 

~2001, and ~5 year intervals after that.

Jenny Creek Riparian Restoration Stream 

Temperature Monitoring 

Introduction

Changes in riparian vegetative cover, channel 

dimensions, and bank/floodplain water storage are known to influence stream temperature. 

Restoration activities and management strategies 

targeted at meeting ACS objectives should lead to 

detectable changes in summer stream temperature 

over the next few decades on this portion of Jenny 

Creek as the stream channel and adjacent riparian/floodplain areas regain functionality. 

Objectives 

Objective 1: Document long-term change in 

water temperatures resulting from 

passive and active restoration 

activities attempting to reverse 

past management impacts. 

Objective 2: Provide data to assist in assessment

 of ACS objectives 2, 4, and 9.

Methods and Materials

Collect seasonal 30-minute interval stream 

temperature data according to USGS and Oregon 

DEQ-established methodologies. Collect data at 

nine monumented sites along 2.5 miles of Jenny 

Creek, repeated annually. Two sites monitored 

since 1991, seven additional sites monitored since 

1997.

Jenny Creek Riparian Restoration Channel 

Morphology Monitoring

Introduction

Recovery of riparian vegetation and removal of 

flood control structures should allow the stream 

channel to recover from a straightened and constrained state to an increasingly sinuous, non- entrenched condition as described by Rosgen (1996), 

Leopold (1992) and others.

Objectives 

Objective 1: Document long-term change in 

stream dimension, pattern, and 

profile resulting from passive 

and active restoration activities 

attempting to reverse past 

management impacts.

Objective 2: Provide context for other aquatic 

 monitoring activities. 

Objective 3: Provide data to assist in assessment

 of ACS objectives 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 

 and 8.

Methods and Materials

Perform cross-section measurement to calculate 

entrenchment, width/depth ratio; bankfull channel length to calculate slope and sinuosity. Utilize 

measurements methodologies including standard 

cadastral survey techniques and those outlined 

in Rosgen (1996). Collect data collection at eight 

cross-sections along 2.5 miles of Jenny Creek, 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-8

measured at ~ 5-year intervals or after major flood 

events.

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring

Introduction

When monitored over the long term, composition of macroinvertebrate communities can serve 

as a sensitive indicator of condition and change in 

aquatic habitat/water quality conditions.

Objectives

Objective 1: Long-term monitoring of 

aquatic macroinvertebrate 

community change as indicator of 

habitat/water quality. 

Objective 2: Provide data to assist in 

assessment of ACS objectives 4, 6, 

and 9, and compliance with state 

water quality standards.

Methods and Materials

Monitor taxa abundance, taxa richness, other 

metrics measured at 12 existing and ten proposed 

sites using methods which meet or exceed state or 

EPA protocols for the sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates. Revisit sites at 5-6 year intervals.

Patterns of Fish Habitat Use throughout Jenny Creek/Response to Watershed 

Change Over Time

Introduction

Habitat relationships of western suckers are 

poorly understood. Most studies on sucker habitat 

relationships have been conducted at the microhabitat scale, e.g., the way in which suckers use 

habitat within a pool (Moyle and Nichols 1973; 

Alley 1977; Baltz and Moyle 1984; Moyle and 

Baltz 1985; Decker 1989): This is important 

information, but without understanding habitat 

use at more than one spatial scale, serious misinterpretations could lead to inaccurate conclusions 

about Jenny Creek sucker habitat needs (Dunham 

and Vineyard 1997). In addition, little is known 

about the habitat use of suckers at different ages 

(e.g., young-of-the-year, juvenile, adult). Examining the habitat requirements of different age 

classes is important in identifying potentially 

limiting or sensitive physical habitat requirements 

(Imhof et al. 1996). Finally, the paucity of studies 

describing habitat relationships of western suckers 

at different spatial scales is exacerbated by the 

almost complete lack of studies examining habitat 

use for longer than one year. This monitoring 

study continues the work begun by Rossa (1999). 

It repeats her study of two consecutive sampling 

seasons to see if the habitat use patterns of the 

suckers remain the same. In addition, habitat use 

information of native trout and speckeled dace 

will also be quantified and compared with Rossa’s 

unpublished data from 1992 and 1993. All of 

this habitat information will help us understand 

how the fishes in Jenny Creek are responding to 

watershed changes, including changes in water 

management over Howard Prairie and Keene 

Creek Reservoir dams.

Objectives

Objective 1: To quantify Jenny Creek sucker, 

Jenny Creek redband trout, and 

Jenny Creek speckeled dace 

habitat use within study reaches 

and throughout the watershed for 

all age classes.

Objective 2: To further understand how the 

patterns of habitat use vary between 

years, and to explore why.

Methods and Materials

Study locations are distributed throughout the entire watershed, to sample a wide variety of reach 

types. Five monitoring sites are located within 

the CSNM. A habitat-type based stream survey 

is used to quantify habitat. Randomly selected 

habitat units are snorkeled to collect fish numbers 

and estimated fish lengths.

Analytical Process

Related to Objective 1: Chi-square goodness-offit tests. See Rossa (1999) for details.

Related to Objective 2: Multiple stepwise

regression and/or discriminant functions analysis.

See Rossa (1999) for details.

Keene Creek and Jenny Creek Channel 

Restoration Monitoring

Introduction

In 1991 and 1992, two large, complicated channel restoration project were constructed as part of 

the Jenny Creek Work Day (now part of Public 

Lands Day). Two projects cabled logs to bankside 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-9

trees to protect eroding banks, allow the return 

of riparian vegetation, and reduce fine sediment 

input into stream. The third project embedded 

logs across an eroding meadow channel to trap 

sediment and stop downcutting. 

Objectives

Objective 1: To evaluate whether original 

project objectives (bank stability 

and fish habitat improvement) 

were met. 

Objective 2: To determine how (or if ) fish 

habitat responded to channel 

changes as a consequence of these 

projects.

Methods and Materials

Both sites have established photo points documenting bank conditions before and immediately 

after project completion. Subsequent photos will 

be taken at these photo points to show changes 

to the structures over time, and to assess whether 

they are protecting the stream banks. To assess 

whether they are providing better fish habitat, 

two different habitat mapping methods will be 

used. At the Keene Creek site, a fish habitattype stream survey (Rossa 1999) will be repeated 

to document (among other things) changes in 

pool size and depth, pool-to-riffle ratio, and 

substrate distribution. At the Jenny Creek site, 

a channel mapping method will be used, including channnel cross sections and Wolman pebble 

counts. 

Jenny Creek Sucker Spawning

Introduction 

Two scientific studies have been completed on 

Jenny Creek suckers (Catostomus rimiculus): 

Hohler (1981) and Rossa (1999). While both 

researchers observed fish in spawning colors, neither pinpointed the exact spawning areas of suckers. Apparently, all closely related sucker species 

migrate upstream to spawn in the spring (Moyle 

1976, Bond and Coombs 1985). Therefore, it is 

assumed that Jenny Creek suckers also migrate 

upstream to spawn in tributaries. Until now, it 

has been assumed that the suckers spawn in Corrall, Beaver and Johnson Creeks (Hohler 1981). 

In addition, Rossa (1999) found some indication that certain reaches of Jenny Creek serve as 

important “nursery areas” for young-of-the-year 

suckers. Researchers in the Klamath Basin are 

also finding that larval (baby) suckers prefer 

certain habitats (John Crandall, The Nature 

Conservancy, personal communication). A better 

effort needs to be made to determine the location 

of the primary nursery areas for suckers. Sucker 

survival in these nursery areas could be important 

to population stability.

This information needs to be collected so that the 

spawning areas can be protected or restored. In 

the future, sucker spawning should be tracked 

in different water years to determine if sucker 

spawning areas are influenced by water flows (e.g., 

. low water years or high water years) (Barton 

1980, White et al. 1990).

Objectives

Objective 1: Quantify Jenny Creek sucker 

spawning migration timing, and 

spawning area location. 

Objective 2: Quantify Jenny Creek sucker larval 

dispersment timing, and identify 

important sucker nursery areas.

Methods and Materials

Larval/Young-of-the-year sampling: Instream 

drift nets will capture drifting larval suckers. Other related suckers drift downstream at 

night after hatching (White et al. 1990), and 

it is likely that Jenny Creek suckers do, too. 

Dip nets, specially-designed minnow traps and 

larval fish light traps may also be used to catch 

newly-hatched fish. All of this sampling gear is 

small and inconspicuous. Sites will be scattered 

throughout the Jenny Creek basin and may vary 

from week to week.

Adult sampling: If possible, adults will be tagged 

(e.g., with tiny pit tags) in order to track their 

movements throughout the basin. Pit tags are 

read with hand-held tag readers (like a grocery 

store bar code reader), or with small, flat instream 

panels. Any instream reading stations would be 

small and inconspicuous.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-10

CSNM Visitor Use Monitoring 

Introduction

The goal of this plan is to gather visitor use data, 

or in the absence of accurate data, make estimates 

of visitation to the monument. Accurate data 

can be obtained from the Hyatt Lake Recreation 

Complex, the only developed recreation facility 

within the monument. Data will also be gathered 

from the Pacific Crest Trail and the Pilot Rock 

areas using traffic or trail counters, but these 

types of counters require some corrections for 

number of occupants or animals which might be 

counted. In areas where no public vehicle access is 

allowed, estimates will be made based on the best 

available data.

Businesses within the monument boundary 

should have some estimates of visitors associated with the monument. These businesses will 

be asked for use estimates as well. The Oregon 

Department of Forestry lookout tower on Soda 

Mountain receives many visitors and these visitor 

totals will also be useful.

Secondary goals are to attain a count of general 

area visitors who express interest in the monument and to determine the effectiveness of road 

closures through monitoring.

Objectives

Objective 1: Continue to collect accurate 

visitor use data at the Hyatt Lake 

Recreation Complex. This data is 

already required for the Recreation 

Management Information 

System yearly submission so the 

mechanism is already in place to 

gather this data.

Objective 2: Install trail counters along the 

Pacific Crest Trail. Most of the 

PCT use within the monument 

comes from day use on stretches 

of the trail. Popular segments of 

the PCT within the monument 

include Soda Mountain to the 

Greensprings summit, and Pilot 

Rock to Soda Mountain. The 

segment near the Hyatt Lake 

Recreation Complex also receives 

a lot of use with hikers going 

from Hyatt Lake to Howard 

Prairie Reservoir, or from Hyatt 

Lake to Little Hyatt Reservoir. 

Trail counters installed along 

these segments should provide 

acceptable use figures. The exact 

locations will to be determined 

from field studies, but the 

objective is to count people who 

hike these four segments.

Objective 3: A number of people go to the 

Pilot Rock area to hike to or climb 

Pilot Rock. A trail counter placed 

on the path to the base of the rock 

will provide visitor use data. 

Objective 4: The Oregon Department of 

Forestry lookout tower on Soda 

Mountain receives many sightseers 

yearly, and the lookout maintains 

a log for visitor registration. The 

lookout will be contacted yearly 

and asked to supply this visitor 

data to BLM.

Objective 5: There are a number of roads within 

the monument, which receive 

large amounts of vehicle use. Some 

of the roads will remain open 

to vehicle traffic, some will be 

open seasonally, and some will be 

permanently closed. To determine 

vehicle usage and to monitor 

visitation trends, traffic counters 

will be installed on selected roads. 

Possible locations include the Pilot 

Rock road, the Baldy Creek road, 

the Pilot Rock jeep road, the Yew 

Springs road, the Mill Creek road, 

the Soda Mountain road, the East 

Chinquapin road, the Emigrant 

Creek road, the Beaver Creek, and 

the Parsnip Lakes road.

Objective 6: The area within the monument 

north of Keene Ridge receives a 

large portion of its use during big 

game hunting season. To gather 

use data, hunter patrols should 

be conducted during the first two 

weekends at the beginning of big 

game rifle season. Major access 

roads to the monument should be 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-11

staffed from the afternoon of the 

Friday before rifle season begins 

and both weekend days thereafter; 

then again on the following 

weekend, at the same times.

Objective 7: Pending the availability of funds, 

the Soda Mountain WSA will be 

monitored at least once per month 

during the time it is accessible to 

the public. Since all the boundary 

roads except portions of the Pilot 

Rock jeep road have been closed, 

the WSA will be monitored from 

the air. This monthly over-flight 

would be an opportunity to gather 

visitor use data for the monument 

area south of Keene Ridge.

Objective 8: Interview selected state and federal 

agencies, and local visitor centers 

to determine the level of expressed 

interest in the monument.

Objective 9: Install traffic counters on selected 

“closed roads to determine the 

effectiveness of the closures.

The data from all the objectives will then be 

totaled for a yearly report.

Implementation

Overflights of the WSA will need to be started 

once the area is accessible to the public, probably April, and continue through November. The 

WSA will not need to have an overflight every 

month because the northwest portion of the 

WSA can be monitored from the Pilot Rock jeep 

road, but this only allows viewing about a third 

of the WSA so the remainder must be monitored 

from the air.

Peregrine Falcon Site Inventory and 

Monitoring

Introduction

In 1999 the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service removed the American peregrine falcon 

from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The BLM is required to monitor 

known sites for at least five years after the delisting in order to ensure that the species does not 

suffer undetected declines. There is one known 

peregrine falcon site in the CSNM. This site is located in an area of high (and probably increasing) 

human recreational activity. There are also two 

other cliff sites in the CSNM that may be suitable 

for peregrines based on their physical attributes. 

One of these sites is currently occupied by prairie 

falcons, which strongly suggests that it is suitable for peregrines. Peregrines have been known 

to displace or replace prairie falcons. The other 

potential site is not known to be occupied by 

falcons of either species. The peregrine population 

appears to be expanding and there is a need to 

identify any new peregrine sites that may become 

occupied by that species.

Meeting the following objectives would provide important information on the occupancy 

and production of peregrine falcon sites in the 

CSNM. This information would be important for 

planning activities in the CSNM, as well as for 

assessing the CSNM’s contribution to peregrine 

falcon populations at a regional scale.

Objectives

Objective 1: Obtain reproductive status and 

productivity data on every peregrine 

site in the monument every year.

Objective 2: Detect new peregrine nest sites in 

their first year of occupancy in order 

to provide appropriate protection 

for the site and to plan for future 

monitoring needs. 

Methods and Materials

1. Annually monitor the one known peregrine 

site for occupancy, reproduction, and productivity using standardized peregrine falcon 

monitoring protocol techniques. This effort 

would be extended to any additional peregrine nest sites that are found in the CSNM. 

2. Annually check the two potential peregrine 

sites in the CSNM for occupancy by peregrines. Techniques would be standard 

peregrine falcon inventory techniques. 

Spotted Owl Site Inventory and Monitoring

Introduction

Prior to CSNM designation, most of the northern part of the monument was part of the Jenny 

Creek Late Successional Reserve (LSR).
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix I—Monitoring Strategy and Projects

I-12

In the time period from just before the spotted 

owl was listed as threatened, to several years after 

listing, several attempts were made to develop 

regional conservation plans for the owl and other 

late-successional associated species prior to the 

development of the Northwest Forest Plan. Common to all of these plans was a system of reserves 

along the Cascades. Although different plans had 

different reserve boundaries, they all showed a reserve in the general area that is now the CSNM. 

The monument designation essentially made 

moot the LSR designation in this area. However, 

the area that is now the CSNM still has a role to 

play in the conservation of the spotted owl. There 

are 21 known spotted owl sites in the monument, 

17 of which are in what was once LSR. However, 

not all of the sites in the monument contribute to 

recruitment into the region’s spotted owl population on a regular basis. The BLM has never observed more than 17 pairs of spotted owls in the 

monument in any one year. In that year (1993) 

there were no young observed at any sites in the 

monument. Four of the 21 sites have no documented production of young in any year. 

Since the late 1980s, almost all of the adult spotted owls in the Ashland Resource Area have been 

captured and individually marked with a plastic 

leg band of a site-specific color and/or pattern. 

These birds are also marked with numbered 

USFWS aluminum leg bands. Most of the juvenile owls produced have also been captured and 

marked with a standard color “juvenile band” and 

a USFWS band. Many birds were banded prior 

to 1990, although there was no effort to catch 

and band every spotted owl at every site. Since 

1990, the policy of banding adults and juveniles 

was in effect until approximately 1995 across the 

Resource Area and has largely been applied to 

the monument to date. This has allowed BLM to 

track movements of individual adult and juvenile 

owls.

Due to the de-emphasis of monitoring programs 

for this species since 1995, the BLM currently 

has no way of reliably tracking the size and 

demographic trends of the spotted owl population in the monument, or assessing the effects 

of land management treatments on that population. Without this information there is no way 

of assessing the contribution that the monument 

is making to the recovery of the northern spotted 

owl on a regional scale. Meeting the following 

objectives would provide important demographic 

information on the spotted owl population in the 

monument as well as information on movements 

of individual owls within, into, and out of the 

monument. 

Objectives

1. Obtain reproductive status and productivity data on every site in the monument every 

year.

2. Capture and band all adult and juvenile spotted owls.

Methods and Materials

1. Every five years perform a survey of the suitable spotted owl habitat in the monument using established survey techniques as described 

in the Interagency Spotted Owl Inventory 

and Monitoring Protocol. This will provide 

an opportunity to find additional spotted owl 

sites in the CSNM if and when they become 

established. 

2. Annually monitor the occupancy, reproductive status and productivity of all the known 

spotted owl sites in the monument, as well 

as any additional sites turned up by survey 

efforts described above. Methodology would 

be that described in the Interagency Spotted 

Owl Inventory and Monitoring Protocol, as 

well as standard BLM spotted owl banding 

procedures. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix J—MOU Friends of the CSNM

J-1

appendix j

memorandum of understanding between the bureau of land 

management and friends of the cascade-siskiyou national monument

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Bureau of Land Management, Medford District

and

Friends of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made and entered into by and between the U.S. Department of the Interior, Medford District, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Friends of the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (CSNM). Collectively, the parties to this MOU will be referred 

to as the Cooperators.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this MOU is to establish a general framework for cooperation between the Medford District BLM and the Friends of the CSNM regarding the management of the CSNM Information Center 

located at 11470 Highway 66. 

BACKGROUND

Designated on June 9, 2000, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument consists of 52,947 acres of BLMadministered public lands. There are approximately 32,000 acres of private land interspersed with Monument lands, creating a checkerboard pattern of public and private lands. As a result of this checkerboard, 

there is not a natural “portal” to the Monument along a specific route, making it difficult to “welcome” 

visitors to the Monument. Although a majority of first-time visitors to the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument will enter the Monument along Highway 66, access to public land is not readily apparent. 

Since June 2001, Friends of the CSNM has been operating an un-staffed Information Center in a small 

building next to the Greeen Springs Inn on Highway 66. The Information Center helps orient visitors 

with Monument boundaries and recreational opportunities. The Information Center also provides visitors 

with educational materials on the area’s remarkable ecology and biodiversity.

OBJECTIVES

The BLM and Friend’s of the CSNM will collaborate to create and maintain displays, exhibits, and other 

media designed to orient and inform the CSNM visitor. 

The Information Center will provide the following types of information:

•	 Maps

•	 Brochures

•	 Planning documents

•	 Educational displays on the area’s natural and cultural history

•	 Information regarding the National Landscape Conservation Service and its goals and objectives.

•	 Hiking/recreational opportunities

•	 Awareness of private property issues

•	 Prohibited activities/Road Closures

•	 Regional information

•	 Video and other multimedia presentations
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix J—MOU Friends of the CSNM

J-2

The information center will not be used for promotion of special interests or advocacy for specific management alternatives during the planning process.

COOPERATORS SHALL

Bureau of Land Management

1. Continue to provide space for the Information Center within the local community.

2. Develop and install a sign alerting visitors to the Information Center.

3. Designate a BLM staff person as Information Center liaison.

4. BLM liaison to serve on Friend’s Information Center committee.

5. Collaborate with Friends to help create and maintain educational and informative exhibits.

6. Provide the media necessary for visitor orientation (maps, brochure, posters, photographs).

7. Provide toilet facilities if deemed necessary.

Friends of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument

1. Oversee day-to-day operation of Information Center.

2. Collaborate with BLM to help create and maintain educational and informative exhibits.

3. When possible, organize volunteer staffing of the Information Center.

4. Maintain a visitor’s sign-in log to track use.

5. Establish Information Center hours and ensure facility is open to the public during this time.

6. Identify information gaps or needs in the Information Center.

7. Designate Friend’s member as a BLM contact person.

IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY THE PARTIES THAT:

Specific work projects or activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, or property among the 

cooperators to this MOU will require the execution of separate agreements or contracts, contingent upon 

the availability of funds as appropriated by Congress, the State Legislature, or as obtained from other 

funding sources. Each subsequent agreement or arrangement involving the transfer of funds, services, or 

property will be in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations.

This MOU in no way restricts the cooperators from participating in other legal activities, nor from participating in similar activities or arrangements with other public or private parties.

Nothing in this MOU shall obligate the cooperators to expend appropriations, provide material, services, 

or labor, or to enter into any contract or other obligation.

This agreement may be revised as necessary by the issuance of a written amendment, signed and dated by 

all cooperators.

Any party may terminate this agreement by providing a 60-day written notice. Unless terminated under 

the terms of this paragraph, this MOU will remain in full force and effect until March 15, 2006 and may 

be renewed by agreement of all parties.

Entered into this 15th day of March, 2004.

SIGNERS:

 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Manager, Bureau of Land Management

 

Chairperson, Friends of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-1

appendix K

Scotch Creek Research Natural Area

Management Plan

for

Scotch Creek Research Natural Area

Ashland Resource Area

Medford District

Bureau of Land Management

United States Department of the Interior
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. K-4

POLICY ................................................................................................................................................ K-4

BASIS FOR DEDICATION AND SETTING OBJECTIVES ........................................................ K-5

RNA History.......................................................................................................................................... K-5

Basis for Dedication ............................................................................................................................... K-5

Management Restrictions....................................................................................................................... K-5

Setting Objectives .................................................................................................................................. K-5

NATURAL AREA DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. K-5

Scotch Creek Area Description.............................................................................................................. K-5

Location .................................................................................................................................... K-5

Access........................................................................................................................................ K-5

Ecoregions................................................................................................................................. K-6

Climate...................................................................................................................................... K-6

Topography................................................................................................................................ K-7 

Geology ..................................................................................................................................... K-7

Soils........................................................................................................................................... K-7

Hydrology.................................................................................................................................. K-7

Vegetation.................................................................................................................................. K-9

Exotic Plants and Noxious weeds............................................................................................ K-14

Special Status Plants................................................................................................................ K-15

Forest Health........................................................................................................................... K-15

Animals ................................................................................................................................... K-15

Exotic Animals........................................................................................................................ K-16

Site History ............................................................................................................................. K-16

Human Features...................................................................................................................... K-17

Surrounding Land Use ......................................................................................................................... K-17

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................................... K-17

Botanical/Plant Communities.............................................................................................................. K-17

Introduced and Noxious Weed Species ................................................................................................ K-21

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Rare Species .......................................................................... K-22

Plant Species ........................................................................................................................... K-22

Wildlife Species....................................................................................................................... K-23

Insects and Pathogens .......................................................................................................................... K-23

Lands and Boundary/Edge Effects....................................................................................................... K-24

Roads and Utilities Rights-of-Way ...................................................................................................... K-25

Fire Management ................................................................................................................................. K-25

Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ K-28

Mining and Geothermal Resources...................................................................................................... K-29

Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................ K-29

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................................ K-29

Timber Management ........................................................................................................................... K-31

Public Use/Recreation.......................................................................................................................... K-32

Camping.................................................................................................................................. K-32

Hiking ..................................................................................................................................... K-33

Equestrian ............................................................................................................................... K-33

Hunting, Fishing, Trapping ..................................................................................................... K-33
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-3

Off-Highway Vehicles............................................................................................................. K-34

Special Forest Products............................................................................................................ K-34

Interpretation and Research ................................................................................................................. K-35

MONITORING ................................................................................................................................. K-35

Definition and Role of Monitoring ...................................................................................................... K-35

Ecological Status Monitoring............................................................................................................... K-36

Defensibility Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... K-38

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH................................................................ K-39

REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... K-39
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-4

INTRODUCTION

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are part of a federal system of land tracts identified and designated to preserve and protect certain natural features 

for research and educational purposes. The overall 

goals for establishing RNAs are to provide: 

1. baseline areas against which the effects of 

human activities can be measured; 

2. sites for study of natural processes in an 

undisturbed ecosystem; and 

3. a gene pool for all types of organisms, 

especially rare and endangered species. 

The interagency Pacific Northwest Research Natural Area Committee, composed of federal, state 

and private organizations in Oregon and Washington, has identified a set of natural elements, or 

“cells”, representing terrestrial and aquatic habitats, plant communities, and ecosystem processes 

targeted for protection through the RNA system.

The 1,800 acre Scotch Creek RNA (SCRNA) 

is located in extreme southern Oregon in Jackson County, along the border with California in 

Scotch Creek. 

The area was originally nominated by the Nature 

Conservancy in 1991, analyzed and evaluated by 

the Medford District RMP process in 1992 by 

the Ashland Resource Area, BLM, proposed as 

a new RNA in the Medford District Proposed 

Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement (USDI 1994), and designated 

a new RNA under the Record of Decision and 

Resource Management Plan (USDI 1995a). One 

of the management actions required by the ROD 

for Special Areas, including RNAs, is development of site-specific management plans. Research 

Natural Area Management Policy (USDI 1986) 

requires development of a management plan that 

establishes operational objectives to maintain 

or enhance the unique values of the designated 

RNA. In addition to operational objectives, 

a monitoring strategy should be developed to 

evaluate progress made toward meeting resource 

management objectives. These requirements 

establish the basis for preparation of this management plan.

POLICY

This management plan follows the guidelines 

established by the Pacific Northwest Interagency 

Natural Area Committee (PNW 1991), the 

Medford District Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Management Plan and Record of Decision (USDI 1995a) and BLM Manual Supplement, 1623 Supplemental; Program Guidance for 

Land Resources (USDI 1987).

Management objectives for RNAs and Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), addressed in both plans under the category Special 

Areas, include the following directives:

•	 Preserve, protect, or restore native species 

composition and ecological processes of 

biological communities (including Oregon 

Natural Heritage Plan terrestrial or aquatic 

cells) in research natural areas. These areas will be available for short- or long-term 

scientific study, research, and education and 

will serve as a baseline against which human 

impacts on natural systems can be measured.

•	 Ideally, RNAs should be undisturbed by human 

impacts; however, because pristine examples of 

significant ecosystems may not exist, the least 

altered sites should be selected. They should be 

sufficiently large to protect key features from 

significant impacts judged inappropriate for the 

area and natural processes should be allowed to 

dominate. In situations where human activities 

have interfered with natural processes, deliberate manipulations which simulate natural 

processes are allowed (USDI 1986).

•	 Research Natural Area Management Policy 

(USDI 1986) requires development of a 

management plan establishing operational 

objectives to maintain or enhance the unique 

values of the RNA for each designated area. 

In addition to operational objectives, a monitoring strategy should be developed to evaluate progress made toward meeting resource 

management objectives. These requirements 

establish the basis for preparation of this 

management plan.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-5

BASIS FOR DEDICATION AND SETTING

OBJECTIVES

RNA History

The Nature Conservancy, under contract with 

the BLM State Office, nominated lower Scotch 

Creek as an RNA in February 1991 because it 

filled Cell 53, a typical eastern Siskiyou chaparral community, as designated in the 1988 Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (ONHAC 1998). 

This area was originally nominated as the Slide 

Creek Ridge RNA and the name was changed 

when designated. The Oregon Natural Heritage 

Advisory Council (1998) now refers to Cell 56 

as a Birch-leaf mountain mahogany-ceanothusrosaceous mixed chaparral community. The NHA 

Council considers that the cell is adequately 

represented by the Scotch Creek RNA.

The area was analyzed and evaluated by the RMP 

process in 1992 by the Ashland Resource Area, 

BLM, was proposed as a new RNA in the Medford District Proposed Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (USDI 

1994), and designated as new RNA under the Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan 

(USDI 1995a). One of the management actions 

required by the ROD for Special Areas, including 

RNAs, is development of site-specific management plans. Scotch Creek RNA has been under 

interim management requirements since January 

5, 1989. The RNA is now a part of the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument. 

Basis for Dedication

The lower half of Scotch Creek drainage to the 

California border was nominated as an RNA 

because it satisfied cells for two Eastern Siskiyou 

chaparral types: a Rosaceous type dominated by 

Quercus garryana (not mentioned in the original 

nomination, Prunus subcordata, P. virginiana, P. 

emarginata, and Cercocarpus betuloides and a different chaparral community dominated by Ceanothus cuneatus, Arctostaphylos species and Cerocarpus betuloides. Access was also a consideration in 

the selection of this particular area.

Management Restrictions

The presidential proclamation (Appendix A) 

withdraws lands within the monument from mineral location, entry, and patent and mineral and 

geothermal leasing; prohibits commercial harvest 

of timber or other vegetative material; prohibits 

unauthorized OHV use; but permits continued 

for grazing until completion of a study of grazing 

impacts on natural ecosystem dynamics.

Setting Objectives

The Scotch Creek RNA was established for 

scientific research and as a baseline study area for 

chaparral vegetation represented in the area. 

NATURAL AREA DESCRIPTION 

Scotch Creek Area Description

Location

The RNA is a 1,800 acre (728.5 ha) parcel located 

in southeastern Jackson County (T.41S.,R.3E., 

Secs.5 SW1⁄4;06S1⁄2;07NE1⁄4;08;09SW1⁄4) along 

Scotch Creek, a tributary of the Klamath River 

that flows into Iron Gate Reservoir through the 

Horseshoe Ranch Wildlife Area (California 

Department of Fish and Game and Redding 

Resource Area, BLM). Scotch Creek flows to the 

southeast from the ridge that separates the Klamath and Rogue River below Porcupine Mountain to the north. The area is bounded on the 

north by the closed Schoheim Road BLM Road 

41-2E-10.1, on the west by Slide Creek Ridge, on 

the east by Lone Pine Ridge, and the OregonCalifornia border on the south. The Schoheim 

Road forms a common boundary between the 

Scotch Creek RNA and the Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Study Area to the northeast. The 

small parcel of privately owned land is isolated at 

the southeast corner of the RNA (T.41S.,R.3E., 

Sec.16) was recently given to the U.S. Department of the Interior by the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council. This will be incorporated into 

the Scotch Creek RNA.

Access

In the past, the Schoheim Road 41-2E-10.1 has 

provided relatively easy vehicle access to Scotch 

Creek RNA. However, the monument proclamation closed the Schoheim Road to all mechanized 

travel except for authorized administrative access 

for emergency or management purposes. Authorized off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is allowed, 

weather and road conditions permitting. Public 

access to the RNA by foot or horseback is not 

restricted.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-6

Scotch Creek RNA is most easily accessed from 

U.S. 99 via BLM Pilot Rock Road 40-2E-33 to 

the headwaters of Scotch Creek via Porcupine 

Gap, then south on the closed Scotch Creek connector road (foot travel only) along Scotch Creek 

to the north RNA boundary at the Schoheim 

Road or from the south through the California Department of Fish and Game’s Horseshoe 

Ranch Wildlife Area via the Copco-Irongate 

Road in Siskiyou County, California. The road 

north from Iron Gate Reservoir has a locked 

gate (California Department of Fish and Game, 

Shasta Valley Wildlife Area Headquarters, 

Montague, CA) at the south end of the canyon. 

The road is passable as far as the stone spring 

house, except during periods of high water when 

the ford below the spring house is impassable. 

The SCRNA southern boundary at the OregonCalifornia border is reached by a two-mile walk 

on an old road along Scotch Creek. Except for 

the Horseshoe Ranch Wildlife Area access, 

other routes to the RNA are unavailable much 

of the year because of snow. Other authorized 

administrative access or public access (on foot 

or horseback) is available from the east via the 

closed BLM Schoheim Road 41-2E-10.1 from 

the east via Skookum Creek (from Oregon Route 

66 to BLM Soda Mountain Road 39-3E-32.2 

to 39-3E-28.0 to 39-3E-27.2 to Schoheim Road, 

Randcore Pass (from Oregon Route 66 to BLM 

Mill Creek Road 40-3E-12.0 to 12.1 to 19.2 to 

Schoheim Road, or the Jenny Creek crossing 

from the Copco Road (private) and BLM Road 

40-4E-3.1 to the Schoheim Road. From the west 

the RNA can be reached from U.S. 99 via the 

BLM Pilot Rock Road 40-2E-33 to 41-2E-3.0 to 

the Schoheim Road. The upper northeast part of 

the RNA can also be reached from Baldy Creek 

Rd. 40-3E-5 and 40-3E-30, down Lone Pine 

Ridge Rd to the Schoheim Rd.

Ecoregions

The Scotch Creek RNA is located in the Klamath River Ridges Ecoregion (78g of Klamath 

Mountains, Level III Ecoregion (Pater and others 

1997a and 1997b)(Map 3). Ecoregions are defined 

by a number of factors that include: physiography (including elevation and local relief); geology (surficial material and bedrock); soil (order, 

common soil series, temperature and moisture 

regimes); climate (mean annual precipitation, 

mean annual frost-free days, mean January and 

July min/max temperature); potential natural vegetation, land use (recreation, forestry, watershed); 

and land cover (vegetation present). The following 

synopsis of the Klamath River Ridges Ecoregion 

is based on Pater (1997a and 1997b).

78g Klamath River Ridges (3,800 - 7,000 feet)

The Klamath River Ridges Ecoregion has a dry 

continental climate and receives, on average, 25 to 

35 inches of annual precipitation. Low elevation 

and south-facing slopes have more drought resistant vegetation than elsewhere in the Klamath 

Ecoregion (78), such as juniper, chaparral, and 

ponderosa pine. Higher and north-facing ridges 

are covered by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and white fir (Abies concolor). Ecoregion 

78g has less precipitation, more sunny days, and 

a greater number of cold, clear nights than the 

Inland Siskiyou Ecoregion (78e) to the west.

Climate

Scotch Creek RNA lies within the influence of 

the continental climate of the Great Basin and 

the more moderate wetter oceanic influences to 

the west. Local climate is further influenced by 

mountain topography and elevation and tends 

to be more like that of the Shasta Valley to the 

south than the Rogue Valley to the north. Winter 

storms generally come from the ocean. Periodic 

floods of some magnitude occur when warm wet 

storms melt existing snow pack. Summers are 

usually long and dry, with occasional thunderstorms with lightning and with or without precipitation. These summer events are usually more 

frequent than in the Rogue Valley due to the 

influence moisture laden air drawn up from the 

southwest along the eastside of the Sierra Nevada 

and Cascade Mountains.

Average annual precipitation varying from a low 

of 24 inches at the southeast corner of the RNA 

to a high of 34 inches at the northwest boundary. Average annual precipitation at Copco Dam 

(elevation 2,700 ft.) on the Klamath River to the 

southeast in California is 19.8 inches (WorldClimate 2000). There is also a National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather 

station at Howard Prairie Dam (elevation 4,568 

ft.) located approximately 13 miles northeast of 

the RNA in the Jenny Creek Watershed. Average 

annual precipitation is 32.8 inches at the Howard 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-7

Prairie Dam station. Precipitation during the 

winter months occurs as rain or snow. 

The Howard Prairie Dam NOAA station is the 

closest weather station with air temperatures 

(Table K-1).

upstream migration of fish (Parker 1999). Westfacing slopes are characterized by open grasslands 

with oaks in the draws; densely vegetated eastfacing slopes are dominated by small oaks and 

brush.

Topography

Scotch Creek is in a northwest/south east trending steep sided valley that extends from Pilot 

Rock and Porcupine Mountain on the Rogue/

Klamath Divide to the Klamath River where it 

empties in Iron Gate Reservoir. The watershed 

is bounded on the west by Slide Creek/Hutton 

Creek Ridge and the east by Lone Pine Ridge. 

There is one major tributary that joins the main 

stem of Scotch Creek at the end of a narrow 

ridge just above the waterfall in the SE 1/4 NE 

1/4 of Section 7. The 30 ft. waterfall on the main 

stem of Scotch Creek is a special topographic 

feature that prevents the upstream migration of 

fish. Slide Creek, a major tributary that enters 

Scotch Creek in the Horseshoe Ranch Wildlife 

Area in California, is not included in the RNA. 

The elevation of Scotch Creek in the RNA varies 

from 3,960 ft. where Scotch Creek crosses the 

Schoheim Road to 3,080 ft. at the lower boundary of the RNA at the California border. Highest 

elevations in the drainage are 5,908 ft. at Pilot 

Rock, 5,200 ft. at Porcupine Mountain, 5,403 ft. 

on upper Lone Pine Ridge. Lone Pine Ridge is 

3,640 ft. at the California border, Slide Ridge, 

4,000 ft.

The Scotch Creek RNA comprises about 25 

percent of the Scotch Creek Subwatershed (see 

Hydrology section). The RNA is bounded on the 

north and east by the Schoheim Road, on the 

south by the Oregon/California border, and on 

the west by the small ridge between Scotch and 

Slide Creeks. In the center of the RNA, Scotch 

Creek splits into two forks, the east and west. 

Approximately 1⁄2 mile downstream from the 

forks is a 30 ft. bedrock waterfall, which prevents 

Geology

Scotch Creek RNA is mapped as Western 

Cascade Oligocene basalt, basaltic andesite, 

and andesite (Tb2) (Smith, et al. 1982). These 

flows are interbedded with volcanic breccias and 

pyroclastic deposits and other rock types too 

thin, discontinuous, or poorly exposed to map 

separately. Different rock types in these formations are not mapped because of the scale of the 

map and the complexity of the formations. Pilot 

Rock, at the head of the Scotch Creek Subwatershed, and Cathedral Cliffs just to the east of Lone 

Pine Ridge on Camp Creek are mapped as mafic 

intrusive rocks (Tm) and are outside the present 

RNA boundaries (Smith et al. 1982). 

Soils

Soil information for Scotch Creek RNA is based 

on the Soil Survey of Jackson County Area, Oregon (USDA 1993). There are six mapped general 

soil units in the RNA. Because of the small scale 

of the map and the large area covered, mapped 

units are often presented as complexes of different soil types. Number of acres, percent of RNA, 

productivity class and site index (if any) of the soil 

types found in the RNA are summarized in Table 

K-2. About 79 percent of the RNA consists of 

clay or rock outcrop soil complexes. The balance 

(21%) are soil types capable of supporting mixed 

conifer stands.

Hydrology

Scotch Creek Subwatershed comprises 11,503 

acres (18 sq. mi.); 62.5 percent of the ownership is 

BLM, 30.3 percent is the State of California, and 

7.2 percent is privately owned. There are 109.5 

Table K-1. Average Air Temperatures at Howard Priarie Dam (NOAA Station 1961-1990).

Air Temperature (o F)

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Year

Maximum 37.5 42.4 45.9 52.2 61.0 70.2 78.6 78.4 71.6 60.7 43.7 36.5 56.5

Minimum 18.9 21.1 23.8 27.5 33.1 40.0 43.6 43.2 37.7 32.3 26.7 21.1 30.7

Mean 28.2 31.8 34.8 39.8 47.1 55.1 61.1 60.8 54.7 46.5 35.2 28.8 43.6

Source: Oregon Climate Service 2000.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-8

total stream miles with a stream density of 6.1 

miles per square mile. Scotch Creek Subwatershed contains 4.7 miles of fish-bearing streams 

and, based on aerial photo estimates, 5.5 miles of 

perennial non-fish bearing streams and 60 miles 

of intermittent streams, for a total of 70.2 miles 

of stream with riparian reserves (USDI 2000). 

Scotch Creek enters the Klamath River system as 

a fifth order stream at Iron Gate Reservoir. There 

are no mapped springs on the USGS 7.5 Quad 

maps for the RNA. There are no water developments within the RNA; however, there is a 0.033 

acre-foot reservoir used for livestock watering on 

an unnamed tributary to Scotch Creek above the 

RNA.

The stream gradient of Scotch Creek is low to 

moderate from Iron Gate Reservoir to the Oregon border, but steepens beyond that point. 

The channel meanders through a narrow valley 

near the confluence with Slide Creek, where it is 

then confined in a narrow V-shaped valley with 

steep hill slopes to its headwaters (USDI 2000). 

Substrate material in Scotch Creek is cobble and 

boulders over bedrock with some gravel and fines. 

Riffles and cascades dominate the average stream 

profile. Three stream channel morphology types 

were identified for the Scotch Creek Subwatershed using the Rosgen classification system 

(Rosgen 1996): Aa+ (74 miles), A (10 miles), and 

B (25 miles). The main stem of Scotch Creek, the 

lower reaches of Slide Creek, and the main unnamed tributary above the waterfall are classified 

as B type channels. B stream types are moderately entrenched, having a moderate gradient, 

riffle dominated channel with infrequently spaced 

pools. These channel types have a very stable plan 

and profile with stable banks. The A channel 

types are steep, entrenched, cascading, step/pool 

streams. They are high-energy streams located in 

the headwaters of Scotch Creek. The Aa+ channel types are very steep (greater than 10 percent 

slope) and deeply entrenched.

There is little data available on water quality or 

quantity in Scotch Creek, except for a few water 

quality measurements taken on July 29, 1975 by 

a BLM fish survey crew and those that Parker 

obtained during his aquatic surveys on June 

30 and July 1, 1999 (Parker 1999). These data 

indicate that, throughout the RNA, Scotch Creek 

was quite cool: 50-52oF above the falls, and 56oF 

below (USDI 1999). At one spring in the upper 

watershed, water temperatures were a healthy 

48-49oF (Parker 1999). At the time of the survey, 

Table K-2. Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Soil Units (USDA 1993).

Soil # Unit Name Percent 

Slope Acres Percent Acres

Productivity 

Class1

Site 

Index2

14G Bogus very gravelly 

loam, north slopes 35 to 65 323.2 18.1 PSME3

 7

PIPO 90

6

6

81G Heppsie clay, north 

slopes 35 to 70 151.9 8.5 — —

82G Heppsie-McMullin 

complex 35 to 70 403.5 22.5 — —

113G McMullin-Rock 

outcrop complex 35 to 60 865.6 48.4 — —

114G McNull gravelly loam, 

north slopes 35 to 60 15.2 0.8 PSME 80 7

116E McNull-McMullin 

gravelly loam 12 to 35 15.2 0.5 PSME 70 6

1

Productivity Class: Yeild in cubic meters per hectare per year calculated at the age of culmination of mean annual increment 

for fully stocked natural stands.

2

Site Index (SI): Height and age of selected trees in stand of a given species. A designation of the quality of a forest site based 

on the height of the dominant stand at an arbitrarily chosen age. Average height at 50 years = 75 feet. SI is 75. Age varies 

with species and soil type: 100 years PSME on Pokegama and Woodcock units, PIPO all units; 50 years PSME on all other 

units, ABMASH, and ABCO.

3

PSME = Pseudotsuga menziesii, Douglas-fir; PIPO = Pinus ponderosa, ponderosa pine; ABCO = Abies concolor, white fir.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-9

Scotch Creek was intermittent above the junction 

of the two forks with a permanent flow below.

The 1975 measurements, taken 50 yards upstream 

from the mouth of Scotch Creek, were air temperature 68oF; water temperature 66oF; dissolved 

oxygen 8.5 ppm; pH 9.0; CO2 60 ppm; free acidity 0 for both high and low range; and total hardness 205.2 ppm. Parker (1999) found that water 

temperatures varied from 9-9.5oC (48.2-49.1oF) 

at cold water inputs to 14.5-16.5oC (58.1-61.7oF) 

at the reservoir and in open meadows near the 

upper reaches of the stream. Temperatures ranged 

from 10.0-11.5oC (50-52.7oF) throughout the 

rest of the stream. Parker also noted that at the 

time of his survey, Scotch Creek was intermittent 

above the junction of Scotch Creek and the major 

tributary and perennial below.

Water quality in the RNA has probably been 

affected by road building and past logging in 

the upper portion of the Scotch Creek Subwatershed. The decommissioned Porcupine Gap/

Schoheim Road connector is within the riparian zone adjacent to the upper reach of Scotch 

Creek. The natural surfaced Schoheim Road with 

its culvert crossings on the main stem of Scotch 

Creek and many tributaries had a detrimental affect on the sediment regime in the Scotch Creek 

system. In the fall of 1998, the BLM improved 

drainage structures and seasonally blocked the 

section of the Schoheim Road within the Scotch 

Creek Subwatershed. This road work reduced 

the amount of sediment moving into the Scotch 

Creek system.

Vegetation

Scotch Creek RNA was established on the basis 

of a large area of chaparral dominated by members of the Rosaceae (Prunus species, Amelanchier, 

Cercocarpus, Holodiscus) primarily located on the 

east-facing slopes of Slide Ridge. The grassy, 

west-facing slopes of Lone Pine Ridge contained 

stands of perennial native grass which were dominant grassland species in former times. Little was 

known of the nature of the plant communities 

and their plant species.

Brock and Callagan (1999a) conducted a general 

inventory of plant community types in April-August 1999 that greatly increased our knowledge 

of Scotch Creek RNA plant communities. A list 

of plant species is provided in Appendix E of the 

CSNM draft plan. They point out several interesting floristic features of the RNA. Poison oak 

occurs at a single location, in a steep rock outcrop 

formation in the far northeast corner of the RNA. 

Poison oak is common at similar elevations both 

north and south of the RNA. Madrone is also 

absent, although it is common in the Rogue River 

watershed to the north. The grasslands contain 

native perennial grasses with low cover. Small 

areas of nearly pure Idaho fescue and bluebunch 

wheatgrass were found. Other grasslands best 

described as “mixed annual-perennial dominance” 

have 10-15 percent cover of native species, a high 

percentage of cover by introduced grasses species, 

and weeds. They also describe an important broadleaf maple-black oak forest riparian community associated with the perennial Scotch Creek 

stream system.

In their study they distinguished 11 different 

community types of varying degrees of cohesiveness for five different types: Riparian, Oregon 

white oak woodland, Grassland, Chaparral, and 

Conifer. Map 32 shows the distribution of the 

community types in the RNA. The following 

description is taken with some modification from 

Brock and Callagan (1999a). 

Riparian Types 

Two riparian communities are present: one 

dominated by trees; another by shrubs.

California Black Oak-Bigleaf Maple Riparian 

Woodland

This distinctive riparian woodland type occupies 

a wide zone in the alluvial bottoms of Scotch 

Creek and a more narrow zone in the lower 

reaches of several of the smaller side streams. On 

Scotch Creek these woodlands extend upslope on 

cool aspects for 100-200 ft. above the creek bottoms. The alluvial soils sometimes form wide low 

terraces. Elevations range from 3,000 - 4,400 ft. 

This riparian zone forms a major wildlife corridor 

through the RNA.

Bigleaf maple (average 38% cover), black oak 

(18%) and Oregon white oak (16%) dominates 

the tree layer with occasional Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and rarely black cottonwood or white 

alder. The shrub layer is usually dense with mock 

orange, tall Oregon grape, tall snowberry and 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-10

serviceberry. The herb/grass layer varies, typically dominated by Claytonia spp., Galium aparine, 

Tonella tenella, Vicia americana and, in drier spots, 

Bromus sterilis. Two special Status species are 

associated with this type, Ribes inerme ssp. klamathense and Isopyrum stipitatum.

Riparian Shrub Community

On the middle and upper portions of the 

many tributaries that dissect the west slopes of 

Lone Pine Ridge (and the entire reaches of the 

southern-most tributaries that traverse the rocky 

“Lower Slope Complex”) is a distinctive shrubdominated community which typically occupies 

a very narrow band (50 ft. wide) with dry grasslands or rock outcrop beyond its margins. In 

addition, these riparian zones typically have open 

exposed stretches between shrub patches. Most 

of these streams are perennial. A very high level 

of butterfly activity was observed at these sites 

(Brock and Callagan 1999a)

Oregon white oak and western juniper are usually 

present with low percent cover. Mock orange 

(average 40% cover) dominates the shrub layer 

with willow, tall Oregon grape, and chokecherry 

common. Rosa californica is occasional. The herb 

layer is dominated by Mimulus guttatus and Trifolium variegatum (in the aquatic zone) with Bromus 

sterilis and Poa bulbosa (on the drier margins). 

Howell’s false-caraway (Perideridia howellii) is 

common.

Oregon White Oak Woodland Type

Brock and Callagan (1999a) describe a single oak 

woodland type: Oregon white oak /Tall Oregon 

Grape Woodland. While Oregon white oak (also 

known as white oak) is a common co-dominant 

species in virtually all of the forest and chaparral 

plant communities in the RNA, it forms nearly 

pure stands in much of the area; these areas are 

mapped as Oregon white oak woodland. This 

type is found in several situations: it forms the 

outer margin of the riparian woodlands, extending upslope when soil depth allows; it extends 

up sidestream canyons in wide bands; it forms 

patches in open grassland communities (apparent 

clonal patches); and it is a component of the large 

chaparral-complexes which cover the upper slopes 

of Lone Pine Ridge and the east slopes of Slide 

Ridge. It occurs on Bogus (very gravelly loam) 

and Heppsie (clay) soils.

Oregon white oak cover is nearly always very 

dense (average 85%). Western juniper is often present at low cover. California black oak 

is present in draws or moist areas. The shrub 

layer is dominated by tall Oregon grape and tall 

snowberry with covers of each averaging 10-12 

percent. Klamath plum and chokecherry are often 

present. The herb layer is variable depending on 

the density of the shrub layer; where shrubs are 

dense, the herb layer is sparse. The herb layer 

cover varies from under 10 percent to over 50 percent. Typical species include Claytonia, Nemophila 

parviflora, Viola sheltonii, Bromus sterilis, Yabea 

microcarpa, Lithophragma parviflora and Marah 

oregana. Isopyrum stipitatum, a rare species, is 

fairly frequent. This Oregon white oak woodland 

is not adequately described in current plant association guides for southwest Oregon.

In much of this community the oaks are dense 

and stunted, averaging 15-20 ft. in height. Stems 

in many of these stands are 60-70 years old with 

diameters of only 4-6 inches. Occasional large 

trees are encountered but small diameter trees 

are the rule. Apparently, these stands developed 

under a frequent fire regime. It is possible that 

many of the patches are clonal and of very great 

(undeterminable) age. Many of the more stunted 

trees bear a resemblance to Quercus garryana var. 

breweri but the length of the leaves consistently 

indicates that these are var. garryana.

Rock Outcrops

Rock outcrops are sparsely vegetated with the 

most frequent species being Juniperus occidentalis, 

Prunus subcordata, Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass), 

Pseudoroegneria spicata, Alyssum alyssioides, Penstemon deustus and Lomatium californicum. At higher 

elevations, Sedum obtusatum is common. A large 

population of Woodsia oregana also occurs at the 

higher elevations. A large sprawling member of 

the Hydrophyllaceae, Phacelia ramosissima var. 

eremophila, an interesting eastern Oregon species 

that is uncommon here, was found in protected 

(shady) areas of rock outcrops. The distinctive 

Scotch Creek RNA rock outcrop plant community is frequently associated with grassland 

complexes and with outcrops in tree and shrub 

dominated communities.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-11

Grassland Types

Brock and Callagan (1999a) recognize grassland 

complexes based on elevation and their association with rock outcrops or Oregon white oak 

Woodlands.

Low Elevation Grassland-Rock Outcrop Complex

Lower elevations have a well-defined zone which 

is significantly more shallow and rocky than 

higher elevations. The zone’s upper limit is at approximately 3,350 ft. elevation, the same elevation 

as the major waterfall on Scotch Creek and the 

series of rock outcrops west of Scotch Creek. This 

may represent a geological break between old and 

“new” volcanic flows. Soils are all classified as 

McMullin-Rock Outcrop Complex (the proportion of rock outcrop is quite high). The elevation 

ranges from 3,000-3,350 ft. The grassland here 

forms a mosaic with rock outcrop communities, 

Oregon white oak woodland, and wedgeleaf 

ceanothus-Klamath Plum chaparral in approximately the following proportions:

20% – Rock outcrop 

60% – Dry grassland 

15% – Oregon white oak woodland

 5% – Oregon white oak/ Klamath plum-wedgeleaf ceanothus chaparral

The grassland component in this area is 

dominated by annuals with a regular low cover 

of bluebunch wheatgrass. It differs significantly 

from the mid to upper slope grasslands in several 

respects including:

•	 dominance by the exotic grasses Bromus 

tectorum and B. japonicus

•	 Bromus hordeaceus much less abundant

•	 high frequency of Prunus subcordata

•	 high frequency of Lomatium californicum

•	 higher frequency and cover of Lupinus 

albifrons

•	 very low frequency and cover of medusahead

(Taeniatherum caput-medusae)

•	 low frequency of starthistle (Centaurea 

solstitalis)

•	 relatively higher frequency and cover of

Agoseris heterophylla, Lomatium macrocarpum

and Trifolium ciliolatum.

The area is on a southeast aspect with significant 

due south and due west aspects represented. On 

the east slopes of Slide Ridge are several small 

rock outcrop openings which should be classified 

as this type though several of these support dense 

stands of Idaho fescue which is sparse east of the 

creek where heavy grazing has been continuous for 150 years. Significant surface erosion has 

occurred due to grazing but no rills or gullies are 

obvious. The surface layer is very gravelly with 

30-50 percent exposed gravels and soil.

Middle and Higher Elevation Grassland-Oregon 

White Oak Woodland Complex

Soils are significantly deeper and slopes tend to 

be more moderate with occasional “bench” topography above approximately 3,350 ft. elevation. 

The grasslands here tend to have denser cover 

than the lower grasslands. Most of the area is still 

dominated by exotic annual grasses and forbs. 

Idaho fescue or bluebunch wheatgrass dominates 

the occasional patch of grass. However, patches 

of starthistle, which is rapidly moving in from the 

south and east, are more frequent.

All soils are McMullin-Rock Outcrop Complex, 

although the proportion of rock outcrop is much 

lower than in the Lower Grassland Complex. 

Elevation ranges from 3,350 to 4,200 ft. The 

plant community is on a southwest aspect with 

significant due south and due west aspect represented. Significant surface erosion has occurred 

due to grazing, but no rills or gullies are obvious. 

The surface layer is gravelly with 20-30 percent 

exposed gravels and soil. A mosaic of grassland is 

formed here, with Oregon white oak woodland 

and a small amount of wedgeleaf ceanothus- Klamath plum chaparral in approximately the following proportions: 

 5% – Rock outcrop 

65% – Dry grassland 

18% – Oregon white oak woodland

 2% – Oregon white oak/ Klamath plumwedgeleaf ceanothus chaparral

Astragalus californicus, a species previously considered “possibly extinct in Oregon,” was found in 

this grassland community. It is often associated 

with fairly dense patches of bluebunch wheatgrass. This is the only known Oregon location for 

this species.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-12

This community is at serious risk of further invasion by starthistle. Many incipient populations 

are present in the northwest half of the area. 

The southeast half is already infested by large 

starthistle populations. The soils have the right 

combination of adequate depth and periodic exposure (through erosive mechanisms) to allow for 

the continued spread of starthistle. This should be 

considered the biggest threat to the integrity of 

the community.

Chaparral Types

Brock and Callagan (1999a) discovered that the 

eastern Siskiyou rosaceous chaparral for which 

the RNA was established consists of three relatively distinct plant communities:

Oregon White Oak/Klamath Plum-Wedgeleaf 

Ceanothus 

This community is a minor component of the 

RNA, occurring on the lower and middle slopes 

of the west aspects of Lone Pine Ridge and 

extending south across the Oregon/California 

border. It is a typical dry-site chaparral but appears to be fairly localized in occurrence. It differs 

significantly from similar communities in the 

Applegate Valley because poison oak is absent 

here. This community may extend up the Klamath River Canyon to the east.

Oregon white oak is always present, usually in 

shrub form, at a cover that can vary widely, 

depending on soil depth. Wedgeleaf ceanothus 

and Klamath plum are both usually present 

with covers averaging 23 percent and 57 percent, respectively. Klamath plum is clearly the 

more abundant species on most sites. Birchleaf 

mountain mahogany is common at the higher 

elevations with covers of up to 5 percent. Annual 

grasses (Bromus japonicus, B. tectorum and B. mollis) dominate the grass/forb layer with frequent 

Lomatium californicum, Claytonia perfoliata and 

Dichelostemma capitata.

The soils supporting this type are classified as 

McMullin-Rock Outcrop complex. Elevation 

ranges from 3,000 to 4,000 ft. The aspect is south 

to southwest. Slope position is lower to midslope. This community typically has very gravelly 

surface soils. 

Oregon White Oak/Mountain Mahogany-Klamath 

Plum Chaparral Complex 

(Lone Pine Ridge)

The upper slopes of the west face of Lone Pine 

Ridge are covered with a dense chaparral consisting of a mix of Oregon white oak, birchleaf 

mountain mahogany, with a regular presence 

(but low cover) of Klamath plum. Some areas 

are dominated by Oregon white oak with reduced levels of mountain mahogany; other areas 

are dominated by mountain mahogany with 

Oregon white oak cover reduced; much of the 

area is a more or less equal mix of these two. 

Where mountain mahogany is the dominant (and 

Oregon white oak cover low), canopy gaps are frequent and the herb layer is significantly denser as 

well as more diverse with several dry-site (grassland) species occurring in the canopy gaps. Most 

of the area is very dense and extremely difficult to 

walk through.

Throughout the area, the dominant herb-layer 

species are Claytonia (both perfoliata and parviflora), Galium aparine, and Nemophila parviflora. 

These species are the same as are found to be 

dominant in the Oregon white oak Woodland 

type and in the chaparral on Slide Ridge. However, three other species were found in high 

frequency in this complex: Hydrophyllum occidentale (average 2% cover), Osmorhia chilensis (1%) 

and Clarkia rhomboidea (average 2% cover). These 

elements are significantly different than the Slide 

Ridge chaparral complex.

The complex consists of roughly the following 

proportions:

40% – “Mixed Type” with Oregon white oak 

averaging 60 percent cover and mountain 

mahogany averaging 50 percent cover 

with 3 percent chokecherry, 3 percent 

Klamath plum, and 4 percent tall 

snowberry. This type closely resembles 

some of the drier, mountain mahogany 

dominant chaparral) found on Slide 

Ridge.

30% – “Dry Type” with mountain mahogany 

averaging 65 percent and Oregon white 

oak averaging 5 percent. Klamath plum 

is usually present a 1 to 2 percent cover. 

Chokecherry and snowberry are usually 

absent. This type has frequent small 

open spots with dry-site species such as 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-13

Collomia granidflora, Bromus sterilis, 

Lomatium californicum and Eriophyllum 

lanatum.

10% – Oregon white oak Woodland: see separate 

description for the type; it occurs here 

fairly randomly, often in the form of a 

large (apparent) clone in the middle of 

one of the other types.

10% – Grassy openings with typical mid-slope 

annual-grassland species; starthistle was 

not seen in this part of the RNA.

10% – Rock outcrops.

There does not seem to be any apparent aspect 

affinities in this complex except that the “Dry” 

Type (mountain mahogany dominant) seems to 

prefer the more southerly aspects. For the most 

part, the types are apparently randomly mixed.

The soils supporting this type are mapped as 

Heppsie-McMullin complex. The elevations 

range between 4,200 and 5,100 ft. The aspect is 

mainly southwest with some due west and some 

due south.

Oregon White Oak/Mountain MahoganySnowberry Chaparral Complex (Slide Ridge)

On the entire east slope of Slide Ridge (west of 

Scotch Creek) is a complex similarly dominated 

by Oregon white oak and mountain mahogany 

but it is more moist than the Lone Pine Ridge 

complex. There is considerable variation in species 

composition across the slope and some patterns 

are discernable. However, there are no clear 

delineations, and all of the “types” more or less 

intergrade. The vegetation is fairly uniformly 

short-statured (10-20 ft. in height) and moderately dense. It can be traversed on foot with reasonable ease, though fairly slowly. The tree/shrub 

layer cover is consistently high, averaging 90 percent. Oregon white oak is always present with an 

average cover of 54 percent. Mountain mahogany 

is usually present with an average cover of 30 percent. Snowberry is usually present with an average cover of 18 percent. Serviceberry, tall Oregon 

grape, Klamath plum and chokecherry all occur 

with high frequency and average 2-9 percent cover. Mock orange (Philadelphus) and Indian plum

(Oemleria) occur occasionally. Claytonia (perfoliata

and parviflora) and Galium aparine dominate the 

herb layer with Smilacina racemosa usually present. 

Other high frequency species include Nemophila 

parviflora, Viola sheltonii and Clarkia rhomboidea. 

This complex differs from the Lone Pine Ridge 

chaparral complex in the consistent high cover of 

snowberry (average 18%), the consistent presence 

of Smilacina racemosa and Viola sheltonii, and the 

significantly lower cover of Hydrophyllum, Clarkia 

rhomboidea and Osmorhiza chilensis. It also lacks 

the dry grassland species that are fairly frequent 

in the Lone Pine Ridge chaparral.

While it is difficult to distinguish distinct types 

in this complex, there are some patterns that can 

be described. The complex is roughly composed of 

the following mix of community types: 

40% – Oregon white oak-mountain mahogany; 

Oregon white oak dominant: This type 

averages 60-70 percent Oregon white oak 

and 20 percent mountain mahogany with 

20 percent snowberry; it is fairly moist 

and occurs on northeast, east, southeast 

aspects.

20% – Oregon white oak-mountain mahogany; 

mountain mahogany dominant: This type 

averages 30-35 percent Oregon white 

oak and 60 percent mountain mahogany 

with snowberry much less abundant; it is 

fairly dry and usually occurs on southeast 

aspects. This type is closely related to the 

“mixed” type of the Lone Pine Ridge 

upper complex.

10% – Oregon white oak Woodland: see the 

separate description for this type. It 

occurs here on east and southeast aspects, 

typically on lower slope position. 

5% – Riparian: in each of the small draws that 

dissect the area there is a narrow band 

dominated by dense Philadelphus, with 

Holodiscus and occasional bigleaf maple.

5% – Rocky grassy openings: typically on 

southeast aspects, often with a strong 

native Idaho fescue component.

20% – Sites with Douglas-fir-Oregon white 

oak or Douglas-fir/Serviceberry-Oregon 

Grape conifer potential are mostly 

currently dominated by Oregon white 

oak (40-50% cover), mountain mahogany 

(20-25% cover) and snowberry (32% 

cover) like the previous two types, but also 

have consistent serviceberry cover (20%). 

Also distinctive in this more moist type 

is the regular presence of chokecherry, 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-14

baldhip rose, silktassle, Oemleria, Lonicera

ciliosa and occasional thimbleberry. The 

herb layer also has some distinctive 

species such as Trientalis latifolia and 

Moehringia macrophylla, both of which 

are usually present with a 2 percent cover. 

Douglas-fir, black oak and ponderosa 

pine are present in some of the areas. The 

potential for some of this area is for an 

open canopied Douglas-fir or ponderosa 

pine overstory with Oregon white oak 

or black oak in the understory and 

continued fairly dense shrub layers. Some 

areas are trending toward the Douglas-fir/

Serviceberry-Oregon Grape (PSME/

AMAL-BEPI) type. There seems to be 

a trend in other areas toward keeping 

Oregon white oak as a co-dominant. It 

is probable that most of this area has not 

seen much more than scattered conifers 

for a long time due to repeated fires; 

however, given enough time without 

disturbance, the conifer component would 

develop. This does not mean that the 

area “should” be pushed toward conifer 

dominance; rather, it just means that 

the ecology of the area is more difficult 

to interpret than was formerly thought. 

These conifer-potential sites are on 

north and northeast aspects, often clearly 

delineated by ridge lines.

The soils in this area are mapped as Bogus very 

gravelly loam with large inclusions of HeppsieMcMullin complex. Aspect includes north 

through southeast with northeast dominant. The 

elevation ranges from 3,000 feet to 4,100 feet.

Conifer Types

Two distinct conifer communities are present in 

the RNA.

Douglas-fir/Serviceberry-Tall Oregon Grape

This plant association occasionally occurs in 

the Applegate Valley (though in limited areas). 

Brock and Callagan (1999a) use this name for 

this particular Scotch Creek RNA plant community. They have not seen it in the Southern 

Cascades except in this area. The community is 

characterized by a lack of white fir, a consistent 

cover of serviceberry and tall Oregon grape and a 

lack of poison oak (the latter is not unique here, 

of course, but in the Applegate Valley its absence 

would be quite distinctive for the Douglas-fir 

series). Even though Scotch Creek RNA has totally different soils, this community appears to be 

nearly identical to the stands found in the Applegate Valley, west of the planning area. 

The community occurs on north and northeast 

slopes mostly at the north end of the RNA. Soils 

are mapped as Bogus and McNull gravelly loams.

Some of the conifer stands on Slide Ridge, currently dominated by ponderosa pine, are probably 

best combined with this community. High black 

oak cover, low Oregon white oak cover and a 

regular, fairly dense cover of serviceberry and Oregon grape are good characteristics to use identify 

the community.

White Fir/Dwarf Oregon Grape

This type occupies a small portion of the RNA, 

at the north end near the east fork of Scotch 

Creek and at the summit of Lone Pine Ridge on 

a northeast aspect. The soils are McNull gravelly 

loam and Farva cobbly loam. Conditions are cool 

and moist and soils are sufficiently deep to support dense conifer growth. This area represents 

the lower edge of a typical forest type in the area 

to the north outside of the RNA. White fir is 

dominant with an average of 60 percent cover; 

Douglas-fir is co-dominant with 30% cover. The 

shrub layer has dwarf Oregon grape (24% cover); 

the herb layer has Smilacina stellata (3%) and Trientalis latifolia (2%) as dominants.

Exotic Plants and Noxious Weeds

Scotch Creek RNA has a number of exotic plants 

(annual grasses) and yellow starthistle, a listed 

noxious weed. Because of historical activities that 

introduced weeds—including grazing—and the 

adjacent Schoheim Road, the RNA is at risk to 

invasion by other weeds, most immediately Dyer’s 

woad.

Starthistle

Brock and Callagan (1999a) consider the active invasion of starthistle in the mid- to highelevation grassland communities to be the main 

management concern in the RNA. They have 

discovered that approximately 200 acres in the 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-15

southeast portion of the RNA is currently seriously infested with starthistle. About 10 percent 

of that area is heavily infested while 30 percent 

has light to moderate cover. Patch size varies from 

200 sq. ft. to up to two acres. Another 200-300 

acres of similar habitat is vulnerable to invasion 

in the near future. Incipient populations are also 

present along the Schoheim Road. South of the 

state line fence in California the situation is much 

worse with most of the grasslands already occupied by starthistle. This area will continue to act 

as a seed source. Annual-dominated grasslands 

offer a fertile place for establishment due to the 

periodic availability of bare soil. One strategy for 

management may be to establish a higher level of 

native grass cover to limit the bare soil available 

for starthistle.

Dyer’s Woad

This noxious weed was recently collected along 

Lone Pine Ridge Road above the Schoheim Road 

less than 1,500 feet up hill from Scotch Creek 

RNA. Dyer’s woad has the potential to colonize 

dry hill sides very rapidly.

Medusahead

Brock and Callagan (1999a) found that lowelevation grasslands were somewhat resistant to 

invasion by medusahead, which they attributed 

to shallow soils. They suggest that these might 

be good areas to seed with bluebunch wheatgrass 

and Idaho fescue.

Other exotic weeds and annual grasses include 

such species as Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus), 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), chess (Bromus secalinus), bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), Klamath 

weed, (Hypericum perforatum), and hedgehog dogtail (Cynosurus echinatus).

 

Special Status Plants

In addition to their plant community study, 

Brock and Callagan (1999b) surveyed for special 

status plants. They found nine species listed by 

the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP) 

(Table L-3). Other occurrences of this species 

have been found in the Applegate River drainage. 

Since the draft plan, Perideridia howellii has been 

dropped from the ONHP species list and is no 

longer tracked. It is left on the following table for 

reference only:

Brock and Callagan (1999b) searched the Scotch 

Creek RNA for three other plants with special 

status in Oregon: Ashland thistle (Circium ciliolatum), Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri), and 

Siskiyou four-o’clock (Mirabilis greenei), but could 

not find them. Other plants of interest found in 

the RNA include Tracy pea (Lathyrus lanzwertii 

var. tracyi), Parish nightshade (Solanum parishii), 

and Klamath Basin milkvetch (Astragalus californicus). The milkvetch is the most significant, since 

this is the only known Oregon location. Mountain lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium montanum) was 

also Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage 

species.

Forest Health

The Scotch Creek RNA has few conifer communities. A few riparian areas have white fir 

stands; Douglas-fir and Ponderosa pine occur on 

northerly slopes and in scattered pockets on the 

ridgelines. The few older stands present have high 

density, shade tolerant conifers in the understory, 

likely a result of fire suppression activities. Insects 

and disease have been documented but are not at 

epidemic levels.

Animals

There have been no large-scale vertebrate surveys done Scotch Creek RNA. However, there 

are lists for the general area that indicate species 

that might be expected in the RNA (see Nelson 

(1997); Trail (1999); (Alexander 1999); (Parker 

1999); and (Runquist 1999). 

Mollusks 

Parker (1999) discovered pebblesnails (Hydrobidea, Fuminicola) in the main channel of Scotch 

Creek and in the main tributary at T40S, R2E, 

Sec.1,NE1⁄4. The snails were at discreet locations 

in the stream associated with cold water inputs 

detailed in the Hydrology discussion above. 

The sites were also associated with flow rates 

that would prevent the settling of fine sediments on the surfaces of coarse sediments, and 

where enough sunlight penetrated the canopy to 

stimulate diatom growth. Parker suggests that 

the pebblesnails might be localized or endemic 

species since they have no way to move between 

streams.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-16

Aquatic Insects 

Cursory visual surveys of aquatic insects in the 

Scotch Creek RNA found that the aquatic insect 

community seemed similar to those in nearby 

Dutch Oven and Camp Creeks (Parker 1999). 

If so, it is possible that the insect community in 

Scotch Creek reflects glacial isolation. Intensive 

sampling in Dutch Oven Creek (in October of 

1993) revealed many species that are more typical 

of moist, coastal, higher-elevation streams in the 

western Cascades (Aquatic Biology Associates 

1993). Due to the isolation of Dutch Oven and 

Scotch Creek, there is a high probability that 

some of the aquatic insects are endemic to these 

streams. Further sampling may provide answers 

in the next few years.

Terrestrial Insects 

Runquist (1999) collected 60 species of butterflies 

in the Scotch Creek watershed during the summer of 1999. Because of access problems, only the 

northern section of the RNA was sampled. Fifty 

butterflies were collected in the RNA; an additional 10 species were collected along the decommissioned Scotch connector road from Porcupine 

Gap to Schoheim Road at the north end of the 

RNA. The remarkable butterfly diversity is a 

reflection of the geographic location of where 

ecoregions meet, the diversity of host plants, and 

the variety of ecological niches.

Amphibians 

Parker (1999) surveyed Scotch Creek for streamdwelling amphibians in early July, 1999. He found 

none within the RNA. This seemed unusual, 

since all aquatic habitat requirements were present 

for Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tenebrosus) and tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei). Dicamptodon is found in upper Jenny, Keene, and Cottonwood Creeks (Parker 1999). However, these two 

species appear to be very sensitive to aspect in 

southern Oregon. It is likely that the combination 

of a dry terrestrial environment—predominately 

hot, dry, south-facing slopes—and the low summer water flow makes it difficult for adults to 

migrate into the watershed from adjacent populations, and for aquatic juveniles to persist during 

droughts (Parker 1999).

Fish 

The falls on Scotch Creek appear to be a fish barrier. Surveys in July of 1999 found no fish above 

the falls (Parker 1999; USDI 1999). Therefore, 

within the RNA, fish reside in only about the 

first one km. (0.6 mile) of Scotch Creek. 

Fish in Scotch Creek appear to be redband trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.) (Parker 1999). Genetic 

studies will have to be completed in order to 

determine whether this population of trout is the 

closely-related but more common rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss), or whether it is, indeed, 

redband trout.

Birds 

Alexander (1999) conducted a breeding bird survey of the RNA in June of 1999. Twenty monitoring stations were established. Sixteen were visited 

twice. A total of 47 species were encountered. 

Sixteen species are conservation focal species for 

Oregon and/or California.

Spotted owls are known to nest in the immediate 

vicinity of the RNA. Timbered portions of the 

RNA have been mapped as roosting and foraging 

habitat using modified McKelvie Spotted Owl 

habitat criteria.

Exotic Animals

There are no alien animals known in the area 

with the exception of cattle. Opossum and 

starlings are documented from the lowlands in 

the Rogue and Shasta Valley, but haven’t been 

documented in the RNA.

Cattle

This area is part of the Camp Creek Pasture of the 

Soda Mountain allotment.

Site History

There have been no cultural resource surveys of 

the Scotch Creek RNA and no archeological or 

historical sites have been recorded. Native Americans who may have visited the Scotch Creek and 

utilized its resources include the Klamath and the 

Shasta.

There were numerous resources upon which these 

native peoples depended. Roots and bulbs, such as 

camas (Camassia) and various forms of Perideridia

(e.g., ipos, yampa) provided starchy staples as did 

acorns from oak trees. Fish, deer, elk, and small 

mammals provided staple proteins, augmented 

by a wide variety of berries, nuts, and seeds (e.g., 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-17

tarweed seeds, Madia spp.). Other plants and 

animals were used for fiber, tools, clothing, and 

medicines. 

Native peoples employed a number of techniques 

to enhance those resources useful to them. Fire 

was probably the most significant tool: it assisted 

in promoting and maintaining staple crops, such 

as acorns and tarweed, and maintained open 

meadows and prairies, which were crucial locations for subsistence resources including game, 

roots, bulbs, berry patches, and grass seeds. Fire 

also promoted habitat important to large game. 

Burning took place during the spring or fall and 

at specific intervals, and contributed to the development and maintenance of prairies and savannahs, oak and oak/pine woodlands, and upland 

meadows (Pullen 1996).

Settlement of southern Oregon by EuroAmericans increased substantially after gold was 

discovered in Jacksonville in 1852. Newcomers 

settled throughout the Rogue Valley, utilizing 

open savannas and grasslands for agriculture and 

livestock ranching. Conflicts over land between 

miners and settlers and Native Americans culminated in removal of the remaining Native Americans. The Klamath Indians were confined to the 

Klamath Reservation east of the Cascades. Some 

Shasta families however, managed to remain in 

the Shasta Valley and along the Klamath River, 

or escaped from the northern reservations to find 

their way home. 

Historical land use of the Scotch Creek area by 

Euro-Americans has been predominantly grazing in the open meadows and pine/oak savannas. 

Reports indicate that the area was heavily grazed 

by cattle for more than 100 years.

Human Features

There are no human-made features in the RNA 

with the exception of the Schoheim Road and the 

short unnamed spur road south of the Schoheim 

between the two branches of Scotch Creek. An

old road remnant is present in the bottom of 

Scotch Creek.

Surrounding Land Use

The RNA is surrounded by monument lands on 

the north, west, and east. The Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Study Area is adjacent to the northeast and is managed to maintain its wilderness 

values (USDI 1995). The Horseshoe Ranch 

Wildlife Area (Redding BLM and California Department of Fish and Game) along the 

southern boundary is managed by the California 

Department of Fish and Game, primarily as deer 

winter range.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Botanical/Plant Communities

Agency Standards

The following standards, policies, and directives 

regard maintaining, protecting or restoring relevant and important botanical values of RNAs:

•	 The overall goal of RNAs is to preserve natural 

features in as nearly an undisturbed state as 

possible for scientific and educational purposes. 

Natural processes should dominate, although 

deliberate manipulations which simulate natural 

processes are allowed in specific cases (USDI 

1986).

•	 RNAs are established primarily with scientific 

and educational activities intended as the 

principal form o resource use for the short 

and long term. Research proposals should be 

submitted to the appropriate BLM field office 

prior to commencing work. Studies involving 

the manipulations of environmental or 

vegetational characteristics or plant harvest must 

be approved. Because the overriding guidelines 

for management of an RNA is that natural 

processes are allowed to dominate, deliberate 

manipulation, such as experimental applications, 

is allowed only on a case specific basis when 

the actions either simulate natural processes or 

important information for future management 

of the RNA is gained (BLM Manual, 1623.37 

(A)(B)). 

•	 Preserve, protect or restore native species 

composition and ecological processes of biological 

communities (including Oregon Natural 

Heritage Plan terrestrial and aquatic cells) 

in research natural areas. These areas will be 

available for short- or long-term scientific study, 

research, and education and will serve as a 

baseline against which human impacts on natural 

systems can be measured. (USDI 1995a)

•	 Manage Oregon white oak woodlands to 

maintain or enhance values for wildlife 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-18

habitat, range, botanical values, and biological 

diversity. Utilize prescribed fire to maintain 

habitat conditions within the Oregon white oak 

woodland community (USDI 1995a).

Current Information

The ecological condition of all plant communities identified as key elements of the RNA were 

considered to be of overall high quality when the 

area was nominated as an RNA in 1991 (Schaaf, 

1991). Brock and Callagan (1999a) found that 

with the exception of some weed issues, the plant 

communities in the RNA are in good condition. Non-native weedy species, particularly 

yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), hedgehog dogtail, (Cynosurus echinatus), medusa-head

(Taeniatherum caput-medusae), and Bull thistle 

(Cirsium vulgare) occur in some of the savanna 

and woodland areas and threaten the integrity 

of these plant communities. The spread of these 

and other non-native species into the RNA from 

surrounding lands, especially from the south in 

California and along the Schoheim Road, is an 

ongoing threat.

Exclusion of a natural fire regime has resulted 

in encroachment of shrubs and conifers into the 

edges of open oak/grass savanna areas, decreasing 

the extent of this plant community in the RNA. 

Underbrush and tree density have increased in 

woodlands and forest areas, increasing fire fuel 

loads and the risk of high-intensity, stand-replacement fires.

The main objective in managing plant communities within the RNA is to maintain or enhance 

their key attributes. Ideally this would be accomplished by allowing succession to occur as 

a result of a natural disturbance regime, which 

could include wildfire, storms, normal mortality, 

drought, etc. However, because of past human 

interference, in the form of fire suppression and 

livestock grazing, proactive management is necessary to re-establish natural processes. 

Over time all plant communities are subject to 

natural disturbances and corresponding succession. It is not the intention of RNA management 

actions to halt this natural succession and disturbance process at one particular stage. Using 

prescribed burning as a management tool is an 

attempt to re-introduce fire as a natural process. Excluding fire during the past 100 years 

has resulted in a build-up of fire fuel loads and 

encroachment of trees and shrubs into savannas 

and meadows. Re-introducing fire in small areas 

under controlled circumstances would reduce 

fire fuel loads, as well as improve the ecological 

condition of plant communities in which fire has 

historically been a component by restoring native 

species composition. Allowing naturally occurring fires to run their course in the RNA (and 

outside) is somewhat constrained by the proximity of private property to the northwest of the 

RNA north of Pilot Rock. Utilizing fire in small 

areas at different times throughout the RNA is 

intended to resemble the patchiness of natural 

disturbances. With this approach, at any one time 

different areas of each plant community will be 

in different successional stages, mirroring normal 

ecosystem conditions.

Outlined below are goals, issues relating to those 

goals, and management actions for each plant 

community requiring management within the 

RNA. Additional important aspects affecting the 

management of plant communities within the 

RNA are discussed under separate headings (e.g., 

introduced and noxious weedy species, insects 

and disease, livestock grazing, timber harvest, 

etc.). Monitoring of plant communities, discussed 

in Section VI, is also a vital process of tracking 

and evaluating responses to natural or prescribed 

disturbances, determining the effectiveness of 

management actions or research activities, and 

making necessary adjustments to insure that 

management goals continue to be met.

Riparian 

(California Black Oak-Bigleaf Maple Riparian 

Woodland & Riparian Shrub Community)

Goals

Maintain the function, structure and vegetative 

composition of the riparian zones, including seeps 

and springs.

Current Information

These two plant communities are currently in 

good condition. Open galleries of black oak show 

limited juniper establishment. This may become 

a problem in the future necessitating prescribed 

fire or manual treatment. Livestock impact is no 

longer a threat to this plant community, as little 

utilization occurs. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-19

Issues

•	 Riparian areas are currently little utilized by

livestock grazing although localized areas 

historically received periodic high utilization. 

•	 Lack of riparian survey data.

Management Actions

•	 Perform riparian surveys documenting

hydrologic and riparian vegetation condition. 

•	 Restore riparian areas within the RNA that 

are not properly functioning based on results 

of riparian surveys.

•	 Remove livestock grazing from riparian 

communities if necessary. 

Oregon white oak woodland

(Oregon white oak/Tall Oregon Grape Woodland)

Goals

•	 Maintain open woodland, dominated by

Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine and 

associated native species.

•	 Reduce Douglas-fir and incense cedar conifer

seedlings.

•	 Reduce fire fuel loads.

Issues

•	 Fire suppression resulting in conifer

recruitment and increased fuel loads and 

ladders.

•	 Competition from non-native plant species,

especially annual grasses and scattered patches 

of yellow starthistle.

•	 Limited access to the site.

•	 Limited funding to accomplish objectives.

•	 Constraints to prescribed burning, including

air quality controls, proximity to adjacent 

private landowners, topography, season 

of burn, availability of native plant seeds 

and starts for re-planting after burning, 

restrictions on using large equipment.

•	 Sudden Oak Disease (SOD) is present in

oak woodlands in California. This disease 

is affecting vast areas of oak woodlands in 

central and northern California. 

Management Actions

•	 Establish pre-project monitoring plots 

to gather baseline data for post-project 

comparison to determine the effectiveness of 

the management activity.

•	 Utilize prescribed burning or manual thinning

to reduce conifer recruitment and fire fuel 

loads.

•	 Eliminate patches of yellow starthistle using

all available tools.

•	 Re-seed between trees after burning with

native grasses and forbs.

Rock Outcrops

Goals 

Maintain these sparsely vegetated but important 

niche communities.

Current Information

Plant communities associated with rock outcrops 

are likely stable. These fine feature communities are important because they provide a unique 

niche for certain plant species, including lichens 

and mosses. Certain weedy species (e.g., annual 

grasses such as cheatgrass) can occur in these 

communities.

Issues

None.

Management Actions

Survey these sites with future botanical inventories.

Grasslands 

(Low Elevation Grassland-Rock Outcrop Complex 

& Middle- and Higher-Elevation Grassland-Oregon 

white oak Woodland Complex)

Oak Woodland Component

Goals

•	 Maintain open canopied oak woodlands, and 

understory grasslands, dominated by native 

perennial grasses and forbs.

•	 Reduce noxious weeds and invasive annual 

grasses.

•	 Reduce fire fuel loads.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-20

Issues

•	 Competition from non-native plant species.

•	 Conifer encroachment as a result of fire 

suppression.

•	 Limited access to the site.

•	 Limited funding to accomplish objectives.

•	 Constraints to prescribed burning, including

air quality controls, proximity to adjacent 

private landowners, season of burn, availability 

of native plant seeds and starts for re-planting 

after burning, restrictions on using heavy 

equipment.

Management Actions

•	 Establish pre-project monitoring plots 

to gather baseline data for post-project 

comparison to determine the effectiveness of 

the management activity.

•	 Utilize all management tools available to

reduce conifer invasion, thin dense stands of 

Oregon white oak, and favor the abundance 

of native herbaceous understory species over 

invasive annual grasses.

•	 Contain and eradicate patches of yellow

starthistle using all available means. 

•	 Re-seed after weed treatment/burning with

native grasses and forbs.

Grassy meadow Component

Goals

•	 Maintain open meadows/grassland by

reducing the encroachment of conifers and 

shrubs.

•	 Decrease non-native and increase native

species.

•	 Protect and maintain the rare Astragalus 

californicus population. It is the only 

population in Oregon.

Issues

•	 Competition from non-native weedy species.

Yellow starthistle is especially dominant 

in the mid- to high-elevation grassland; 

expansion of this species is likely. Annual 

grasses ( Japanese brome and cheatgrass) 

are a dominant species in the low-elevation 

grasslands. 

•	 Encroachment of trees and shrubs into

meadows from surrounding woodlands.

•	 Limited access to the site.

•	 Limited funding to accomplish objectives.

•	 Constraints to prescribed burning, including

air quality controls, proximity to adjacent 

private landowners, season of burn, availability 

of native plant seeds and starts for re-planting 

after burning, restrictions on using large 

equipment.

•	 Presence of a rare plant that can complicate 

restoration activities

Management Actions

•	 Collect and propagate native grass and forb

seeds from savanna areas of the RNA.

•	 Establish pre-project monitoring plots 

to gather baseline data for post-project 

comparison to determine the effectiveness of 

the management activity.

•	 Tailor management activities to maintain the

Astragalus californica population in mid- to 

high-elevation grasslands, and to decrease the 

yellow starthistle populations..

•	 Eradicate large patches of yellow starthistle

using all available means.

•	 Prescribe burn meadows to reduce non-native

weedy species and encroaching trees and 

shrubs or manually thin trees and shrubs, 

particularly seedlings and saplings, in and 

around the perimeter of meadows/savannas.

•	 Re-seed burned areas with native grasses and

forbs.

Rosaceous Chaparral 

(Oregon white oak/Klamath Plum-Wedgeleaf 

Ceanothus-Oregon white oak/Mountain Mahogany-Klamath Plum Chaparral Complex (Lone Pine 

Ridge)

Goals

•	 Maintain healthy chaparral communities.

Current Information

These plant communities are commonly described 

as rosaceous chaparral. Long-term plant community dynamics are not yet fully understood. 

The mollic epipedon described by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) manual suggests past 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-21

domination by grass. The abundance of this plant 

community could be attributed to fire suppression. The presence of oak within the rosceous 

chapparal, and fire dependent species, such as 

buckbrush, imply the importance of fire within 

these plant communities. The rare plant Tracy 

peavine (Lathyrus lanzwertii var. tracyi) occurs 

in very small populations in Oregon white oak/

mountain mahogany chaparral in the RNA. This 

rare endemic is only known for a few sites in 

Oregon. The role of fire for this species is also not 

well understood; it could benefit from periodic 

disturbance events. 

Issues

•	 Lack of ecological information and

understanding of the relationship of fire 

within these communities.

•	 Dense fuel loads.

Management Action

More study of these plant communities—and 

key species within them—is needed before any 

implicit management action is formulated.

Conifer Communities 

(Douglas-fir/Serviceberry-Tall Oregon Grape & 

White fir dwarf Oregon Grape)

Goals

•	 Maintain ecosystem function in the limited

Douglas-fir and White fir communities. 

•	 Protect mature forest stands from catastrophic

disturbance events such as wildfire and insect 

outbreaks. 

•	 Design management activities that restore

natural ecosystem and disturbance processes.

Issues

•	 Limited access to the site.

•	 High cost and uncertain funding to

accomplish objectives.

•	 Constraints to prescribed burning, including

air quality controls, proximity to adjacent 

private landowners, season of burn, 

restrictions on using large equipment.

•	 Restrictions on commercial harvest.

Management Action

•	 Periodic surveys and monitoring of conditions 

in conifer communities.

•	 Reduce fuel loads and risk of catastrophic fire

and insect outbreaks by thinning from below 

and prescribed burning.

Introduced and Noxious Weed Species

Policy and Agency Standards

The introduction of exotic plant and animal 

species is not compatible with the maintenance 

or enhancement of key RNA features. Certain 

re-introductions of formerly native species using 

proper controls may be specified in plans.

Take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation of the lands Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, 1976). 

The public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 

directs the BLM to “manage, maintain, and 

improve the condition of public rangelands so 

they become as productive as feasible...” (RIA, 

1978, Section 2(b)(2)). The priority on managing 

this area is for productive plant community, not 

rangeland productivity.

Goals 

•	 Maintain and/or restore plant communities.

•	 Contain or eradicate exotic and noxious 

weeds.

•	 Prevent the introduction of new exotic or

noxious weed species. 

Current Information

Several areas within the RNA (see Botanical section) are dominated by introduced (alien) grasses, 

namely medusa-head rye (Taeniatherum caputmedusae), hedgehog dogtail (Cynosurus echinatus), 

bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), Japanese brome 

(Bromus japonicus) and cheat grass (Bromus tectorum). Small occurrences of yellow alyssum (Alyssum alyssoides), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and 

dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria) are also documented. 

There are large yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) populations in the mid- to high-elevation 

grasslands and along the Schoeheim Road (Brock 

and Callagan 1999a). Hand pulling weeds was 

started in 2003 and takes place annually.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-22

Issues

•	 Exotic plants and noxious weeds threaten 

the integrity of key features within the RNA. 

These occurrences were mapped in 1999.

•	 Disturbance as a result of wildfire, vegetation

treatments (burning or thinning), or livestock 

grazing can create optimum habitat for exotic 

and noxious weeds.

•	 High cost for weed treatments due to poor

access.

•	 Lack of proven methods for controlling large

infestations of exotic grasses like cheatgrass or 

bulbous bluegrass.

•	 Lack of large quantities of native grass and

forb seed for restoration. 

Management Actions

•	 Control weeds within and adjacent to the

RNA using an integrated weed management 

approach utilizing all appropriate means 

(mechanical, cultural, biological, and 

chemical).

•	 Collect and propagate native seed sources for

use within the RNA. 

•	 Vegetative treatments to enhance key RNA 

features must be tailored so as to (1) reduce 

weed infestations; and (2) not increase 

existing populations.

•	 Evaluate whether grazing can be used as 

a tool to promote maintenance of the key 

features of the RNA in the grazing study, 

especially reducing non-native species. If it is 

not, remove the Scotch Creek RNA from the 

Soda Mountain allotment. 

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and 

Rare Species

Policy and Agency Standards

The Endangered Species Act (USDI 1988, as 

amended) governs and provides for the conservation of listed and proposed species, and their 

habitats, on federal lands. The BLM policy 

regarding Special Status Species, including 

federally listed and proposed species, state listed 

species, and species designated as “sensitive” is to 

protect and conserve federally listed and proposed 

species, manage their habitat to promote recovery, and (for sensitive and state listed species) to 

ensure that Bureau actions will not contribute to 

the need to list sensitive or state listed species as 

federally listed (BLM Manual 6840). 

Goals

Maintain or enhance BLM Special Status Species 

occurrences and habitats within the RNA.

Plant Species

Current Information

Nine BLM Special Status Species are documented in the RNA, California milk-vetch, 

(Astragalus californicus), saw-tooth sedge (Carex 

serratodens), mountain lady’s-slipper, (Cypripedium 

montanum), dwarf isopyrum Isopyrum stipitatum, Tracy peavine (Lathyrus lanszwertii var. 

tracyi), Detling’s microseris (Microseris laciniata 

ssp. detlingii), Klamath gooseberry (Ribes inerme 

ssp. klamathense), Howell’s false-caraway (Perideridia howellii), and Parish nightshade (Solanum 

parishii). 

 

Two of these species, Klamath gooseberry and 

Howell’s false caraway were found in the riparian 

zone of Scotch Creek. Howell false-caraway is 

fairly “common” within the RNA and within the 

surrounding watersheds in the monument.

Three species were found in grassland habitats: 

saw-toothed sedge, Detling’s microseris, and the 

California milk-vetch. All three occur in areas 

with fairly high levels of exotic species or noxious 

weeds. This is the only known site for the occurrence of the California milk-vetch in Oregon, 

and Brock and Callagan (1999b) documented 

a competitive relationship between this species 

and yellow star thistle. The ability of this species to persist in the RNA is a concern unless the 

grasslands are restored. A small population of 

Detling’s microseris was also found in one location. The identification of saw-toothed sedge has 

not been confirmed to date. 

Three species are documented for the chaparral 

communities: dwarf isopyrum, Tracy peavine, 

and Parish nightshade. The dwarf isopyrum is 

documented for several locations in the RNA, 

and has been found in several locales within the 

monument. Several patches of Tracy peavine are 

present in the Oregon white oak chaparral, but all 

are very small in size. Only two plants of Parish 

nightshade were seen in the chaparral at the outer 

rocky edge of the riparian zone, south of the falls. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-23

Only one occurrence of mountain lady’s slipper 

was found in a conifer community. The occurrence was fairly large for this orchid (45 plants) 

and was in a Ponderosa pine and black oak stand 

on a northerly slope. Suitable habitat exists for 

several other BLM Special Status plants, including the Federally listed Gentner’s fritillary 

(Fritillary gentneri); however no populations were 

found.

Issues

•	 No monitoring of existing populations.

•	 Affects from the limited grazing are not 

known.

•	 Exotic and noxious weeds are likely 

threatening rare plants in the grasslands.

Management Actions

•	 Periodic monitoring of existing occurrences.

•	 Establish formal monitoring plots in the 

grasslands to evaluate the affects of noxious 

weed invasion and treatment (especially for 

Astragalus californicus).

•	 Tailor management actions (e.g., noxious

weed treatment and fire) to protect or 

enhance rare plant populations.

Wildlife Species

Current Information

There is a Northern Spotted Owl center of activity in the immediate vicinity of the RNA. Part of 

the nest stand used by this pair of owls falls inside 

the RNA boundary. 

Management Action

Any habitat manipulation activities (burning, 

vegetation manipulation, etc) proposed to occur 

in the RNA should take the habitat and security 

requirements of this owl site into account. Such 

projects should be planned with the same or more 

stringent constraints as would be placed on such 

activities outside the monument/RNA. 

Insects and Pathogens

Agency Standards

Ideally, catastrophic natural events, such as insect 

infestations, should be allowed to take their 

course. Insect or disease control programs should 

not be carried out except where infestations 

threaten adjacent vegetation or will drastically 

alter natural ecological processes within the tract 

(Appendix R of the CSNM draft plan).

Goals

•	 Maintain historic ecosystem functions in the

forested plant communities. 

•	 Protect mature forest stands from catastrophic

disturbance events such as wildfire and insect 

outbreaks. 

•	 Design management activities that restore

natural ecosystem and disturbance processes.

Current Information

The Scotch Creek RNA has few areas occupied 

by conifer communities. Most occur on north 

and northeast slopes in the northern portion of 

the RNA. A dense understory of young conifers 

is found in much of the area, and is likely a result 

of fire exclusion activities. As a result, increased 

(but not epidemic level) mortality due to beetle 

outbreak has been noted. Some true fir engraver 

incidence is present in the white fir/dwarf Oregon 

grape association, which occurs in the Northern 

portion of the RNA along the creek. Individual 

ponderosa pine are being attacked by bark beetle 

in conifer and non-conifer plant communities.

Insects

•	 Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

ponderosa)

•	 Western pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

brevicomis)

•	 Red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens)

Individual pines are being infested at a higher 

than normal level by these species of beetles. 

Generally, this is not a serious problem within 

the RNA. Within the Klamath River Ridges 

ecoregion, plant communities that support 

pine are often too dense, thereby creating 

a higher risk for beetle outbreak. In both 

the short- and long-term outlook, mature 

ponderosa pine will be subject to increased 

beetle risk. Prescribed burning and thinning 

small trees around pine could reduce this risk. 

Given the inaccessibility of the area, efforts 

should be made to protect the most highly 

valued areas by proactive thinning/burning 

projects.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-24

•	 Fir engraver (Scolytus ventralis)

Beetle and root rot often occur in association 

with white fir forests. Dense stands of white 

fir and associated pockets of laminated root 

(Phellinus weirii) often show increased levels 

of fir engraver. Root rot and fir engraver 

are the common disturbance agents in high 

elevation white fir in contrast to fire events 

in lower elevation mixed conifer. Very light 

noncommercial thinning and low level 

prescribed burns should be done on a trial 

basis in the Scotch Creek RNA stand in an 

effort to reduce engraver incidence. Currently, 

laminated root rot is not found at a sufficient 

level for concern; further baseline data 

collection may identify other areas where it is 

present.

Management Actions

Thinning small trees and brush and prescribed 

burning will increase overall forest stand vigor, 

while reducing risks to beetle infestation and 

stand replacement fires. These activities should 

follow collection of baseline data and development of specific objectives at a forest stand level 

or plant association level.

Pathogens

•	 Annosus root rot (Heterobasidion annosum)

Previously harvested areas at the northern 

extreme of the RNA (mainly those near 

roads) may have detectable but as yet 

undetermined amounts of annosus root 

rot present. This incidental occurrence is 

considered serious. White fir trees removed 

for hazard control or other reasons should be 

treated with Sporax to prevent annosus spread. 

While it is unlikely that very many trees of 

sufficient size would be cut for any reason, all 

effort should be made to prevent this root rot 

from entering new areas. 

•	 True fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium 

abietinum) 

•	 Doug-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium 

douglasii)

•	 Western dwarf mistletoe on ponderosa pine

(Arceuthobium campylopodum)

•	 Juniper mistletoe (Phorodendron densum)

•	 Incense cedar mistletoe (Phorodendron 

libocedri)

•	 Oak mistletoe (Phorodendron villosum) 

Dwarf mistletoe is present on white fir, 

Doug-fir, and ponderosa pine in the RNA. 

Three mistletoe species have been identified 

occurring on Incense cedar, Oregon white 

oak and juniper. While these parasitic plants 

sometimes cause mortality, they are present at 

endemic levels and are not considered to be a 

problem. 

Management Activities

Thinning small trees and brush, and prescribed 

burning will increase forest stand vigor thereby 

reducing susceptibility to pathogens that cause 

forest diseases. These activities should be preceded by collection of baseline data and development 

of specific objectives at a forest stand or plant 

association level.

Needed Information

More baseline data is needed for the conifer plant 

communities in the RNA. This will serve to 

inventory and document insects and pathogens. 

Five-year inventories are needed to assess overall 

stand conditions.

Summary

This is not a comprehensive list of all insects 

and pathogens in the RNA. For instance, little 

specific information is known about insects and 

pathogens occurring in the Oregon white oak 

woodlands, other deciduous trees, or shrubs. 

In this plan, the species thought to present the 

most likely problems to conifers or affecting the 

RNA were included. Any management activity 

proposed in the RNA needs to evaluated further before its implementation. The insects and 

pathogens listed here typify those found at the 

Klamath River Ridges ecoregional level. Generally, forest stand densities and fuel loading are at a 

level where beetle outbreak risks and fire behavior 

threaten forest plant associations at a greater than 

historic natural level.

Lands and Boundary/Edge Effects

Policy and Agency Standards

•	 Maintain or increase public land holdings

by retaining public lands and acquiring nonfederal lands with high public resource values.

•	 “Acquire lands and interests in lands needed
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-25

to manage, protect, develop, maintain, and 

use resources on public lands...in conformity 

with land-use plans that apply to the area 

involved.” (BLM Manual, 2100.05, 1984) 

Goals and Objectives

Maintain the integrity of the RNA. 

Current Information

The Scotch Creek RNA covers an area of 1,800 

acres of public land. The boundary is defined by 

the limits of the watershed and property lines 

along the California border. Private land only 

borders a small area in Scotch Creek. Immediate 

property to the west, north and east is all BLM 

public lands.

Management Actions

Periodic inventory to assure no trespass from activities on non-federal lands along the California 

border. 

Roads and Utilities Rights-of-Way

Policy and Agency Standards

“. . . public uses such as roads, pipelines, communication sites, and power lines should avoid 

the designated area and be anticipated in activity 

plans. Road closures or restrictions may be considered appropriate in some instances.” (USDI, 

1986) Roads are generally prohibited in RNA’s; 

however, old roads or unimproved tracks often 

exist (PNW Interagency Natural Area Committee, 1991). 

Goals

Ensure that existing roads do not contribute to 

any loss of integrity of the RNA communities, 

including the riparian area. 

Current Information

There are no utility rights of way in the RNA. 

Schoheim Road (BLM 41-2E-10.1) serves as the 

boundary along the northern and eastern edge, 

and this road has been closed. No future ROW 

grant requests are anticipated through the RNA. 

An old abandoned road exists along Scotch Creek 

on the California side on private land. 

Goals and Objectives

Maintain the roadless character of the RNA. 

Insure that Schoheim Road does not cause any 

resource damage to features in the RNA.

Management Actions

Monitor the existing Schoheim Road.

Fire Management

Agency Standards

In 1995, the latest Federal Fire Policy (USDA/

USDI 1995) was issued directing federal land 

managers to expand the use of prescribed fire in 

order to:

•	 “...reduce the risk of large wildfires due to

unnatural fuel loadings, and to restore and 

maintain healthy ecosystems.

•	 base the use of prescribed fire on the risk of

high intensity wildfire and the associated 

cost and environmental impacts of using 

prescribed underburning to meet protection, 

restoration, and maintenance of crucial stands 

that are currently susceptible to large-scale 

catastrophic wildfire.

•	 Reintroduce underburning across large areas

of the landscape over a period of time to 

create a mosaic of vegetative conditions and 

seral stages. This is accomplished by using 

prescribed fire under specific conditions in 

combination with the timing of each burn 

to reach varying fire intensities. Treatments 

should be site-specific because some species 

with limited distribution are fire intolerant.

•	 Where perpetuating a seral stage of plant

succession is important, prescribed fires may 

be specified in the activity plan, but only 

where they provide a closer approximation 

of the natural vegetation and governing 

processes than would otherwise be possible. 

Application of prescribed burns normally 

should be performed closely approximating 

the “natural” season of fire, frequency, 

intensity, and size of burn. The burn should be 

followed by a fire effects report documenting 

vegetative response.

•	 Adhere to smoke management and air quality 

standards of the Clean Air Act and State 

Implementation Plan for prescribed burning.”
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-26

Goals

Re-introduce fire into the RNA to re-establish a 

natural ecological process and to maintain, enhance or restore the structure and composition of 

the protected plant communities. Specific objectives include the following:

•	 Increase the extent of oak/pine savannas by

removing encroaching hardwood and conifer 

seedlings and shrubs.

•	 Reduce non-native and increase native grass

and forb species.

•	 Invigorate chaparral stands by removing any

decadent shrubs and creating openings for 

native grasses and forbs.

•	 Maintain and improve existing grasslands 

and meadows by using prescribed fire to 

invigorate native grasses, provide a good bed 

for reseeding, reduce encroaching shrubs and 

conifers.

•	 Control wildfire in mixed conifer stands to

protect losses to surrounding land owners.

•	 Reduce fuel loadings created from thinning

activities.

Current Information

Fire is recognized as a key natural disturbance 

process throughout Southwest Oregon (Atzet 

and Wheeler 1982). Human-caused and lightning fires have been a source of disturbance to 

the landscape for thousands of years. Native 

Americans influenced vegetation patterns for over 

a thousand years by igniting fires to enhance 

values that were important to their culture (Pullen, 1996). Early settlers to this area used fire to 

improve grazing and farming and to expose rock 

and soil for mining. Fire has played an important 

role in influencing successional processes. Large 

fires were a common occurrence in the area based 

on fire scars and vegetative patterns and were of 

varying severities.

In the early 1900s, uncontrolled fires were considered to be detrimental to forests. Suppression of 

all fires became a major goal of land management 

agencies. From the 1950s to present, suppression 

of all fires became efficient because of an increase 

in suppression forces and improved techniques. 

As a result of the absence of fire, there has been a 

build-up of unnatural fuel loadings and a change 

to fire-prone vegetative conditions.

Based on calculations using fire return intervals, 

five fire cycles have been eliminated in the southwest Oregon mixed conifer forests that occur at 

low elevations (Thomas and Agee 1986). Species, 

such as ponderosa pine and oaks, have decreased. 

Many stands that were once open are now heavily 

stocked with conifers and small oaks, which has 

changed the horizontal and vertical stand structure. Surface fuels and laddering effect of fuels 

have increased, which has increased the threat of 

crown fires which were once historically rare.

Many seedling and pole size forests of the 20th 

century have failed to grow into old-growth forests because of the lack of natural thinning once 

provided by frequent fire. Frequent low intensity 

fires serve as a thinning mechanism, thereby 

naturally regulating the density of the forests by 

killing unsuited and small trees. Consequently, 

much old-growth forest habitat has been lost, 

along with diminished populations of old-growth 

dependent and related species. In addition, ponderosa pine trees that thrive in fire prone environments are quickly shaded out by the more shade 

tolerant Douglas-fir or white fir species in the 

absence of fire. As a result, some late-successional 

forests have undergone a rapid transition from 

ponderosa pine stands to excessively dense true 

fir stands. Trees growing at lower densities, as in 

ponderosa pine stands, tend to be more fire-resistant and vigorous. Eventually they grow large and 

tall, enhancing the vertical and structural diversity of the forest. Some populations of organisms 

that thrive in the more structurally diverse forests 

that large trees provide are becoming threatened. 

Many forests developed high tree densities 

and produced slow growing trees rather than 

faster growing trees after abrupt fire suppression 

became policy in about 1900. Trees facing such 

intense competition often become weakened and 

are highly susceptible to insect epidemics and tree 

pathogens. Younger trees (mostly conifers) contribute to stress and mortality of mature conifers 

and hardwoods. High density forests burn with 

increased intensity because of the unnaturally 

high fuel levels. High intensity fires can damage 

soils and often completely destroy riparian vegetation. Historically, low intensity fires often spared 

riparian areas, which reduced soil erosion and 

provided wildlife habitats following the event. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-27

The absence of fire has had negative effects on 

grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands. Research 

in the last few decades has shown that many 

southern Oregon shrub and herbaceous plant 

species are either directly or indirectly fire-dependent.

Several shrub species are directly dependent on 

the heat from fires for germination; without fire, 

these stands of shrubs cannot be rejuvenated. 

Grass and forbs species may show increased seed 

production and/or germination associated with 

fire.

Indirectly fire-dependent herbaceous species are 

crowded out by larger-statured and longer-lived 

woody species. This is particularly so for grasses 

and forbs within stands of wedgeleaf ceanothus 

and whiteleaf manzanita with a high canopy 

closure. High shrub canopy closure prevents herbaceous species from completing their life-cycle 

and producing viable seed. Many grass species 

may drop out of high canopy shrub lands in the 

absence of fire because of their short-lived seedbank. 

Climate and topography combine to create the 

type of fire regime found in the Scotch Creek 

RNA. Fire regime is a broad term and is described as the frequency, severity, and extent of 

fires occurring in an area (Agee 1990). Vegetation types are helpful in delineating different fire 

regimes. The Scotch Creek RNA is classified as a 

Low-Severity (80 percent) and Moderate-Severity 

(20 percent) fire regimes based on the vegetation 

types found within the RNA. The low-severity 

regime is characterized by vegetation types such 

as grasslands, shrublands, hardwoods, mixed 

hardwoods, and pine, which are similar to the 

Interior Valley Vegetative Zone of Franklin 

and Dyrness (1988). These plant communities 

are adapted to recover rapidly from fire and are 

directly or indirectly dependent on fire for their 

continued persistence. A low-severity regime 

is characterized by nearly continual summer 

drought; fires are frequent (1-25 years), burn with 

low intensity, and are widespread. The dominant 

trees within this regime are adapted to resist fire 

due to the thick bark they develop at a young age. 

The intermixture of pine-oak within the RNA 

suggests the fire return interval of about 10 years 

(Agee and Huff 2000). The moderate-severity 

regime is associated with the Mixed Conifer 

Vegetative Zone of Franklin and Dyrness (1988). 

A moderate-severity regime is characterized 

by long summer dry periods, fires are frequent 

(25-100 years), burn with different degrees of 

intensity, and burn in a mosaic pattern across the 

landscape. Some stand replacement fires as well as 

low-intensity fires may occur depending on burning conditions.

The BLM has a master cooperative fire protection agreement with the Oregon Department of 

Forestry (ODF). This agreement gives the responsibility of fire protection of all lands within the 

Scotch Creek RNA to the ODF. This contract 

directs ODF to take immediate action to control 

and suppress all fires. Their primary objective is to 

minimize total acres burned while providing for 

fire fighter safety. The agreement requires ODF to 

control 94 percent of all fires before they exceed 

10 acres in size. 

Between the years 1967 and 1999, there have 

been two fires within the Scotch Creek RNA. 

Both fires were started by lightning and occurred 

in the years 1984 and 1992. Suppression action 

was taken by ODF, resulting in both fires being 

contained at 0.1 acre in size.

Currently, some fire suppression techniques are 

not allowed within the Scotch Creek RNA, in 

order to minimize disturbance to the area. All 

vehicles are restricted to existing roads and the 

use of tractors are not allowed within the RNA. 

Moreover, Scotch Creek is not be utilized as a 

water source and the use of retardant is prohibited 

near the creek.

Prescribed fire can be used to meet resource management objectives which include, but are not 

limited to, wildfire hazard reduction, restoration 

of desired vegetation conditions, management of 

habitat and silvicultural treatments. When utilizing prescribed fire it should be based on the fire 

history of the area and past vegetation patterns 

known for the area. The application of prescribed 

fire should closely approximate the frequency, 

intensity, size, and the “natural” season of fire 

when possible.

Many factors influence fire behavior and the 

effects fire will have on a resource. Some are be-
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-28

yond our ability to control such as the location of 

where a fire starts, weather and topography. Fuels 

management programs focus on those factors 

which can be influenced by humans, such as fuels 

and vegetation. Prescribed fire is one tool that can 

be utilized to regulate fuels and vegetation. 

A primary objective of any fuels management 

activity in the RNA is to alter existing fuels in 

order to protect or minimize damage to existing 

late-successional habitat from wildfires that may 

occur.

All prescribed burning would comply with the 

guidelines established by the Oregon Smoke 

Management Plan (OSMP) and the Visibility 

Protection Plan. In compliance with the Oregon 

Smoke Management Plan, any prescribed burning activities within the RNA require pre-burn 

registration of all prescribed burn locations with 

the Oregon State Forester. Registration includes 

specific location, size of burn, topographic, and 

fuel characteristics. Advisories or restrictions are 

received from the State Forester on a daily basis 

concerning smoke management and air quality 

conditions.

Prescribed burns would be conducted within the 

limits of a Burn Plan, which describes prescription parameters so that acceptable and desired 

effects are obtained. 

Issues

•	 Limited access to and within the RNA.

•	 Restrictions against using large equipment in

fire treatment or suppression activities.

•	 Constraints to season of prescribed burning

due to air quality and fire season restrictions.

•	 Limited funding for repetitive treatments and

restoration projects. 

•	 Limited availability of native grass and forb

seed or starts for re-planting. 

•	 Concerns that fire can create conditions

optimal for the expansion of annual grasses 

and noxious weeds like yellow starthistle. 

Management Actions

•	 Develop a fire management plan and

memorandum of understanding for the entire 

RNA, coordinated between BLM and ODF, 

including a plan for prescribed burning. 

•	 Maintain or enhance known sites of special

status plant populations.

•	 Establish pre-burn plots in targeted plant 

communities to gather baseline data of 

vegetation species composition, density, etc., 

to determine the effects of fire on affected 

plant communities.

•	 Through prescribed burning, reintroduce

fire as a natural process, based on past fire 

regimes. 

•	 Conduct post-project monitoring of plant 

communities to determine the effectiveness 

of management activities in achieving RNA 

goals. Adapt management activities as 

necessary.

Hydrology

Policy/Agency Standards

Medford ROD/RMP (USDI 1995, as amended 

by Aquatic Conservation Strategy [ACS SEIS]) 

objectives for water resources include compliance 

with State water quality requirements to restore 

and maintain water quality necessary to protect 

designated beneficial uses for the Klamath River 

Basin. The overall goal of the ACS, is to restore 

and maintain the ecological health of watersheds 

and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on 

public lands. Included are specific objectives to:

•	 Maintain and restore the physical integrity of

the aquatic system.

•	 Maintain and restore water quality necessary 

to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and 

wetland ecosystems.

•	 Maintain and restore the sediment regime

under which aquatic ecosystems evolved.

•	 Maintain and restore the species composition

and structural diversity of plant communities 

in riparian areas and wetlands to provide 

adequate summer and winter thermal 

regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates 

of surface erosion, bank erosion and channel 

migration, and to supply amounts and 

distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient 

to sustain physical complexity and stability.

•	 Maintain and restore habitat to support

well-distributed populations of native 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-29

plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate ripariandependent species.

Goals and Objectives

Restore and maintain a properly functioning 

watershed condition and the ecological health 

of aquatic ecosystems within the Scotch Creek 

RNA.

•	 Reduce or eliminate surface disturbing

activities such as roads/jeep trails.

•	 Restore and maintain native riparian 

vegetation along streams and springs/seeps.

•	 Achieve properly functioning riparian areas.

Current and Needed Information

Hydrologic features in the Scotch Creek RNA include intermittent and perennial streams. Current 

hydrologic condition of the RNA is unknown. A 

stream/riparian survey is necessary to determine 

watershed concerns affecting water quantity or 

quality. Except for 129.4 acres of timber land 

owned by Boise Cascade Corporation east of Porcupine Mountain in the south half of section 36, 

the remainder of the Scotch Creek Subwatershed 

above and including the RNA is managed by the 

BLM. Management of the approximately 0.7 

intermittent stream miles on the private timber 

land follows the Oregon State Forest Practice 

Administrative Rules, which do not require 

protection of vegetation along small, intermittent 

stream channels. Management actions within or 

above the RNA having the greatest potential to 

adversely affect Scotch Creek and its tributaries include existing or newly constructed roads, 

timber harvest, or grazing. Sediment and stream 

temperature increases would be the most likely 

adverse impacts to water quality associated with 

these types of activities. A severe wildfire could 

also result in sediment increases to the stream 

system.

Management Actions

•	 Conduct stream/riparian survey to determine

waterbody category, current channel 

and riparian conditions, and locations of 

unmapped waterbodies.

•	 Assess need for water/riparian monitoring 

based on stream/riparian survey results.

•	 Undertake restoration projects as needed to

comply with the objectives of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy and to prevent further 

damage to hydrologic values.

Mining and Geothermal Resources

Mining and geothermal rights have been withdrawn within the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument and are not an issue. There are no 

goals, objectives, issues, or actions necessary for 

this resource. 

Cultural Resources

Agency Standards

Protect cultural resource values including information and significant sites for public and/or scientific use by present and future generations. Sites 

with significant values will be protected from 

management actions and from vandalism to the 

extent possible. Develop project plans to preserve, 

protect, and enhance archeological, historical and 

traditional use sites, and materials under the district’s jurisdiction. This would include protection 

from wildfires (USDI 1995).

Goals

Protect cultural resources at Scotch Creek RNA 

from theft and human disturbance.

Current Information

No cultural resources have been recorded within 

the Scotch Creek RNA.

Issues

The isolated location of the RNA makes enforcement of restrictions and protection of archeological sites difficult. 

Management Actions

•	 Conduct surveys for archeological values

within the RNA. 

•	 Protect sites as needed from management

activities and vandalism.

Livestock Grazing

Agency Standards

“Watersheds are in, or are making significant 

progress toward, properly functioning physical condition, including their upland, riparianwetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant 

conditions support infiltration, soil moisture 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-30

storage and the release of water that are in balance with climate and land-form and maintain 

or improve water quality, water quantity and the 

timing and duration of flow....Habitats are, or are 

making significant progress toward being restored 

or maintained for federal threatened and endangered species, federal proposed, category 1 and 2 

federal candidates (Federal Species of Concern), 

and other special status species.” (Fundamentals 

of Rangeland Health, 43 CFR 4180) 

“Habitats support healthy, productive and diverse 

populations and communities of native plants 

and animals (including special status species and 

species of local importance) appropriate to soil, 

climate, and landform.” (Standard 5, Standards 

for Rangeland Health, USDI, 1997)

“Livestock grazing should be managed within 

RNAs to promote maintenance of the key characteristics for which the area is recognized.” (USDI, 

1987. BLM Manual, RNAs, 1623.37)

Goals

•	 Preserve natural features in as nearly an

undisturbed state as possible for scientific 

and educational purposes. Natural processes 

should dominate, although deliberate 

manipulations which simulate natural 

processes are allowed in specific cases (USDI 

1987).

•	 Maintain or improve the designated values of

the RNA, especially native plant community 

composition and structure, soils, riparian 

areas, stream health and function, and 

nutrient cycling.

•	 Prevent spread of noxious and invasive

weed species and control/eradicate existing 

populations.

Current Information

Grazing in the area encompassed by the Scotch 

Creek RNA dates back to the 1850s when large 

herds of cattle, horses, and sheep utilized the 

area. Control of these ranges did not occur 

until the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act 

in 1934. The long-term goal of this law was 

the improvement of range conditions and the 

stabilization of the western livestock industry. 

Prior to the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act, 

unregulated grazing occurred. During this period 

rangeland resources and ecological conditions are 

reported to have suffered significant harm from 

overgrazing.

The Scotch Creek RNA is currently part of the 

Camp Creek Pasture of the Soda Mountain 

Allotment #10110. Cattle numbers on the Soda 

Mountain Allotment have been reduced by 34 

percent since the 1970s. The current Animal Unit 

Months (AUMs) on the entire Soda Mountain 

Allotment are currently 1,794, with about 366 

cattle on the allotment. Utilization in the area of 

the pasture encompassing Scotch Creek RNA is 

extremely light with only the very northern part 

of Scotch Creek RNA receiving any utilization. 

Much of the RNA is inaccessible to livestock 

because of dense rosaceous chaparral. No formal 

utilization plots currently occur in the RNA. 

The Scotch Creek RNA contains significant areas 

of native grassland communities. In the RNA, 

large native herbivores (deer and elk) play an 

important evolutionary and ecological role. Even 

more important was the role played by now extinct large late Pleistocene herbivores. How these 

herbivores behaved should play an important 

role in how domestic livestock are used to obtain 

ecological objectives. Different grazing animals 

vary in their foraging preferences, season, duration, and intensity of use, which can have significantly different effects on plant communities, 

particularly when considering introduced versus 

non-introduced species. Grazing modifies vegetation height, frequency, and density; influences 

vegetation composition and succession; and, alters 

water retention and drainage characteristics. To 

plants, critical factors are the severity, frequency, 

duration, and seasonality of defoliation. These 

factors can be controlled through proper grazing 

management. 

Livestock grazing could have a significant impact in the RNA if not managed in a manner 

appropriate for the particular plant community. 

Uncontrolled grazing by domestic livestock is not 

compatible with the maintenance of key RNA 

features; however, controlled grazing could offer an ecological management tool to maintain 

or improve some of the biological features (e.g., 

grassland component, noxious weeds) for which 

the RNA was established. Because of the topography and existing vegetation densities (rosaceous 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-31

chaparral), much of the RNA is not currently 

utilized by grazing cattle.

Exotic and noxious weed populations do occur 

in the RNA, especially medusa head rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum), and bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), 

and (Centaurea solstitialis) yellow star-thistle. 

Other weeds currently have overall low densities 

dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria), bull thistle (Cirsium 

vulgare), yellow Alyssum (Alyssum alyssoides) and 

hedgehog dogtail (Cynosurus echinatus). Disturbance created by historic overgrazing grazing may 

have lead to weed introduction and expansion in 

the RNA, especially in the grasslands. Soil and 

vegetation disturbance from over-grazing can 

increase exotic plant densities and affect the plant 

communities for which the RNA was established. 

However, because of limited utilization within 

the RNA, current livestock grazing practices 

do not appear to be increasing noxious weeds 

within the Scotch Creek RNA. Livestock grazing could be utilized as a tool under an integrated 

weeds management plan to control noxious weeds 

within the RNA.

Issues

• Populations of Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), 

medusa-head rye (Taeniatherum caputmedusae), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea 

solstitialis) currently exist within the RNA. 

Soil disturbance from grazing in these areas 

could increase weed densities. 

•	 Grazing leases are currently held for the area 

encompassed by the RNA. The terms and 

conditions in the existing permit will likely 

need to be modified to protect or maintain 

key elements in the RNA 

•	 Current vegetation densities preclude grazing 

from much of the RNA. Future management 

actions (thinning/fire) intended to improve 

the condition of the vegetation, could result in 

more area being accessible to grazing cattle. 

•	 No formal utilization plots exist in the RNA; 

install monitoring plots in utilized areas 

within Scotch Creek. No riparian surveys 

(see Hydrology section) have been done 

documenting the condition of the riparian 

vegetation. 

Management Actions

•	 Collect data in grassland/scrubland/riparian

communities within the RNA as part of 

the three-year grazing study within the 

monument. Baseline information has been 

collected.

•	 Until the completion of the grazing study, 

continue to allow the RNA to remain in the 

allotment management plan.

•	 Make recommendations on how to use 

grazing, if appropriate, as a tool to maintain or 

improve these communities. 

•	 If needed, modify current grazing leases to 

change grazing patterns in the RNA so as to 

maintain or improve condition of key plant 

communities, or remove the RNA from the 

allotment plan.

Timber Management

Agency Standards

“Regulated timber harvest within the RNA and 

salvage removal of downed trees are not normally 

compatible with RNA values. For RNAs adjacent 

to timber harvest units, buffer zones should be 

considered in order to meet plan objectives (USDI 

1986).” 

Maintain viable ecosystem functions and protect 

RNA community cells from catastrophic disturbance events.

Current Information

Few trees have been removed in the past. The 

Schoheim Road, which runs along the current 

northern boundary of the RNA, resulted in 

removal of some trees. No private land is found 

next to the RNA since BLM acquired 160 acres 

of private land in Section 2. No commercial logging adjacent to the RNA will occur. 

Timber harvesting in RNAs is not consistent 

with overall RNA management goals. However, 

non-merchantable sized trees less than 12” in 

diameter will be cut to reduce stand density and 

insect risk. Most of these will be Douglas-fir that 

are less than 90-years old, and which has established itself in the absence of fire. Occasionally, 

individual trees larger than this will be girdled 

and/or felled when competing directly with individual mature pine.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-32

Management Actions Needed

No timber harvesting will occur in the RNA. 

Harvesting of small trees will only occur to 

support thinning/prescribed burning activities 

designed to maintain or protect forested communities from catastrophic events and to restore 

historic ecosystem processes. Trees that are felled 

or girdled for forest health reasons will be left on 

site. Small diameter Douglas-fir will be cut and 

burned in order to reduce fuel hazard and beetle 

outbreak risk. 

Public Use/Recreation

Agency Standards

Recreation, camping, horse use, wood cutting, 

trapping, plant gathering, and off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use are not compatible with the key RNA 

values unless shown not to hinder achievement of 

specific plan objectives. Hunting and fishing activities are typically permitted, but camping associated with these uses is prohibited in RNAs (see 

Wildlife sub-section below). Educational use such 

as class field studies is encouraged, but repetitive 

consumptive class activities are allowed only with 

BLM approval. Development of peripheral nature 

trails and interpretive signs may be appropriate in 

some cases, but with consideration for protection 

of the values without attracting undue attention. Public use roads, pipelines, communication 

sites, or power lines should avoid the RNA. Road 

closures or way closures or restrictions may be 

considered appropriate in some instances.(USDI 

1986). Equestrian use is not specifically prohibited in the RNA policies; however, use is generally felt to not be compatible with the overall goal 

of RNAs to “Preserve natural features in as nearly 

an undisturbed state as possible for scientific and 

educational purposes. Natural processes should 

dominate, although deliberate manipulations 

which simulate natural processes are allowed in 

specific cases (USDI 1986).”

Goals

•	 Protect the designated values of the RNA. 

Prevent motorized and mechanized vehicles, 

and high impact recreation.

•	 Educate the public to the ecological

significance of the RNA and the restrictions 

required to protect the designated natural 

resources.

Current Information

Recreational use in the Scotch Creek RNA is 

almost non-existent. There are no existing roads 

or trails within the RNA. The Schoheim Road is 

the northern boundary of the RNA and it is now 

closed to all vehicle use and will be decommissioned. The entire RNA is closed to all off-road 

travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles. 

Hiking from Porcupine Gap down Scotch Creek 

could become a major recreational hike, since 

hikers would have access to vehicles on public 

land without trespassing.

Potential problems arising from public use of 

the RNA include the threat of human-caused 

stand-replacement fire; damage to grasses, forbs 

and soils by compaction from hikers and horses; 

and the introduction of undesirable non-native 

species. Current recreational use is very light 

and low-impact. Periodic monitoring should be 

conducted to evaluate the impacts of recreational 

use on the protected plant communities and to 

determine if signs are necessary to protect against 

adverse effects.

Camping

Current Information

No established camping facilities exist in Scotch 

Creek RNA. Camping is not compatible with 

protection of the key elements of the RNA. 

However, unless camper use becomes evident, no 

actions are needed at the present time. If it does 

become a problem, “no camping” signs could be 

posted around the RNA.

Issues

•	 Isolated location of the RNA and difficulty in 

enforcing restrictions.

•	 Historical use of the area.

Management Actions

•	 Conduct periodic monitoring to determine if 

camping has occurred that has had a negative 

impact on the protected elements.

•	 Promote environmentally sensitive use of area

to visitors via education (signs and personal 

contact). 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-33

Hiking

Current Information

There is an existing spur road between east and 

west forks of Scotch Creek but no designated 

trails within Scotch Creek RNA. Features of 

the RNA that might appeal to hikers are wild 

flowers, wild game, and diverse plant communities; however, the RNA is not well known or 

easily accessible to the general public. For these 

reasons, developing hiking trails or promoting the 

area as a recreational hiking destination would 

not be practical or recommended. Casual hiking 

itself does not pose a threat to the resources of 

the RNA. However, if done by a large number 

of people, native grasses and wild flowers could 

be trampled and destroyed and soils compacted, 

jeopardizing the integrity of the protected elements of the RNA.

Issues

•	 Isolated location of the RNA making 

enforcement of restrictions difficult.

•	 Historical use of the area.

Management Actions

•	 Conduct periodic monitoring to evaluate the 

extent and effects of hiker use.

•	 Promote environmentally sensitive use of area

to visitors via education (signs and personal 

contact).

Equestrian

Current Information

Scotch Creek RNA currently receives little, if 

any, equestrian use. What use occurs is likely 

occasional use by riders under the grazing lease. 

Equestrian activities in this management plan 

refer to horses, llamas, mules, and other pack 

animals. Heavy use by recreational animals could 

threaten the values of the RNA by trampling 

vegetation and soil, particularly in meadows with 

thin, fragile soils; or by carrying in seeds of exotic 

weedy species on their hooves and hair, or in their 

feces. During wet conditions horses can push root 

crops (used by Native American tribes as food) 

too far into the soil to dig and use. For these 

reasons, horse and other pack or riding stock use 

is not considered compatible with the values in 

the RNA. Incidental use by riders moving cattle 

is allowed under the grazing leases.

Issues

•	 Isolation of area and difficulty in enforcing

closures or restrictions.

•	 Historical use of the area.

Management Actions

•	 Periodically monitor the RNA to ensure that 

recreational horse or other stock use is not 

causing damage.

•	 Promote environmentally sensitive use of area

to visitors via education (signs and personal 

contact with equestrian groups)

•	 Post signs at entrances to the RNA, stating 

the goals of the RNA. 

Hunting, Fishing and Trapping

Agency Standards

Hunting and fishing are typically permitted, 

although not encouraged, in RNAs, whereas 

trapping is not permitted (USDI 1986). 

Management of fish and wildlife populations is 

controlled by the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW) with regulations for 

hunting, fishing, and trapping set on a yearly 

basis. Regulations regarding seasons, bag limits, stream stocking, licenses and techniques are 

dictated by the Department through the Fish and 

Wildlife Commission and are applicable on all 

lands within the state, including private property. 

Specific areas may be closed to activities in order 

to protect human life or natural resources.

Current Information

Wildlife is abundant in and around Scotch Creek 

RNA. The area contains big game like deer, 

black bear, and cougar. Elk may occasionally 

pass through the RNA. Small game species in 

the general area include Ruffed grouse (Bonasa 

umbellus), Blue Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), 

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Mountain 

Quail (Oreortyx pictus), Valley Quail (Callipepla 

californicus), Western Grey squirrel (Sciurus 

griseus). Since there are no roads or trails, actual 

hunting within the RNA is extremely low. Most 

of Scotch creek contains no trout due to falls 

that act as a natural barrier preventing up stream 

migration. However, fish are present in the creek 

for the last two miles before Scotch Creek enters 

California. Scotch Creek doesn’t support fish big 

enough or in big enough numbers to be of interest 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-34

to anglers. Recreational fishing is nearly non-existent. It is unknown what, if any, trapping activity is occurring in this area. Fur-bearing species 

in the area include Bobcat (Felix rufus), Coyote 

(Canis latrans), Raccoon (Procyon lotor), and 

Grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and possibly Pine Marten (Martes americanus). Due to 

the limited access, steep terrain, thick vegetation, 

relative scarcity of water and distance from town, 

this is probably not an area where extensive trapping has occurred recently. Since vehicular access 

to this area is no longer available, it is anticipated 

that any recent trapping activity in the area will 

no longer occur. There is no indication that any 

trapping currently occurs. Since there is only one 

spur road between east and west forks of Scotch 

Creek, and no trails within the RNA, hunting, 

fishing, and trapping in Scotch Creek RNA is not 

likely an issue.

Issues

•	 Dispersed camping and OHV or horse use 

are often associated with hunting and could 

negatively impact RNA resources if these 

activities occur illegally.

•	 The isolation of the area makes enforcing

restrictions difficult.

•	 Historical use of the area.

•	 Prohibition of hunting and trapping in the 

RNA would require a change to the Oregon 

State Game Regulations and would be 

difficult to enforce.

•	 Minimal impact to wildlife populations in the

area. No impact is anticipated on the values 

for which the RNA was designated.

Management Actions

Monitor use to determine if any impacts from 

hunting are occurring. 

Off-Highway Vehicles

Agency Standards

Management directions for all RNAs specify 

closure to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. Offhighway vehicles include, but are not limited to, 

motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and mountain 

bikes.

Current Information

Because of the dense vegetation, lack of roads, 

remote location, and limited access, there has 

been no noticeable OHV activity within this 

RNA. In the past OHV use occurred on high 

open grassy slopes below Schoheim Road along 

the lower end of Lone Pine Ridge to the California Border.

Issues

•	 Isolated location makes enforcing restrictions

or area closures difficult.

•	 Historical use of the area.

Management Actions

•	 Conduct periodic monitoring to assess offhighway vehicle violations.

•	 Promote environmentally sensitive use of area

to visitors via education (signs and personal 

contact).

Special Forest Products

Policy and Agency Standards

Commercial or personal harvest of Special 

Forest Products (SFPs) within RNAs, such as 

boughs, burls, fungi, medicinal plants, etc., are 

not compatible with the overall goals to “Preserve 

natural features in as nearly an undisturbed state 

as possible for scientific and educational purposes. 

Natural processes should dominate, although 

deliberate manipulations which simulate natural 

processes are allowed in specific cases (USDI 

1987). 

Current Information 

No use permits are currently issued for this area. 

Historical personal use within this area is not well 

documented. Little information is available to determine the abundance of SFPs within the RNA, 

although numerous plants used in the medicinal 

herb industry are present. The lack of access to 

the RNA would limit the removal of any significant quantities of SFPs. Future research within 

the RNA may require the collection of certain 

animal and plant specimens. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-35

Issues

The isolation of the area makes enforcing SFPs 

collection restrictions difficult. 

Management Action 

•	 Prohibit any commercial or person use

collection of Special Forest Products within 

the RNA. Permits for collection of specimens 

for research will be allowed on a case by case 

basis. 

•	 Educate the public to the ecological

significance of the RNA and the restrictions 

required to protect the designated natural 

resources.

Interpretation and Research

Policy and Agency Standards

The purpose for RNAs is for research, observation, and study. Studies involving manipulations 

of environmental or vegetation characteristics 

or plant harvest must have prior approval of the 

BLM. 

Goals

•	 Protect the designated values for which the

RNA was nominated to provide baseline 

information against which the effects of 

human activities in other areas may be 

compared.

•	 Provide a site for study of natural processes

in as undisturbed (by human activities) an 

ecosystem as possible.

Current Information

Scotch Creek RNA is only accessible on foot or 

horseback, which protects it from overuse by the 

public but also makes it impractical as an interpretive or educational site. The RNA is accessible 

all year via the Horseshoe Ranch Wildlife Area 

(California). It can be used by investigators and 

classes willing to walk the several miles to the 

RNA. One of the main objectives for RNAs is to 

provide educational and research areas for ecological and environmental studies. The following 

specific research topics have been suggested for 

Scotch Creek:

•	 Evaluating the effects and the role of

domestic livestock grazing on key elements 

in the RNA (plant communities and rare 

species) as part of the ongoing grazing study.

•	 The role of fire in plant community

development, composition and production.

Other potential areas for research include the effectiveness of prescribed fire and seeding of native 

species in reducing non-native plant species, and 

studies of the effects of prescribed fire or vegetative manipulation on plant community composition or special status plant populations. BLM 

encourages any nondestructive research that leads 

to a further understand of RNA ecosystems and 

is not limited to restoration or the study of politically signification plants and animals.

When researchers plan to use an area, they have 

certain obligations to: 

1. notify the appropriate BLM field office, 

submit a research plan, and obtain permission;

2. abide by regulations and management 

prescriptions applicable to the natural area; 

and,

3. inform the agency of the research progress, 

published results, and disposition of collected 

materials.

Issues

•	 Lack of funding for treatments in RNAs

•	 Impacts from surrounding land use activities.

Management Actions

•	 Evaluate all proposed research projects and

approve only those that will not adversely 

affect the RNA’s resources or short- and longterm viability of species.

•	 Maintain a list of projects and research in the

RNA, including findings and conclusions.

•	 Incorporate pertinent new findings from

research projects into management actions.

•	 Maintain copies of all surveys, inventories,

monitoring and activities conducted within 

the RNA.

MONITORING

Definition and Role of Monitoring

Monitoring is defined as a process of repeated 

recording or sampling of similar information for 

comparison to a reference. The role of monitoring 

in Research Natural Areas (RNA) is to collect 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-36

information in order to evaluate if objectives and 

anticipated or assumed results of a management 

plan and management actions are being realized 

or if implementation is proceeding as planned. 

Because monitoring may be so costly as to be 

prohibitive, priority should be given to monitoring mandated by legislation and to focusing 

on management actions aimed at maintaining, 

protecting and restoring key elements and minimizing disturbance in the RNA. All monitoring 

activities must include the following steps:

1. Establish monitoring objectives.

2. Collect baseline information.

3. Repeat consistent standardized monitoring 

procedures over time.

4. Interpret monitoring results relative to the 

baseline information and monitoring and 

implementation objectives.

5. Modify management objective actions and 

monitoring procedures as necessary based 

on reliable monitoring data to continue to 

achieve goals of the RNA.

The monitoring plan should be tailored to the 

unique characteristics of the RNA. Two types of 

monitoring activities are outlined below. Ecological status monitoring is designed to track the 

ecological condition of the natural elements protected within the RNA. Defensibility monitoring 

should detect impacts from outside factors on the 

protected elements in the RNA. These monitoring activities are general in nature and should not 

be used in lieu of more complex research strategies. Detailed monitoring protocols should also 

be developed in conjunction with specific management projects to measure their effectiveness 

in achieving RNA objectives. For each element, 

monitoring objectives, unit and frequency of measurement, responsible personnel, and location for 

data storage are stated. Monitoring is also dependent on annual fluctuations of funding.

Ecological Status Monitoring

Ecological status monitoring involves tracking 

species and plant communities relative to the 

stated objectives of the RNA. Ecological status 

monitoring at Scotch Creek RNA should assess 

the current status of RNA elements and track 

trends or changes over time to determine if any 

RNA values are at risk. Monitoring results provide the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of 

management actions and determining if changes 

are required. Where possible, monitoring within 

the RNA should be tiered to the monitoring for 

the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. 

Element: Plant Associations

Monitoring Objectives: Track successional 

changes in the key RNA plant associations or 

communities to determine if native species are 

protected, if ecological processes are properly 

functioning, and if RNA management actions are 

achieving desired outcomes. Information collected during monitoring provides the basis for 

making adjustments to management actions.

 

Frequency of Measurement: Every 5 years and 

after any management action.

Responsible Personnel: Botanists, Ecologists, 

Foresters

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA File

Element: Special Status Plants

Monitoring Objectives: Monitor populations of 

special status plants that were documented in surveys done in 1999, in order to maintain or enhance 

populations and associated habitats. Utilize the 

RNA to collect base-line biological data for rare 

plant species. Evaluate effects from any vegetation 

treatments (burning/thinning) and grazing. 

Unit of Measure: Revisit known sites and record 

population demographics on site reports. Include 

monitoring of for the rare Astragalus californica.

Frequency of Measurement: Revisit known sites 

of special status plants every 5 years. 

Responsible Personnel: Botanist

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA File, Medford 

Rare Plant Database

Element: Special Status Wildlife

Monitoring Objectives: Perform surveys for 

special status wildlife species and monitor species 

within the RNA in order to maintain or enhance 

populations.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-37

Unit of Measure: Determined by established 

protocols for specific species.

Frequency of Measurement: According to established protocols.

Responsible Personnel: Wildlife Biologist

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA File, Wildlife 

database

Element: Fire

Monitoring Objectives: Determine the need to 

restored key plant communities using prescribed 

fire. Perform fuel surveys in key plant communities following established protocols. Monitor 

following prescribed burning results and the plant 

community response, in conjunction with Plant 

association monitoring.

Unit of Measure: Determined by established 

wildland burning and vegetation protocols.

Frequency of Measurement: According to established protocols.

Responsible Personnel: Fire specialists, Ecologist, 

Botanist

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA File, Fire 

database

Element: Non-Native Species

Monitoring Objectives: Assess the need for 

management actions to reduce or minimize the 

impact, introduction and/or spread of non-native 

weedy species. Monitor identified treatment and 

problem areas. Non-native species of concern 

include all currently identified noxious and exotic 

weeds known within the monument and in the 

adjacent watersheds.

Unit of Measure: Presence/absence, abundance 

and spread. Treatment results of non-native 

weedy species by fixed plots. Target highly 

susceptible points of invasion (along borders and 

roads), susceptible habitats, and areas that receive 

vegetation treatments.

Frequency of Measurement: Monitor treatment 

plots for 2 years following the treatment. Demographic monitoring every 3 years (presence/

spread); casual observations during other site 

visits.

Responsible Personnel: Botanists, Range Specialists, Ecologists

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA File, Medford 

District Noxious Weed database

Element: Insects, Diseases or Pests

Monitoring Objectives: Monitor harmful insects, 

diseases or pests that could cause long-term negative changes in plant communities, especially the 

Mixed conifer/California black oak community. 

Monitoring for the presence of the oak phytophthora. Determine if treatments are needed to 

reduce the negative effects of insects and diseases.

Unit of Measure: Periodic evaluation of the RNA 

to discover presence/absence and extent of harmful insects, diseases or pests. Initial evaluations 

may be accomplished by walking through the 

RNA, or through photo interpretation.

Frequency of Measurement: Every 5 years or as 

needed based on casual observations during other 

site visits.

Responsible Personnel: Foresters, Ecologists, 

Entomologists, Pathologists, Botanists

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA File, Southwest Oregon Insect and Disease Center

Element: Hydrology

Monitoring Objectives: Evaluate hydrological 

conditions (channel stability, erosion, sedimentation, slumping potential, etc.) and riparian vegetation of all streams to determine the functioning condition and need for habitat improvement 

or restoration activities. 

Unit of Measure: Established riparian stream 

survey protocols.

Frequency of Measurement: Establish a baseline, 

then every 10 years.

Responsible Personnel: Hydrologist/Riparian 

Coordinator
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-38

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA File, Riparian 

database

Element: Natural Disturbance

Monitoring Objectives: Document type, extent, 

intensity, and frequency of natural disturbances 

in the RNA and resulting changes in ecosystem 

structure or composition.

Unit of Measurement: Intuitively controlled 

surveys after disturbance, photos of affected plant 

communities or areas.

Frequency of Measurement: After significant disturbance, wildfires, landslides, insect and disease 

outbreaks.

Responsible Personnel: Botanist, Ecologist and 

Foresters

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA File

Defensibility Monitoring

Defensibility monitoring involves on-the-ground 

assessment of factors which affect the manager’s 

ability to protect the Scotch Creek Research 

Natural Area and its elements. Considered are 

current and anticipated land uses within and 

adjacent to the RNA and their potential negative 

effects on the protected elements or their governing ecological processes. Defensibility monitoring 

also involves checking for evidence of prohibited 

use, encroachment or degradation within the 

RNA.

Element: Cultural Resources

Monitoring Objectives: After initial baseline surveys, detect vandalism or disturbance to known 

archeological or historical sites at the RNA.

Unit of Measure: Visual assessment to detect 

evidence of disturbance.

Frequency of Measurement: Every 5 years or as 

needed based on observations during periodic site 

visits.

Responsible Personnel: Cultural Resource Manager/ Archaeologist

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA File, District 

Archeology files

Element: Public Use of RNA 

Includes camping, hiking, equestrian, trapping, 

OHV, special forest products, interpretation 

and research, trespass livestock grazing, timber 

harvesting.

Element Objectives: Determine if the level of 

public use jeopardizes protection of RNA values 

or key elements. 

Unit of Measure: Observations made during 

other surveys or during periodic site visits. Indications of problem areas include evidence of vehicular use (on or off existing roads in the RNA), 

refuse, signs of campfires or campsites, trampled 

meadows, over grazing, significant erosion or rutting on or off roads. If problems are noted during 

casual visits to the site, conduct more extensive 

surveys to determine if actions should be taken to 

prevent damage to the protected elements.

Frequency Measurement: Casual visits yearly.

Responsible Personnel: RNA Coordinator

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA file

Element: Roads

Element Objectives: Determine condition of 

Schoheim road, track erosion and gullying of road 

surfaces, or other problems associated with the 

closed road.

Unit of Measurement: Subjective evaluation 

by knowledgeable personnel. Establishment of 

photo-points of marginal spots to compare condition over time.

Frequency of Measurement: Every 5 years during 

periodic site-evaluation visits to the RNA.

Responsible Personnel: RNA Coordinator, Road 

Engineers

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA file

Element: Fences and Gates

Monitoring Objectives: Determine if existing 

fences and gates adequately protect the RNAs 

elements. If not, determine if repairs, additional 

fencing or gates are needed. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-39

Unit of Measurement: Walk fence lines to discover broken fences.

Frequency of Measurement: Every 5 years, or as 

needed if trespass grazing from California or any 

OHV use is observed during other visits to the 

site.

Responsible Personnel: Rangeland Specialists, 

Road Engineers

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA file

Element: Grazing

Element Objectives: Determine if permitted 

grazing is maintaining or enhancing key plant 

community elements within the RNA, including Special Status Plants. Meet the intent of 

the overall goals for the RNA. Adjust grazing 

accordingly. 

Unit of Measurement: Establishment of monitoring plots following standardized protocols in 

livestock utilized plant communities (grasslands / 

riparian) within the RNA. Where possible monitor grazing in conjunction with plant community 

and Special Status plant monitoring plots. Establish photo-points in areas of concern to compare 

condition over time.

Frequency of Measurement: Monitor for a minimum of three years as part of the monument 

grazing study. Monitor utilization transects every 

year that livestock use the RNA.

Responsible Personnel: Ecologists, Range Specialists, Botanists

Data Storage: Scotch Creek RNA file

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH

None at this time.

REFERENCES

Agee, J.K. (1990). The historical role of fire in 

the Pacific Northwest. In: Walstad, J.D., 

Rodosevich, S.R., Sanberg, D.V. (eds). 

Natural Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. 

Corvallis, OR. Oregon State University 

Press. 25-58 p.

Agee, J.K., Huff, M.H. (2000). The role of 

prescribed fire in restoring ecosystem health 

and diversity in Southwestern Oregon. 

In: Report to PNW Research Station 

Directors Office. Northwest Forest Plan 

Issue. University Of Washington. Seattle, 

Washington.

Alexander, J.D. (1999). Baseline inventory of 

breeding birds in the Oregon Gulch and 

Scotch Creek Research Natural Areas, and 

the Agate Flat Area of the Cascade/Siskiyou 

Ecological Emphasis Area. Unpublished 

report. Medford (OR): Ashland Resource 

Area, Medford District, Bureau of Land 

Management.

Aquatic Biology Associates. (1993). Benthic 

invertebrate biomonitoring: Beaver Creek, 

Corral Creek, Dutch Oven Creek, and Keene 

Creek sites. Report. Medford (OR): Medford 

District, Bureau of Land Management. 39 p.

Atzet, T., Wheeler, D.L. (1982). Historical and 

ecological perspectives on fire activity in the 

Klamath geological province of the Rogue 

River and Siskiyou National Forests. Pub. 

R-6-Range-102 ed. Portland (OR): U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Brock, R., Callagan, R. (1999a). Scotch Creek 

RNA 1999 survey. Special status plant 

summary. Unpublished report. Medford 

(OR): Ashland Resource Area, Medford 

District, Bureau of Land Management. 2 p.

Brock, R., Callagan, R. (1999b). Scotch 

Creek RNA plant community inventory. 

Unpublished report. Medford (OR): Ashland 

Resource Area, Medford District, Bureau of 

Land Management. 9p. plus tables.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-40

Franklin, J.F., Dyrness, C.T. (1988). Natural 

vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis 

(OR): Oregon State Univ Pr. 452 p.

Nelson, K. (1997). Terrestrial vertebrate fauna 

survey of the Soda Mountain Region of 

Southwestern Oregon. [MSc Project]. 

Ashland: Southern Oregon Univ. 88 p.

Oregon Climate Services. (2000). Overview of the 

PRISM Model. Internet.

[http://www.ocs.orst.edu/prism/overview.

html]

ONHAC (Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory 

Council). (1998). Oregon Natural Heritage 

Plan. Salem (OR): State Land Board. 138 p.

Parker, M. (1999). Aquatic survey of Oregon 

Gulch, Skookum, Camp, Dutch Oven, 

Scotch and Slide Creeks. Unpublished 

report. Medford (OR): Ashland Resource 

Area, Medford District, Bureau of Land 

Management. 12 p.

Pater, D.E., Bryce, S.A., Thorson, T.D., Kagan, 

J., Chapell, C., Omernick, J.M., Azevedo, 

S.H., Woods, A.J. (1997a). Ecoregions of 

Western Washington and Oregon. Map and 

descriptive text. 1 p. Available from: J.M. 

Omernick, Corvallis (OR): Environmental 

Protection Agency.

Pater, D.E., Bryce, S.A., Thorson, T.D., Kagan, 

J., Chapell, C., Omernick, J.M., Azevedo, 

S.H., Woods, A.J. (1997b). Summary Table: 

Characteristics of Ecoregions of Western 

Washington and Oregon. 1 p. Available 

from: J.M. Omernick, Corvallis (OR) 

Environmental Protection Agency.

PNW (1991). Pacific Northwest Interagency 

Natural Area Committee: A Guide for 

developing Natural Area Management and 

Monitoring Plans. Unpublished Document. 

Medford (OR): Ashland Resource 

area, Medford District, Bureau of Land 

Management. 52 p.

Pullen, R.(1996). Overview of the environment of 

native inhabitants of southwest Oregon, late 

prehistoric era. Unpublished Report. USDA, 

Rogue River, Siskiyou, Umpqua National 

Forests; USDI, Medford District, BLM.

Rosgen, D. (1996). Applied river morphology. 

Minneapolis (MN): Media Companies. 356 

p.

Runquist, E. (1999). Butterfly community surveys 

in the soda mountain region, Jackson County, 

Oregon. Unpublished report. Medford 

(OR): Medford District, Bureau of Land 

Management. 27 p.

Schaaf, D.V. (1990). Letter to Rich Drehobl. 

Ashland Resource Area Manager, Medford 

BLM, from Dick Vander Schaaf, The 

Nature Conservancy, Nominating Oregon 

Gulch as an RNA. On file, Oregon Gulch 

Files, Medford (OR), Ashland Resource 

Area, Medford District, Bureau of Land 

Management. 3 p.

 Smith, J.G., Page, J., Johnson, M.G., Moring, 

B.C., Gray, F. (1982). Preliminary geological 

map of the Medford 10 X 20 Quadrangle, 

Oregon and California. Washington (DC): 

USDI, USGS 1 sheet.

Thomas, T.L., Agee, J.K. (1986). Prescribed fire 

effects on mixed conifer forest structure at 

Crater Lake, Oregon. Can J Forestry Res. 

16(5): 1082-1086.

Trail, P. (1999a). Birds of the Soda Mountain 

Region, Oregon and California. Unpublished 

bird list. Medford (OR): Rogue Valley 

Audubon Society. 3 p.

 

USDA Forest Service - USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (1995). Federal Wildland 

Management Policy and Program Review. 

Final Report.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. (1993). Soil 

Survey of Jackson County Area, Oregon.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1986). 

Instructional Memorandum No. OR-87-

112. Research Natural Area Management 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix K—Scotch Creek Research Natural Area Management Plan

K-41

Policy and Discussion Paper for RNA 

Management.

Medford, (OR): Medford District Office, 

Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1987). 1623 

- Supplemental Program Guidance for Land 

Resources. Portland (OR): Oregon State 

Office, Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1994). 

Proposed Medford District Resource 

Management Plan. Medford (OR): Medford 

District, Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1995a). 

Medford District Record of Decision and 

Resource Management Plan. Medford 

(OR): Medford District, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1995b). 

Jenny Creek Watershed Assessment and 

Analysis. Medford (OR): Medford District, 

Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1995c). 

Interim Management Policy for Lands under 

Wilderness Review (H-8550-1). Washington 

(D.C.): National Office, Bureau of Land 

Management

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1997). 

Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management for Public Lands Administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management in the 

States of Oregon and Washington.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1999). 

Unpublished stream temperature data. 

Medford (OR): Ashland Resource 

Area, Medford District, Bureau of Land 

Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (2000). 

Klamath-Iron Gate Watershed Analysis. 

Medford (OR): Medford District, Bureau of 

Land Management.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1988). 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended through the 100th Congress.

WorldClimate (2000). Precipitation and 

temperatures for selected CSNM weather 

stations. Internet. [http://www.worldclimate.

com]
K-42 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-1

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

appendix l

oregon gulch research natural area

management plan

for

oregon gulch research natural area

ashland resource area

medford district

bureau of land management

united states department of the interior
Resource Management Plan

L-2 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................L-4

POLICY ................................................................................................................................................L-4

BASIS FOR DEDICATION AND SETTING OBJECTIVES ........................................................L-4

RNA History..........................................................................................................................................L-4

Basis for Dedication ...............................................................................................................................L-5

Management Restrictions.......................................................................................................................L-5

NATURAL AREA DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................L-5

Oregon Gulch Area Description............................................................................................................L-5

Location ....................................................................................................................................L-5

Access........................................................................................................................................L-5

Ecoregions.................................................................................................................................L-5

Climate......................................................................................................................................L-6

Topography ...............................................................................................................................L-6

Geology .....................................................................................................................................L-7

Soils...........................................................................................................................................L-7

Hydrology..................................................................................................................................L-7

Vegetation..................................................................................................................................L-9

Exotic Plants ........................................................................................................................... L-10

Special Status Plants................................................................................................................ L-10

Forest Health........................................................................................................................... L-11

Animals ................................................................................................................................... L-11

Exotic Animals........................................................................................................................ L-12

Site History ............................................................................................................................. L-12

Human Features...................................................................................................................... L-13

Surrounding Land Use ......................................................................................................................... L-14

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................................... L-15

Botanical/Plant Communities.............................................................................................................. L-15

Introduced and Noxious Weedy Species............................................................................................... L-18

Endangered and Rare Species .............................................................................................................. L-19

Wildlife Species....................................................................................................................... L-19

Plant Species .......................................................................................................................... L-19

Insects and Pathogens .......................................................................................................................... L-19

Lands and Boundary/Edge Effects....................................................................................................... L-22

Roads and Utilities Rights-of-Way ...................................................................................................... L-22

Fire Management ................................................................................................................................. L-22

Aquatic Ecosystem: Hydrology and Habitat........................................................................................ L-25

Mining and Geothermal Resources...................................................................................................... L-26

Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................ L-26

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................................ L-27

Timber Management ........................................................................................................................... L-28

Public Use/Recreation.......................................................................................................................... L-29

Camping.................................................................................................................................. L-29

Hiking ..................................................................................................................................... L-29

Equestrian ............................................................................................................................... L-30

Off-Highway Vehicles............................................................................................................. L-30

Hunting, Fishing, Trapping .................................................................................................................. L-31
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-3

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Special Forest Products......................................................................................................................... L-32

Interpretation and Research ................................................................................................................. L-32

MONITORING ................................................................................................................................. L-33

Definition and Role of Monitoring ...................................................................................................... L-33

Ecological Status Monitoring............................................................................................................... L-33

Defensibility Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... L-35

HISTORICAL ATTACHMENT - OREGON GULCH RNA ..................................................... L-36

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................... L-39

This document was prepared in large part by Dr. Frank Lang, Professor emeritus, Southern Oregon University. 

Our thanks to him. 
Resource Management Plan

L-4 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

INTRODUCTION

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are part of a federal system of land tracts identified and designated to preserve and protect certain natural features 

for research and educational purposes. The overall 

goals for establishing RNAs are to provide:

1. baseline areas against which the effects of human activities can be measured;

2. sites for study of natural processes in an undisturbed ecosystem; and

3. a gene pool for all types of organisms, especially rare and endangered species.

The interagency Pacific Northwest Research Natural Area Committee, composed of federal, state 

and private organizations in Oregon and Washington, has identified a set of natural elements, or 

“cells”, representing terrestrial and aquatic habitats, plant communities, and ecosystem processes 

targeted for protection through the RNA system.

The 1,056 acre (427.4 ha) Oregon Gulch RNA is 

located in southeastern Jackson County, Oregon, 

between Randcore Pass on the west and the 

former Box O Ranch (BLM) at the east, and is 

bound on the north by the ridge from the Pass to 

Rosebud Mountain and on the south by the ridge 

that separates Oregon Gulch from Agate Flat. 

Oregon Gulch enters Jenny Creek on the former 

Box O Ranch.

The area was originally nominated by the Nature 

Conservancy in 1990, analyzed and evaluated by 

the RMP process in 1992 by the Ashland Resource Area, BLM, proposed as a new RNA in 

the Medford District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

(USDI 1994), and designated a new RNA under 

the Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (USDI 1995a). One of the management actions required by the ROD for Special 

Areas, including RNAs, is development of 

site-specific management plans. Research Natural 

Area Management Policy requires development 

of a management plan that establishes operational 

objectives to maintain or enhance the unique 

values of the designated RNA. In addition to operational objectives, a monitoring strategy should 

be developed to evaluate progress made toward 

meeting resource management objectives. These 

requirements establish the basis for preparation of 

this draft management plan.

POLICY

The documents and policy of authority now guiding decisions for RNAs are in Appendix R of the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (CSNM) 

Draft Resource Management Plan. Management 

objectives for RNAs addressed in the plan include 

the following directives:

•	 Preserve, protect, or restore native species 

composition and ecological processes of 

biological communities (including Oregon 

Natural Heritage Plan terrestrial or aquatic 

cells) in research natural areas. These areas will be available for short- or long-term 

scientific study, research, and education and 

will serve as a baseline against which human 

impacts on natural systems can be measured.

•	 Ideally, RNAs should be undisturbed by 

human impacts; however, because pristine 

examples of significant ecosystems may not 

exist, the least altered sites should be selected. 

They should be sufficiently large to protect 

key features from significant impacts judged 

inappropriate for the area and natural processes should be allowed to dominate. The 

guiding principal of RNAs is to allow natural, ecological, and physical processes to predominate, while preventing human-induced 

encroachments and activities that directly or 

indirectly modify ecological processes in the 

area. Active management should be undertaken where natural processes have been 

interrupted (PNW 1991).

BASIS FOR DEDICATION AND SETTING

OBJECTIVES

RNA History 

The Nature Conservancy, under contract with the 

BLM State Office, nominated Oregon Gulch as 

an RNA on August 10, 1990 (Schaaf 1990). The 

RNA filled Cell 7, a Rogue Valley mixed conifer 

forest (Douglas-fir probably dominant) and Cell 

27, a Rogue Valley Manzanita-wedgeleaf ceanothus/bunchgrass chaparral as designated in the 

1988 Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (Oregon 

Natural Heritage Advisory Council 1988). The 

plan (Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council 

1998) now indicates that Oregon Gulch RNA 

fills Cell 18, Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine forest with a poison oak, hairy snowberry, or Piper 

Oregon grape understory, and Cell 37, a white 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-5

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

fir moderately dry site forest, with baldhip rose, 

hairy snowberry, and star flower understory. The 

plan lists Cell 53 (1988 Cell 27) Manzanita-wedgeleaf ceanothus/bunchgrass as unfilled.

The area was analyzed and evaluated by the 

RMP process in 1992 by the Ashland Resource 

Area, BLM, was proposed as a new RNA in the 

Medford District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

(USDI 1994), and was designated as a new RNA 

under the Record of Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan (USDI 1995a). One of 

the management actions required by the ROD 

for Special Areas, including RNAs, is development of site-specific management plans. Oregon 

Gulch RNA has been under interim management 

requirements since August 11, 1992, as the RNA 

is now a part of the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument. 

Basis for Dedication

Oregon Gulch was nominated as an RNA 

because it represents two RNA cell needs for a 

mixed conifer forest dominated by Douglas-fir 

and ponderosa pine with large scattered sugar 

pine and incense cedar also prominent in the 

over-story, and a manzanita-wedgeleaf ceanothus/

bunchgrass chaparral at the eastern boundary 

of the Klamath River Ridges of the Klamath 

Mountains Ecoregion. The area was selected 

for its natural values and its accessibility. It also 

includes several rare species: Greene’s mariposa 

lily (Calochortus greenei), Howell’s false-caraway 

(Perideridia howellii), and Bellinger’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes bellingeriana).

Management Restrictions

The Medford District RMP (USDI 1995a) 

established the following management requirements on the Oregon Gulch RNA. The RNA is 

not available for timber harvest and was closed 

to Off-highway vehicles (OHV) use and mineral 

entry. Minerals leasing was subject to no surface 

occupancy (NSO). 

The presidential proclamation (Appendix A) 

withdraws lands within the monument from mineral location, entry, and patent and mineral and 

geothermal leasing; prohibits commercial harvest 

of timber or other vegetative material except for 

restoration purposes; prohibits unauthorized 

OHV use; but permits continued grazing within 

the monument until completion of a study of 

grazing impacts on natural ecosystem dynamics.

NATURAL AREA DESCRIPTION

Oregon Gulch Area Description

Location 

The 1,056 acre Oregon Gulch RNA is located in southeastern Jackson County, Oregon 

(T.40S.,R.04E., Secs.29, 30 NE1/4NE1/4, 

19 S1/2, 20 S1/2SE1/4, 32 N1/2N1/2) along 

the slopes and bottom of Oregon Gulch in the 

Jenny Creek Watershed, a part of the Klamath 

River Basin (map 2) in the eastern portion of the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. The RNA 

begins at Randcore Pass and extends southeast to 

what was formerly designated as the Box O Ranch. 

It is located in the eastern portion of the CascadeSiskiyou Ecological National Monument. The 

RNA is approximately 18 air miles southeast of 

Ashland, Oregon.

Access 

Two public points of entry to Oregon Gulch 

RNA are:

1. by vehicle from the northwest via Oregon 

Route 66 to BLM Mill Creek Road 40-3E12.0 to the Lincoln Creek Road 40-3E-12.1 

to Randcore Pass; and

2. by foot from the southeast from the Box O 

Ranch via Route 66, the Copco Rd and a 

short unnamed road to the west at Mile 5.2.

The Box O entry requires fording Jenny Creek. 

Public vehicle access is possible only via the Mill 

Creek Road and Randcore Pass. Access is seasonal due to snow depth at Randcore Pass and 

water depth at Jenny Creek. Roads are surfaced 

and maintained to Randcore Pass as is the private 

Copco Road to the Box O turn-off. The roads 

down to the former Box O Ranch and below 

Randcore Pass and within the RNA are unsurfaced and closed to unauthorized or public vehicle 

use.

Ecoregions 

Ecoregions are defined by a number of factors 

that include physiography (including elevation 

and local relief); geology (surficial material and 

bedrock); soil (order, common soil series, tem-
Resource Management Plan

L-6 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

perature and moisture regimes); climate (mean 

annual precipitation, mean annual frost-free days, 

mean January and July min/max temperature); 

potential natural vegetation; land use (recreation, 

forestry, watershed); and land cover (present 

vegetation).

Oregon Gulch RNA lies at the east end of the 

Klamath River Ridges Ecoregion at its confluence 

with the Southern Cascades Slope Ecoregion. 

Because of environmental variation, particularly 

where ecoregions meet, generalized descriptive 

statements do not always apply. An area such as 

Oregon Gulch RNA some of the elements of 

adjacent ecoregions apply. The following synopsis 

of the ecoregions associated with Oregon Gulch 

RNA is based on Pater (1997a, 1997b).

78g Klamath River Ridges (3,800 - 7,000 ft.)

The Klamath River Ridges Ecoregion has a dry 

continental climate and receives, on average, 25 to 

35 inches of annual precipitation. Low elevation 

and south-facing slopes have more drought resistant vegetation than elsewhere in the Klamath 

Ecoregion (78), such as juniper, chaparral, and 

ponderosa pine. Higher and north-facing ridges 

are covered by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), 

white fir (Abies concolor). Ecoregion 78g has less 

precipitation, more sunny days, and a greater 

Much of Ecoregion 9i typically receives more precipitation than other Level IV Eastern Cascades 

Slopes and Foothills Ecoregions.

Climate

No climatic data has been collected at Oregon 

Gulch RNA. The RNA lies within the influence 

of the continental climate of the Great Basin and 

the more moderate, wetter, oceanic influences 

to the west. Summers are usually long and dry 

(most of the precipitation falls between November and March), with occasional wet or dry 

thunderstorms. Winters are probably drier and 

colder than areas to the west because of the Great 

Basin influence. Based on isohyetal maps average annual precipitation probably varies from 25 

inches at higher elevations to 20 inches at Jenny 

Creek. Precipitation during the winter months 

occurs as rain or snow. The transient snow zone 

lies between 3,000 to 4,200 feet elevation (USDI 

1995b). The closest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station 

with air temperature is found at Howard Prairie 

Dam (elevation 4,568 ft.) which is approximately 

10 miles north of the RNA. Average monthly 

maximum, minimum, and mean air temperatures 

for the Howard Prairie Dam NOAA weather station are shown in Table L-1.

number of cold clear nights than the Inland Siskiyou Ecoregion (78e) to the west.

9i Southern Cascade Slope (3,600 - 6,300 ft.)

The Southern Cascades Slope ecoregion is a 

transitional zone between the Cascades (4) and 

the drier Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills 

(9). Forests of ponderosa pine blanket the mountainous landscape; white fir (Abies concolor), and 

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) grow at higher 

elevations. Shasta red fir (Abies procera var. shastensis) is absent from the Oregon Gulch RNA. 

Topography 

The northwest/southeast valley formed by Oregon 

Gulch lies between Keene Creek Ridge to the 

south and the divide between the Oregon Gulch/

Rosebud Mountain Ridge and Keene Creek to 

the north. The valley bottom is at 4,400 ft. elevation at Randcore Pass and 3,240 ft. elevation at 

the eastern boundary. Elevations along the north 

ridge line are from 4,466 ft. elevation northeast of 

Randcore Pass to 4,386 ft. at Rosebud Mountain. 

Elevations along Keene Creek Ridge to the south 

Table L-1. Average Monthly Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Air Temperatures at 

Howard Prairie Dam.

Air Temperature (oF)

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Max. 37.5 42.4 45.9 52.2 61.0 70.2 78.6 78.4 71.6 60.7 43.7 56.5

Min. 18.9 21.1 23.8 27.5 33.1 40.0 43.6 43.2 37.7 32.3 26.7 30.7

Mean 28.2 31.8 34.8 39.8 47.1 55.1 61.1 60.8 54.7 46.5 35.2 43.6

Source: NOAA Station (1961-1990). Oregon Climate Service 2000.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-7

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

range from 4,119 ft. elev. to 4,200 ft. elev. The 

lower elevations are characterized by open rocky 

exposures and bench grasslands interspersed with 

oak/conifer forests. Special topographic features 

include steep rocky bluffs below Rosebud Helipond; flat, grassy benches with decreased drainage between forested areas on the south-facing 

slopes; and exposed, bare scabland hummocks.

Geology 

Oregon Gulch RNA is made up of Miocene and 

Oligocene Western Cascade volcanic, pyroclastic, 

volcanoclastic, and sedimentary rocks (Smith, et 

al. 1982). Oregon Gulch is on the south edge of 

a fairly complex geological island surrounded by 

vast areas mapped as Western Cascade Oligocene 

basalt, basaltic andesite, and andesite (Tb2) on 

the west and southwest and Pliocene and Upper Miocene basaltic andesite flows (Tba) of the 

High Cascades Range to the east. 

The Western Cascade Oligocene flows are interbedded with volcanic breccias, pyroclastic deposits and other rock types too thin, discontinuous, 

or poorly exposed to map separately (Smith, et al. 

1982). The Pliocene and Upper Miocene basaltic 

andesite flow (Tba) commonly is a fine-grained 

, high-alumina olivine. Except for a few small 

exposures, Oregon Gulch is separated from the 

larger, canyon filling flow by Jenny Creek.

Four mapped formations are found in Oregon 

Gulch RNA. With the exception of a slender 

northeast trending exposure Oligocene intermediate and silicic ash-flow tuff (Ti2, Unit 2) 

the south half of 40S04E29 is Western Cascade 

Oligocene basalt, basaltic andesite, and andesite (Tb2). To the north, the RNA is mapped as 

coarse-grained Miocene pyroclastic, volcaniclastic, and sedimentary rocks (Tc4). Between the 

two units is an east-west band of Miocene and 

Oligocene salicic ash-flow tuff (Ti3, Unit 3). 

The different rock types in these formations are 

not mapped because of the scale of the map and 

the complexity of the formations.

Soils 

Soil information for Oregon Gulch RNA is based 

on Soil Survey of Jackson County Area, Oregon 

(USDA 1993). There are eight mapped general 

soil units in the RNA. Because of the small scale 

of the map and the large area covered, mapped 

units are often presented as complexes of different soil types. Number of acres, percent of RNA, 

productivity class and site index (if any) of the 

soil types found in the RNA are summarized in 

Table L-2. About 60 percent of the RNA consists 

of rock outcrop soil complexes. The balance (40 

percent) is soil types capable of supporting mixed 

conifer stands.

Hydrology

The Oregon Gulch RNA lies within the 2,000 

acre Oregon Gulch drainage area and comprises 

52 percent of the drainage area. Oregon Gulch 

flows from its headwaters in the wetlands at 

Randcore Pass just outside the established RNA 

boundary, in a southeasterly direction for approximately 2.7 miles until it joins Jenny Creek 

on the former Box O Ranch. Water is contributed 

to the stream from springs and seeps along its 

course. There are two unnamed springs marked 

on the USGS 7.5 Soda Mountain Quadrant and 

one on the Parker Mountain Quadrant, below 

Rosebud Mountain (42.03.58W, 122.22.25N). 

Of the two springs on the Soda Mountain Quad, 

one (42.04.09N, 122.23.53W) is just outside 

the RNA boundary to the southwest. The other 

spring (42.03.57N, 122.22.36W) is just below the 

Rosebud Helipond. Rosebud Spring just north of 

the Rosebud Helipond on the south-facing slopes 

of the Oregon Gulch/Keene Creek ridge is not 

shown on the USGS maps. Miller (1999) observed three springs in the RNA (one shown on 

the USGS Quad and two others) that maintained 

flowing water throughout the summer.

Oregon Gulch is an intermittent stream that 

dries up as early as mid-May or not until July, but 

typically by the second week of June, depending 

on the distribution and amount of rain in any 

given year. Parker (1999) and Miller (1999) both 

reported small pools of water in Oregon Gulch 

in the summer of 1999. Oregon Gulch passes 

through several reaches of narrow, steep-walled 

rocky canyons (Miller 1999). The bedrock substrate allows pools to form and remain filled after 

reaches upstream and downstream of the canyon 

sections have dried up. The narrow canyon and 

dense riparian vegetation protect the pools from 

evaporation. Oregon Gulch is classified as a 

Rosgen type A stream (Rosgen 1996) through the 

RNA. This section of the stream is entrenched 

and confined.
Resource Management Plan

L-8 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

The lower reach of Oregon Gulch flows through 

an alluvial fan into Jenny Creek. The channel 

in this reach is deeply entrenched (Rosgen type 

G), with evidence of stream straightening and 

bank riprap. Remnant riparian vegetation is very 

sparse. Aerial photos from 1939 and the early 

1960s show substantially larger riparian vegetation, with little evidence of channel entrenchment. Aerial photos for 1966 show evidence of 

channel change from the 1964 flood, including 

new deposits of gravel and reductions in vegetation (USDI 2000).

There is little data concerning streamflows and 

water quality for Oregon Gulch. Water temperature data were collected in late June and 

early July, 1998 (an unusually high water year) at 

two sites in Oregon Gulch, at the former Box O 

Ranch/RNA border (17 days), and downstream 

near the Jenny Creek confluence (14 days). The 

number of days at each site reflects the number 

of days that the temperature recorders operated 

prior to the stream drying up. At the former Box 

O Ranch west boundary site the 7-day average 

daily temperature was 76.8oF (max 80.1oF - min 

58.2o F). At the Jenny Creek confluence site the 

7-day average daily temperature was 76.0oF (max 

77.9oF - min 52.8oF).

The Jenny Creek Watershed Assessment and 

Analysis (USDI 1995b) states that poor road 

location has created major problems for Oregon 

Gulch; however, no specific concerns are identified. In 1999, road restoration work occurred on 

the Rosebud road (40-3E-19.0, 19.1) on BLM 

lands, stabilizing this portion of the road. The 

eastern portion of the 40-3E-19.1 road toward 

the Rosebud helipond is on private lands and 

sediment from this road could be a concern for 

Oregon Gulch and its tributaries. 

Table L-2. Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Soil Units (USDA 1993).

Unit 

# Unit Name Percent Slope Acres Percent Acres

Productivity 

Class1

Site 

Index2

19E Bybee-Tatouche Complex 12 to 35 6 0.58 PSME3 8, 8 85, 90

113E McMullin-Rock Outcrop Complex 3 to 35 78 7.48 – –

113G McMullin-Rock Outcrop Complex 35 to 60 46 4.41 – –

114E McNull Loam, South Slopes 12 to 35 310 29.72 PSME 7 80

115E McNull Gravelly Loam, South Slopes 12 to 35 9 0.86 PSME 6 70

116E McNull-McMullin Gravelly Loam, 

South Slopes 12 to 35 48 4.6 PSME 6 70

116G McNull-McMullin Gravelly Loam, 

South Slopes 35 to 60 17 1.63 PSME 6 70

117G McNull-McMullin Complex, North 

Slopes 35 to 60 13 1.25 PSME 7 80

119F McNull-Medco Complex 1 to 12 9 0.86 PSME 7 70, 65

170C Skookum Very Cobbly Loam 1 to 20 2 0.19 – –

173D Skookum-Rock Outcrop-McMullin 

Complex 1 to 20 40 3.84 – –

173F Skookum-Rock Outcrop-McMullin 

Complex 20 to 50 465 44.58 – –

1

Productivity Class. Yield in cubic meters per year calculated at the culmination of mean annual increment for fully stocked 

natural stands.

2

Site Index (SI). Height and age of selected trees in stands of a given species. A designation of the quality of a forest site based 

on the height of the dominant stand at an arbitrarily chosen age. Average age at 50 yrs. = 75 ft. SI is 75. Age varies with 

species and soil type: 100 yrs. PSME on Pokegama and Woodcock units, PIPO all units; 50 yrs. PSME on all other units, 

ABMASH, and ABCO.

3

PSME. Psuedotsuga menziesii, Douglas-fir.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-9

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Vegetation 

Miller (1999) recognized five major plant communities in her mid-summer vegetation reconnaissance of Oregon Gulch RNA:

1. Garry Oak/Wedgeleaf ceanothus grass or 

scrubland

2. Western Juniper/Garry Oak scrubland

3. Garry Oak/Ponderosa Pine forest

4. Mixed Conifer/California Black Oak forest

5. Riparian

Riparian species were found along Oregon 

Gulch and some of the tributaries. Miller did not 

describe the manzanita-wedgeleaf ceanothus /

bunchgrass chaparral community described in the 

nomination document (USDI 1989); the occurrence of this community type was an error in the 

original RNA nomination. Manzanita communities are not documented to occur in the RNA. 

Garry Oak/Wedgeleaf Ceanothus Grass or 

Scrubland

The balance between Garry oak and wedgeleaf 

ceanothus cover varies widely in this community in a mosaic that includes relatively flat wet 

meadows. Miller (1999) found the community 

covered wide stretches of land following a more 

or less homogenous slope and aspect. Garry 

oak frequently formed a dense canopy with few 

other tree species, although occasional ponderosa 

pine, western juniper, California black oak, and 

Douglas-fir are scattered in the community. The 

percent cover of shrubs is usually greater than the 

tree coverage. The shrub layer often consists of 

Garry oak sprouted from the base of older trees 

although wedgeleaf ceanothus usually dominates. 

Other shrubs, serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), 

and hazelnut (Corylus cornuta var. californica) are 

common. Grasses include the nearly ubiquitous 

bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa) and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and natives 

such as, Idaho, western and California fescue 

(Festuca idahoensis, F. occidentalis, F. californica, 

respectively), and California oatgrass (Danthonia 

californica). Forbs vary from relative xeric species 

associated with the oaks and wedgeleaf ceanothus like balsam-root, Balsamorhiza deltoidea; 

wooly sunflower, Eriophyllum lanatum; Lomatium 

macrocarpum) to seasonally wet meadow species 

(heal-all, Prunella vulgaris; death camas, Zigadenus venenosus).

Western Juniper/Garry Oak Scrubland 

This community is found on the driest sites. 

Western juniper is the dominant tree with a few 

ponderosa pine and Garry oak. Tree coverage is 

less than 10 percent. Shrub cover varies between 

15 to 60 percent with considerable bare rock. 

Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseous) is the most 

significant shrub, although wedgeleaf ceanothus 

(Ceanothus cuneatus) may dominate in some areas. 

The herbaceous layer is sparse, dominated by 

annual grasses [medusa-head rye, (Taeniatherum 

caput-medusa); nodding brome, (Bromus tectorum)] 

and the perennial alien grass, bulbous bluegrass 

(Poa bulbosa). Forbs include scattered wild buckwheats (Eriogonum spp.) and biscuitroots (Lomatium spp.). 

Garry Oak/Ponderosa Pine Forest

This community consists primarily of Garry oak 

with greater diversity of conifers, particularly 

ponderosa pine than the tree composition in the 

Garry oak/wedgeleaf ceanothus community. 

Other common conifers include Douglas-fir, 

incense cedar, and sugar pine. Shrubs include 

wedgeleaf ceanothus, tall Oregon-grape (Berberis 

aquifolium), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus 

betuloides), snowberry (Symphoricarpos mollis) 

and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia). Grasses 

include aliens; bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), 

medusa-head rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), 

and hedgehog dogtail (Cynosurus echinatus); and 

natives; Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica). Forbs include 

larkspur (Delphinium menziesii), strawberry 

(Fragaria vesca), arnica (Arnica latifolia), sweetcicely (Osmorhiza chilensis), and yarrow (Achillea 

millefolium).

Mixed Conifer/California Black Oak Forest

Conifers dominate that tree layer in this community. They include Douglas-fir, ponderosa 

pine, incense cedar, and sugar pine. There is very 

little white fir. Both oaks are also present. Oregon 

White oak is present around the margins and in 

openings. California black oak is found among 

the conifers but is overtopped by them. The large, 

old, decadent California black oaks appear to be 

remnants of a different looking, much more open 

community. Shrubs include snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), tall Oregon-grape (Berberis aquifolium), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), oceanspray 
Resource Management Plan

L-10 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

(Holodiscus discolor), little woodrose (Rosa gymnocarpa), and deerbrush (Ceanothus intergerrimus). 

There are few grasses in the forested areas except 

for patches of bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), and 

California fescue (Festuca californica). Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), hedgehog 

dogtail (Cynosurus echinatus), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), and California oatgrass (Danthonia californica) occur in or near openings. Forbs 

include pathfinder plant (Adenocaulon bicolor), 

strawberry (Fragaria vesca), arnica (Arnica latifolia), sweet-cicely (Osmorhiza chilensis), rattlesnake 

orchid (Goodyear oblongifolia) and Scouler harebell 

(Campanula scouleri). 

Riparian

Riparian vegetation is confined to Oregon Gulch, 

its sometimes steep narrow canyon, and tributaries. Riparian herbaceous vegetation is found 

around some of the seeps and springs. Trees are 

Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), willows (Salix 

spp.), and Douglas hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii). 

Shrubs include chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), 

Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii) and deerbrush (Ceanothus intergerrimus) stands on shady 

banks near the stream. There are a number of 

herbaceous species: horsetail (Equisetum arvense), 

sedges (Carex spp.), cattail (Typha latifolia), and 

yellow monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus). The 

rare species Howell’s false-caraway (Perideridia 

howellii), and Bellinger’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. bellingeriana) occur in the riparian 

zone. Howell’s false caraway is fairly common; 

however, Bellinger’s meadowfoam is only known 

for a single site. 

Exotic Plants 

With the exception of grasses such as bulbous 

bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), medusa-head rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), hedgehog dogtail 

(Cynosurus echinatus), and Downy brome (i.e., 

cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum), the RNA is relatively free of invasive noxious weeds. Miller (1999) 

found yellow alyssum (Alyssum alyssoides), bull 

thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and Dyer’s woad (Isatis 

tinctoria) in the RNA. She apparently did not find 

starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Yellow starthistle is in close proximity to the RNA, mostly along 

existing roads and in open grassland/scrubland 

habitats. Medusa-head rye is the most widespread 

alien plant in the RNA.

Special Status Plants

Three BLM special status plant species that 

are endemic to southwest Oregon and adjacent 

northern California are known in the RNA: 

Bellinger’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. 

bellingeriana), Greene’s Mariposa lily (Calochortus 

greenei) and Howell’s false-caraway (Perideridia 

howellii). No formal surveys for rare plants have 

occurred within the RNA; habitat exists for other 

rare plant species like Genter’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri). 

Bellinger’s meadowfoam is found along a vernal 

tributary stream at a single location in the RNA. 

There are other populations of this endemic 

riparian species in the surrounding monument, 

to the east in Klamath county, and south into 

Siskiyou county in northern California. Greene’s 

mariposa lily grows in open Garry oak thickets 

in deep high clay content soils south of Oregon 

Gulch creek and into the former Box O Ranch; 

at several other sites within the Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument; and immediately south into 

extreme northern California. These are the only 

known sites for this endemic species in the world. 

Howell’s false-caraway is most common in and 

along the upper reaches of Oregon Gulch, and 

is known from Scotch Creek RNA, as well as 

several other drainages in southwest Oregon and 

northern California. 

According to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP) database, Bellinger’s meadowfoam 

and Green’s mariposa lily are Federal Species of 

Concern (i.e., old candidates for federal listing) 

and have an ONHP status of Category 1 (rare 

and imperiled in the State). Green’s mariposa lily 

has a Natural Heritage system global rank of G2, 

which means this species is globally imperiled 

and vulnerable to extinction. Howell’s false-caraway has an ONHP status of Category 4. While 

this endemic species is rare, it has apparently 

stable populations across its range. 

It is BLM policy to protect, manage, and conserve Special Status Species and their habitats on 

lands administered by the BLM in such away that 

any bureau action will not contribute to the need 

to federally list these species. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-11

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Forest Health

The mixed conifer forest stands in Oregon Gulch 

RNA have a large mature sugar pine component 

that was previously open grown. Douglas-fir, 

incense cedar and ponderosa pine are found as 

well. Many mature trees have been found to 

exceed 250 years. Much of the stand is composed 

of younger co-dominant and suppressed Douglasfir that originated after the last fire event, approximately 100 years ago. A few white fir are 

also found in the understory. The Douglas-fir 

is currently overstocked and competing directly 

with the sugar pine and other dominant tree species for water and nutrients. Sugar pine are being 

attacked by mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus 

ponderosae and red turpentine beetle Dendroctonus valens due to dense stand conditions and low 

vigor. Average decadal growth rates for sugar pine 

in these stands is well below the 1.5 inch diameter growth needed to maintain tree vigor at a level 

considered necessary to pitch out bark beetles. 

The stand is currently carrying over 220 square 

feet of basal area which is well above the 150 feet 

level preferred for pine. The forested plant associations are likely more dense at present than at any 

time since their initiation. The rate of sugar pine 

mortality has increased in the area during the last 

ten years. Most of the mortality occurred in 1995 

during a localized mountain pine beetle outbreak.

Animals

There are no large-scale vertebrate surveys for 

Oregon Gulch RNA. However, there are lists for 

the general area that indicate species that might 

be expected in the RNA [see Nelson (1997); Appendix 10 in the Medford RMP (USDI 1995b); 

St. John (1984); and Trail (1999)]. Other workers 

have inventoried the RNA for breeding birds (Alexander 1999), aquatic organisms (Parker 1999), 

and butterflies (Runquist 1999).

Mollusks

Parker (1999) found the gastropod Stagnicola

(Lymnaeidae) in the main channel and the 

Rosebud tributary and in the upstream meadow. 

Physella (Physidea) was present in sunlit stream 

pools in the lower reaches of Oregon Gulch. The 

springs in the RNA apparently do not support 

populations of pebblesnails.

Insects

Runquist (1999) collected 43 species of butterflies 

in the RNA the summer of 1999. The relatively 

high species count is a direct reflection of the ecological diversity of the RNA and the number and 

kind of plant communities upon which the butterflies rely for larval host plants and adult nectar 

sources. The wet meadow just to the southeast of 

Randcore Pass adds another seven species for a 

total of 50. Runquist noticed the sudden disappearance of several butterfly species in mid-July 

that correlated with the appearance of cattle in 

the wet meadow at the upper end of the RNA 

below the Randcore Pass road just outside the 

RNA boundary. He attributed this to trampling 

of vegetation and cattle consuming flowers that 

had been used by butterflies. 

Parker (1999) sampled aquatic insects in Oregon 

Gulch. Those found were generally those that can 

survive warm water, are common in pool environments, or are adapted to survive summer drought. 

This is not surprising, given Oregon Gulch’s low 

summer flows and warm water temperatures (see 

Hydrology section).

Amphibians 

Parker (1999) observed Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris 

regilla) and rough-skinned newts (Taricha granulosa) in the headwater meadow and among pools 

along Oregon Gulch. Rough skinned newts have 

also been seen in the stock-pond /pump chance 

near the decommissioned road along the north 

facing slopes of the RNA toward the Box O 

Ranch. The treefrog tadpoles and metamorphic 

juveniles were observed in the isolated pools. It 

was the only breeding population of either species 

observed in the survey area that did not occur in 

artificial impoundments. 

Fish

BLM electrofishing and visual surveys in Oregon 

Gulch have found many trout fry in approximately the first mile of stream (USDI BLM, unpublished data), only the last few hundred meters of 

which is within the Oregon Gulch RNA. A bedrock falls just within the RNA boundary appears 

to be a fish barrier. No fish have been observed 

above it (USDI, unpublished data; Parker 1999). 

Jenny Creek suckers (Catostomus rimiculus) have 

never been observed in Oregon Gulch. 
Resource Management Plan

L-12 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

The fry in the lower mile of Oregon Gulch, presumably redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.), 

are usually present in May and June. By July, the 

stream is often dry at the mouth. Some fry probably migrate into mainstem Jenny Creek; others 

are trapped in pools where chances of predation by 

raccoons or birds is high. Water temperatures in 

the lower mile of Oregon Gulch have been measured to be 85oF, extremely high for fish survival 

(Bjornn and Reiser 1991). These temperatures may 

decrease fry survival in Oregon Gulch.

Birds

Alexander (1999) conducted a breeding bird survey of the RNA in June 1999. Seventeen monitoring stations were established and 16 were visited 

twice. A total of 42 species were encountered. 

Thirteen species are conservation focal species for 

Oregon and/or California.

The area has been surveyed for Great Gray owls 

and spotted owls. Great Gray owls were not seen 

during surveys in the RNA. Northern spotted 

owls are known to nest in the RNA (USDI BLM 

unpublished data). Timbered portions of the 

RNA have been mapped as roosting and foraging 

habitat using modified McKelvie Spotted Owl 

habitat criteria.

Small game species in the general area include 

Ruffed grouse (Bondosa umbellus), Blue Grouse 

(Dendragapus obscurus), Wild Turkey (Meleagris 

gallopavo), Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus), and 

Valley Quail (Callipepla californicus).

Mammals 

The Black bear (Ursus americanus), Cougar (Felis 

concolor) and Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) are known to occur within the 

RNA. Elk also use the RNA seasonally. Small 

game species in the general area include Western 

Grey Squirrel (Sciurus griseus). 

Exotic Animals

Several alien animals are known or suspected to 

be present in the RNA. These include birds, pigs, 

and cattle. Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) have 

not been observed within the RNA; however 

they are present in the low elevation valleys in the 

Rogue and Klamath river basins.

Birds

Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) have been observed 

on the former Box O ranch and in the vicinity of 

Hobart Bluff. It is likely that they are also found 

in the RNA because of the oak communities. The 

native animals affected or displaced by these birds 

are unknown but likely include mast eaters such 

as western gray squirrels, black-tail deer, acorn 

woodpeckers. 

Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) are also suspected in 

the area. These birds compete with native species, 

especially western blue birds (Sialia mexicana) for 

cavity nesting sites.

Pigs 

The “Randcore” pot-bellied pig (i.e., Sus “ventricosus Randcorensis”) was observed and photographed along the Rosebud Helipond road in 

the fall of 1997. It is assumed that the female pig 

was a pet that escaped from a hunting camp at 

Randcore Pass or from a ranch near Lincoln (a 

pig jaw was collected near the Pinehurst Airport). 

The establishment of feral pigs could have a major 

adverse ecological impact on local terrestrial ecosystems. There have been no observations of feral 

pigs since 1997 in or near the RNA. 

Cattle 

Livestock grazing currently occurs within the 

RNA. According to BLM RNA policy (BLM 

Manual 1623.37C), this activity should be 

managed within RNAs to promote maintenance 

of the key characteristics for which the area 

is recognized. Oregon Gulch RNA is also 

known as Oregon Gulch Pasture and is a part 

of the Ashland Resource Area grazing plan. As 

previously noted, cattle may impact butterfly 

populations in the wet meadow that supplies 

water to Oregon Gulch (Runquist 1999). There 

have been no studies in Oregon Gulch RNA to 

monitor or establish the effect of grazing on the 

watershed, the ecosystem, or the sensitive plants. 

Site History 

Native Americans who may have visited the Oregon Gulch area and utilized its resources include 

the Klamath, the Shasta, and the Takelma. All of 

these Native American groups came to this area 

during the warmer months of the year to hunt, 

gather vegetable foods, trade, and to meet with 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-13

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

each other for various social purposes (USDI 

1999, p.26).

Jenny Creek lies to the east of the RNA. Jenny 

Creek, a major perennial stream, contained riverine resources and adjacent environments that were 

conducive to hunting and gathering. Agate Flat 

which is located south of the RNA, was a major 

source of toolstone material (cryptocrystalline 

silicates or CCS). Good quality material occurs 

in great quantities and is exposed on the surface 

where it could be easily gathered and utilized.

There were numerous resources upon which these 

native peoples depended. Roots and bulbs, such as 

camas (Camassia) and various forms of Perideridia

(e.g., ipos, yampa) provided starchy staples, as did 

acorns from oak trees. Fish, deer, elk, and small 

mammals provided staple proteins, augmented 

by a wide variety of berries, nuts, and seeds (e.g., 

tarweed seeds, Madia spp.). Other plants and 

animals were used for fiber, tools clothing, and 

medicines. 

Fire probably was the most significant tool used 

by native peoples to enhance those resources useful to them. Fire assisted in promoting, maintaining, and harvesting staple crops, such as acorns 

and tarweed, and maintained open meadows and 

prairies, which were crucial locations for subsistence resources including game, roots, bulbs, 

berry patches, and grass seeds. Fire also promoted 

habitat important to large game. Burning took 

place during the spring or fall and at specific 

intervals, and contributed to the development and 

maintenance of prairies and savannahs, oak and 

oak/pine woodlands, and upland meadows.

Settlement of southern Oregon by EuroAmericans increased substantially after gold was 

discovered in Jacksonville in 1852. Newcomers 

settled throughout the Rogue Valley, utilizing 

open savannas and grasslands for agriculture and 

livestock ranching. Conflicts over land between 

miners and settlers and Native Americans culminated in removal of the remaining Native Americans. The Klamath Indians were confined to the 

Klamath Reservation east of the Cascades. Some 

Shasta families however, managed to remain in 

the Shasta Valley and along the Klamath River, 

or escaped from the northern reservations to find 

their way home. 

Settlers in the Rogue Valley began seeking summer pastures in these uplands by the 1860s. Livestock grazing was the major use of these uplands 

for much of the last half of the nineteenth century. Both cattle and sheep ranged through these 

upland pastures. The latter decades of the nineteenth century witnessed uncontrolled expansion 

of sheep and cattle grazing, provoking continual 

“bickerings and wranglings” among rival grazers 

for the best range. Creation of the Forest Reserves in 1893 and later the Forest Service in 1907 

brought some order to the range. 

Like the Native Americans before them, these 

local ranchers and settlers often set fire to large 

areas to promote the growth of berries, browse for 

game, and forage for their stock. Sometimes these 

fires swept through the areas of heavy timber; it 

seems the fire management of historic settlers was 

less discriminate than the practices of their Native American predecessors. 

George Wright, long time area resident, typed 

up his recollections in 1954 and mentioned the 

Oregon Gulch area on several occasions. This 

anecdotal history contains important information regarding place names, and the early history 

of the area. This information is in attached at the 

end of this document and can be found in Appendix C of the CSNM Draft Plan.

 

Human Features 

Features in the RNA were built for commodity 

extraction and enhancement, fire control, transportation, and administrative purposes. These 

include roads, fire control, and livestock facilities.

Transportation 

Road density is about 1.9 miles per square mile. 

Although road density is not high, poor road 

location has created major problems for Oregon Gulch (USDI 1995b). There are currently 

three roads in the RNA: BLM Road 40-3E19 and 19.1, Lincoln Creek Road 40-3E-12.1. 

BLM Roads provide access to private land in 

T.40S.,R.4E., Sections 20 and 30.

BLM Roads 40-3E-19 and 19.1 leave Lincoln 

Creek Road 40-3E-12.1 just top the south of 

Randcore Pass. -19.0 leads to private and BLM 

lands in the Keene Creek drainage. -19.1 leads to 

the Rosebud Helipond. Both roads are natural, 
Resource Management Plan

L-14 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

unsurfaced, badly rutted, and become extremely 

slick when wet. 

Lincoln Creek Road 40-3E-12.1 extends beyond 

Randcore Pass through the southwest corners of 

the RNA where it enters private land at the SW 

corner of the NE1/4 of the NE1/4, T.40S.,R.4E., 

Sec.30. The road continued to Agate Flat until 1996 when a section through BLM land at 

T.40S.,R.4E., Sec.30, W1/2 SE1/4 was decommissioned, effectively ending the road. From 

Randcore Pass to private land the road is rocked. 

On private land it is a natural (unsurfaced) road. 

It also leads to the decommissioned Road 40-4E30 and offers access to the RNA in T.40S., R.4E., 

Sec. 29.

BLM Road 40-4E-30 along the north-facing 

south slopes of the RNA was effectively decommissioned in 1996 and is blocked by barricades 

at the east RNA boundary and by a locked gate 

at the former Box O ranch boundary to the east. 

The lower portion of the road was not decommissioned to reduce the possibility of the spread of 

noxious weeds.

Water Developments

There are four small, operational, livestock watering facilities with water rights in the RNA (Table 

L-3). The BLM also retains water rights on several springs within the RNA.

Oregon Gulch Reservoirs #1 and #2 (Range Files 

#0066, #0065, Ashland Resource Area, Medford 

BLM). Both earthen detention dams were built 

in 1958 to check erosion, provide water for livestock, and fire purposes. Reservoir #1 is located 

above the decommissioned Oregon Gulch Road 

40-4E-30 in an unnamed tributary of Oregon 

Gulch just below a small seep in T.40S., R.04E., 

Section 29, NW1/4SE1/4. Reservoir #2 is located 

below the decommissioned Oregon Gulch Road 

40-4E-30 at the site of a small spring on an unnamed intermittent tributary of Oregon Gulch 

in T.40S., R.04E., Section 29, SW1/4NE1/4. 

Reservoir #1 is entitled to store 0.08 acre-foot. 

The dam at Reservoir #1 failed during an unusually heavy runoff, probably during the 1964 flood 

year. Reservoir #2 is entitled to store 0.06 acrefoot and was described in 1973 as a good stable 

water source.

Rosebud Helipond is used as a water source for 

fire fighting and has a total storage volume of 0.14 

acre-feet. It is shown as a feature on the USGS 

7.5 minute Soda Mountain Quad. map and is 

located in T.40 S., R.04 E., Section 29, NE1/4 

NW1/4. Water is piped from a spring development to the helipond via a livestock watering 

tank. The helipond supports standing water 

marsh vegetation with various emergent rushes, 

sedges, and cattails around its margin and floating duckweed on it surface. There is no defined 

channel below the helipond.

Fences

Fence 505 passes through the upper part of the 

RNA in a southwest northeast direction through 

T.40S.,R.4E., Sec.30, NE1/4, NW1/4 29, S1/2 

20 to below the summit of Rosebud Mountain 

to the SW1/4 of 21. The fence is used to control 

movement of livestock to the lower portion of the 

RNA. An historic maintained fence separates the 

RNA from the former Box O Ranch along the 

section line between Sec. 28 and 29.

Surrounding Land Use 

BLM manages most of the surrounding lands; 

however there are small parcels of private land 

adjacent to the RNA. The acquisition of several of 

the private parcels would have been desirable in 

order to include all of the Oregon Gulch drainage 

area in the RNA. However, most of these lands 

have experienced fairly intensive management 

(logging and roads) and are generally no longer 

suitable to be included in the RNA other than 

Table L-3. Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Water Developments with Water Rights.

Name Township Range Section Quarter-Quarter Size (acre-feet)

Oregon Gulch Reservoir #1 40 S. 4 E. 29 NW-SE 0.08

Oregon Gulch Reservoir #2 40 S. 4 E. 29 NE-SW 0.06

Root Spring Reservoir 40 S. 4 E. 30 NE-NE 0.01

Twin Pines Spring Reservoir 40 S. 4 E. 19 SE-SW 0.02
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-15

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

to protect the RNA from potentially damaging 

activities that can occur on private land (e.g., substandard road construction, soil erosion, wildlife 

habitat destruction, development). 

Public Land 

Until the establishment of the National Monument, most of the surrounding land was in the 

BLM Jenny Creek Late-Successional Reserve 

established by the Northwest Forest Plan. The 

LSR was to be managed according to Jenny 

Creek Late-Successional Reserve Management 

Plan (USDI 1999). Land to the east, acquired by 

the BLM in 1995, was the private Box O ranch, 

which was operated for many years as a private 

cattle ranch.

Private Land 

Private land in T.40S.,R.4E.,Sec.20,30. was formerly owned by Roseburg Lumber Company (the 

current owner is Larry D. Olson 700 Port Ave. 

St. Helens, OR) and was recently logged. 

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Botanical/Plant Communities

Policy and Agency Standards

The following directives regard maintaining, 

protecting or restoring relevant and important botanical values of RNAs:

•	 RNAs are established primarily with scientific and educational activities intended as the 

principal form of resource use for the short 

and long term. Research proposals should be 

submitted to the appropriate BLM field office 

prior to commencing work. Studies involving the manipulations of environmental or 

vegetational characteristics or plant harvest 

must be approved. Because the overriding 

guidelines for management of an RNA is that 

natural processes are allowed to dominate, 

deliberate manipulation, such as experimental 

applications, is allowed only on a case specific 

basis when the actions either simulate natural 

processes or important information for future 

management of the RNA is gained (BLM 

Manual, 1623.37 (A)(B)). 

•	 Preserve, protect, or restore native species 

composition and ecological processes of 

biological communities (including Oregon 

Natural Heritage Plan terrestrial and aquatic 

cells) in research natural areas. These areas will be available for short- or long-term 

scientific study, research, and education and 

will serve as a baseline against which human 

impacts on natural systems can be measured 

(PNW 1991).

Research Natural Area Management Goal 

Preserve natural features in as nearly an undisturbed state as possible for scientific and educational purposes. Natural processes should dominate, although deliberate manipulations which 

simulate natural processes are allowed in specific 

cases (USDI 1987).

Current Information

The ecological condition of all plant communities 

identified as key elements within the RNA were 

considered to be of overall high quality when 

the area was nominated as an RNA in the 1990s 

(Schaaf 1990). Non-native weedy species, particularly hedgehog dogtail, (Cynosurus echinatus), 

medusa-head (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), dyers 

woad (Isatis tinctoria) and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) (if present) in some of the savanna and woodland areas threaten the integrity 

of these plant communities. The spread of these 

and other non-native species into the RNA from 

surrounding private land is an ongoing threat. 

Exclusion of a natural fire regime has resulted 

in encroachment of shrubs and conifers into the 

edges of open oak/grass savanna areas, decreasing 

the extent of this plant community in the RNA. 

Underbrush and tree density have increased in 

woodlands and forest areas, increasing fire fuel 

loads and the risk of high-intensity, stand-replacement fires.

The main plant community management objective within the Oregon Gulch RNA is to maintain or enhance their key attributes. Ideally this 

would be accomplished by allowing succession to 

occur as a result of a natural disturbance regime, 

which could include wildfire, storms, normal 

mortality, drought, etc. However, because of past 

human interference, in the form of fire suppression and livestock grazing, pro-active management is necessary to re-establish some of these 

natural processes. 

All plant communities are subject to natural 

disturbances and corresponding succession over 
Resource Management Plan

L-16 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

time. It is not the intention of RNA management actions to halt this natural succession and 

disturbance process at one particular stage. Using 

prescribed burning as a management tool is an 

attempt to re-introduce fire as a natural process. 

Excluding fire during the past 100 years has 

resulted in a build-up of fire fuel loads and encroachment of trees and shrubs into savannas and 

meadows. Reintroducing fire in small areas under 

controlled circumstances would reduce fire fuel 

loads, as well as improve the ecological condition 

of plant communities in which fire has historically been a component by restoring native species 

composition. Allowing naturally occurring fires 

to run their course at the RNA is constrained by 

the proximity of private property surrounding 

the RNA. Utilizing fire in small areas at different times throughout the RNA is intended to 

resemble the patchiness of natural disturbances. 

With this approach, at any one time different 

areas of each plant community will be in different 

successional stages, mirroring normal ecosystem 

conditions.

Outlined below are goals, objectives, and management actions for each plant community 

requiring management within the RNA. Other 

important management considerations affecting 

plant communities within the RNA are discussed under separate headings (e.g., introduced 

and noxious weedy species, insects and disease, 

livestock grazing, timber harvest, etc.). Continuing monitoring of plant communities, discussed 

in Section VI, is vital to the process of tracking 

and evaluating responses to natural or prescribed 

disturbances, determining the effectiveness of 

management actions or research activities, and 

making necessary adjustments to insure that 

management goals continue to be met.

Garry Oak/Wedgeleaf ceanothus/Grass or 

Scrubland

Goals and Objectives

•	 Maintain open meadows by reducing the 

encroachment of conifers and shrubs.

•	 Decrease non-native and increase native species.

•	 Re-introduce fire as a natural ecological 

process, especially in chaparral/grassland 

component.

Issues

•	 Competition from non-native weedy species. 

•	 Current fire suppression tactics. 

•	 Encroachment of trees and shrubs into meadows from surrounding woodlands.

•	 High densities of shrub mosaic. 

•	 Limited access to the site.

•	 Limited funding to accomplish objectives.

•	 Constraints to prescribed burning, including 

air quality controls, proximity to adjacent private landowners, season of burn, availability 

of native plant seeds and starts for re-planting 

after burning, restrictions on using equipment.

•	 The RNA is utilized in an existing grazing 

allotment.

•	 Existing populations of Green’s mariposa lily 

in open grassland/scrubland inclusions. 

Management Actions

•	 Collect and propagate native grass and forb 

seeds from savanna areas within the RNA.

•	 Establish pre-project monitoring plots to 

gather baseline data for post-project comparison to determine the effectiveness of the 

management activity.

•	 Prescribe burn meadows to reduce non-native 

weedy species and encroaching trees and 

shrubs or manually thin trees and shrubs, 

particularly seedlings and saplings, in and 

around the perimeter of meadows/savannas. 

Design activities to maintain or enhance 

Green’s Mariposa lily or other rare special 

status species.

•	 Prescribe burn chaparral component to reduce fuels and regenerate shrubs.

•	 Re-seed burned areas with native grasses and 

forbs.

•	 Conduct post-project vegetation surveys and 

periodic monitoring, especially in chaparral 

component.

Western Juniper/Garry Oak Scrubland

Management goals, issues, and actions are similar 

to Garry Oak/Wedgeleaf ceanothus grass or 

scrubland. However, more attention needs to be 

focused on the relationship between Garry oak 

and juniper. Since juniper is considered fire sensitive, the extensive use of prescribed fire would 

reduce its abundance across the landscape over 

time. A more detailed fire history and better understanding of community changes are required 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-17

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

before the application of prescribed fire within 

this plant association. 

Garry Oak/Ponderosa Pine Forest

Woodland Component

Goals and Objectives

•	 Maintain open woodland, dominated by 

Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine and associated native species.

•	 Reduce Douglas-fir and incense cedar conifer 

seedlings.

•	 Reduce fire fuel loads.

Issues

•	 Fire suppression resulting in conifer recruitment and increased fuel loads and ladders.

•	 Presence and competition from non-native 

plant species.

•	 Limited access to the site.

•	 Limited funding to accomplish objectives.

•	 Constraints to prescribed burning, including 

air quality controls, proximity to adjacent private landowners, season of burn, availability 

of native plant seeds and starts for re-planting 

after burning, restrictions on using large 

mechanized equipment.

Management Actions

•	 Establish pre-project monitoring plots to 

gather baseline data for post-project comparison to determine the effectiveness of the 

management activity.

•	 Utilize prescribed burning or manual thinning to reduce conifer recruitment and fire 

fuel loads.

•	 Re-seed between trees after burning with native grasses and forbs.

Grasslands and Meadow Component

Goals

•	 Maintain open meadows by reducing the 

encroachment of conifers and shrubs.

•	 Decrease non-native and increase native species.

Issues

•	 Competition from non-native weedy species. 

•	 Encroachment of trees and shrubs into meadows from surrounding woodlands.

•	 Limited access to the site.

•	 Limited funding to accomplish objectives.

•	 Constraints to prescribed burning, including 

air quality controls, proximity to adjacent private landowners, season of burn, availability 

of native plant seeds and starts for re-planting 

after burning, restrictions on using mechanized equipment.

•	 Cattle grazing. 

•	 Existing sites for the rare Green’s Mariposa 

lily.

Management Actions

•	 Collect and propagate native grass and forb 

seeds from savanna areas within the RNA.

•	 Establish pre-project monitoring plots to 

gather baseline data for post-project comparison to determine the effectiveness of the 

management activity.

•	 Prescribe burn meadows to reduce non-native 

weedy species and encroaching trees and 

shrubs or manually thin trees and shrubs, 

particularly seedlings and saplings, in and 

around the perimeter of meadows/savannas. Design activities to protect or enhance 

Green’s Mariposa lily sites.

•	 Re-seed burned areas with native grasses and 

forbs.

Mixed Conifer/California Black Oak Forest

Goals

•	 Maintain ecosystem function in the mixed 

conifer/California black oak plant community 

cell. 

•	 Protect mature forest stands from catastrophic disturbance events such as wildfire and 

insect outbreaks, including monitoring for 

Sudden Oak Death. 

•	 Design management activities that restore 

natural ecosystem and disturbance processes.

Issues

•	 Once open grown sugar pine stands now contain overly dense component of Douglas-fir. 

•	 Fire suppression has resulted in increased 

stand densities.

•	 Increased mortality from insect attacks on 

sugar and ponderosa pine.

Management Actions

•	 Decrease stand densities and improve health 

of Sugar pine stands by understory thinning 

of Douglas-fir and re-introduction of prescribed fire.
Resource Management Plan

L-18 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

•	 Monitor health of conifer stands. 

Riparian (also see Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat 

Section)

Goals

Maintain and restore the function, structure, 

and vegetative composition of the riparian zones, 

including seeps and springs.

Issues

•	 Riparian areas subject to grazing and localized areas of periodic high utilization.

•	 Disrupted hydrologic function from past road 

building and culverts.

•	 Isolated riparian impacts from grazing and 

water impoundments on springs/seeps. 

•	 Lack of riparian survey data. 

Management Actions

•	 Perform riparian surveys documenting hydrologic and riparian vegetation condition. 

•	 As part of the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument grazing study, survey and document the effects of current grazing on the 

riparian system, including effects to the rare 

Bellinger’s meadowfoam.

•	 Fence impacted riparian sites if needed. 

•	 Restore riparian areas within the RNA that 

are not properly functioning based on results 

of Riparian surveys. 

Introduced Species and Noxious Weeds

Policy and Agency Standards

The introduction of exotic plant and animal species is normally not compatible with the maintenance or enhancement of key RNA features. 

Certain re-introductions of formerly native 

species using proper controls may be specified in 

plans (USDI 1986).

Take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation of the lands Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA 1976). 

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 

directs the BLM to “manage, maintain, and improve the condition of public rangelands so they 

become as productive as feasible . . . .”

Goals 

•	 Maintain and/or restore native plant communities.

•	 Contain or eradicate exotic and noxious 

weeds.

•	 Prevent the introduction of new exotic or 

noxious weed species. 

Current Information

Several areas within the RNA are dominated by 

introduced (alien) grasses, namely medusa-head 

rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), hedgehog 

dogtail (Cynosurus echinatus), bulbous bluegrass 

(Poa bulbosa), and cheat grass (Bromus tectorum). 

Occurrences of yellow alyssum (Alyssum alyssoides), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and small 

populations of Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) are 

also documented. Yellow starthistle (Centaurea 

solstitialis) populations are in close proximity but 

are not documented in the RNA. No weed treatments have occurred in the RNA. 

Issues

•	 Exotic plants and noxious weeds threaten the 

integrity of key features within the RNA.

•	 Disturbance as a result of wildfire, vegetation 

treatments (burning or thinning), or livestock 

grazing can create optimum habitat for exotic 

and noxious weeds.

•	 High cost for weed treatments due to poor 

access.

•	 Lack of detailed weed surveys within the 

RNA.

•	 Lack of proven methods for controlling large 

infestations of exotic grasses like cheatgrass 

or bulbous bluegrass.

•	 Lack of large quantities of native grass and 

forb seed for restoration. 

Management Actions

•	 Survey and map existing weed infestations.

•	 Control weeds within and adjacent to the 

RNA using an integrated weed management 

approach utilizing mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical means.

•	 Collect and propagate native seed sources 

within the watershed. 

•	 Vegetative treatments to enhance key RNA 

features must be tailored so as to (1) reduce 

weed infestations; and (2) not increase existing populations.

•	 As part of the grazing study, evaluate whether 

grazing is increasing noxious or exotic weeds. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-19

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Endangered and Rare Species

Policy and Agency Standards

The Endangered Species Act (USDI 1973, 

Fight Wildlife Service 88, as amended) governs 

and provides for the conservation of listed and 

proposed species, and their habitats, on federal 

lands. The BLM Policy regarding Special Status 

Species, including federally listed and proposed 

species, state listed species, and species designated 

as “sensitive” is to protect and conserve federally 

listed and proposed species, manage their habitat 

to promote recovery, and (for sensitive and state 

listed species) to ensure that BLM actions will 

not contribute to the need to list sensitive or state 

listed species as federally listed (BLM Manual 

6840). 

Goals

Maintain or enhance BLM Special Status Species 

occurrences and habitat within the RNA.

Wildlife

Current Information

Suitable habitat and a spotted owl center of activity exists in the RNA. The nest stand used by a 

pair of owls falls inside the RNA boundary. No 

other federally listed wildlife species are known 

to occur within the RNA. 

Issues

Habitat manipulation activities (burning, vegetation manipulation, etc.) proposed to occur in the 

RNA must be designed to protect, maintain, or 

enhance owl habitat.

Management Action

Periodic monitoring of nest sites.

 

Plants

Current Information

Three species are documented in the RNA, 

Bellinger’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp.

bellingeriana), Greene’s Mariposa lily (Calochortus 

greenei), and Howell’s false-caraway (Perideridia 

howellii). Two of these species, Bellinger’s meadowfoam and Howell’s false-caraway, are found 

within the riparian zone of Oregon Gulch creek. 

Howell’s false-caraway is fairly “common” within 

the RNA and within the surrounding watersheds 

in the Monument. This species was dropped from 

the Oregon Natural Heritage lists (ONHP 2004) 

and is no longer included. While it is a southwestern Oregon endemic, populations are apparently secure. Bellinger’s meadowfoam is quite 

rare, and is known for a single location in the 

RNA. It has an Oregon Natural Heritage ranking of G4/S2, which means it globally secure but 

it is imperiled within the State because of rarity, 

or because other factors demonstrably make it 

vulnerable to extinction. Green’s mariposa lily is 

extremely rare, globally and within the state. This 

species has an ONHP ranking of G2/S2, meaning that range wide it is imperiled because of rarity, or because other factors demonstrably make it 

vulnerable to extinction. The status of these three 

species occurrences in the RNA is not known; 

recent monitoring has not occurred. No formal 

rare plant surveys have occurred within the RNA. 

Suitable habitat does exist for several other Bureau Special Status plants, including the Federally 

listed Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillary gentneri). 

Issues

•	 No formal rare plant surveys within the 

monument.

•	 No monitoring of existing populations.

•	 Affects from periodic grazing are not known 

for existing populations.

Management Actions

•	 Complete rare plant surveys within the RNA.

•	 Establish monitoring plots, as part of the 

grazing study, for Bellinger’s meadowfoam 

and Green’s mariposa lily. 

•	 Protect populations from grazing if needed to 

maintain viability of these populations. 

Insects and Pathogens

Policy and Agency Standards

Ideally, catastrophic natural events, such as insect 

infestations, should be allowed to take their 

course. Insect or disease control programs should 

not be carried out except where infestations 

threaten adjacent vegetation or will drastically 

alter natural ecological processes within the tract 

(USDI 1986).

Goals and Objectives

•	 Maintain historic ecosystem functions in 

the mixed conifer/California black oak plant 

community cell. 
Resource Management Plan

L-20 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

•	 Protect mature forest stands from catastrophic disturbance events such as wildfire and 

insect outbreaks. 

•	 Design management activities that restore 

natural ecosystem and disturbance processes.

Current Information

The Oregon Gulch mixed conifer/California 

black oak plant communities are at risk of beetle 

infestation. Two variants of mixed conifer are 

found in the RNA. Most of the stands to the 

north are more mesic, have a dominant sugar pine 

component and dense Douglas-fir reproduction. 

The forests to the south are drier with few sugar 

pines and are more ponderosa pine and incense 

cedar dominated. The young Douglas-fir component in the south is not as dense. 

The stands are overstocked with subdominant 

Douglas-fir due to fire exclusion for the last 100 

years. It appears that parts of the RNA were 

burned about 60 years ago. A localized mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreak in 1995 caused mortality of approximately 

30 percent of dominant old growth sugar pine 

component as well as a few large ponderosa pine. 

Red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens) is 

also common in the stand. In the summer of 

2000, Master’s candidate Cori Francis (Oregon 

State University and Medford District BLM) 

characterized stand structure while writing 

a prescription for the forest types in Oregon 

Gulch. Her data indicates that the mixed conifer/

California black oak forest type continues to be 

at risk because of slow growth and overly dense 

stocking. Pine mortality currently continues at a 

high, although not epidemic, rate annually. Pine 

will continue to be replaced by Douglas-fir and 

occasionally white fir in gaps that result from 

pine mortality. Further, white pine blister rust 

(Cronartium ribicola) is present in areas near the 

RNA, which reduces the likelihood that young 

sugar pine will grow to maturity.

Currently, individual sugar and ponderosa pine 

databases have been developed in an effort to 

follow growth rates, ages and tree vigor. Annual 

aerial surveys are used to track insects (beetles).

Needed Information

Annual monitoring of all types of disturbance 

agents is needed. Revisiting permanent plots 

established in 2000 at 5-year intervals is desirable 

in order to monitor potential insect and disease 

problems in the future. The individual large sugar 

and ponderosa pine database needs to be updated 

every 3-5 years.

Insects

•	 Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

ponderosae) 

•	 Western pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

brevicomis)

•	 Red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens)

Recent aerial flight survey data and ground 

checking indicates localized epidemics and increased mortality rates due to overly dense stands 

(often up to 300 feet of basal area) with individual 

large dominant old growth pine showing reduced 

(< than 1/2”) decadal radial growth rates. Both of 

these parameters indicate stands and individual 

trees are at risk for beetle infestation. Generally, 

forest stands in the vicinity at the ecoregion level 

(Klamath River Ridges) are at risk for beetle 

epidemics. The unique structure of the heritage 

stand (6-8 dominant sugar pine per acre) with 

hundreds of small Douglas-fir per acre puts the 

RNA at an even higher risk for beetle infestation as shown by the 1995 outbreak. All three 

beetles currently put the forests at risk, given fire 

exclusion and high resultant densities of smaller 

competing trees.

Management Actions 

Risk reduction management activities will involve 

thinning small Douglas-fir, piling and burning, 

and then conducting a prescribed underburn. 

Thinning would not involve cutting larger trees. 

The stand would be treated at a level that would 

reduce risk to catastrophic fire and beetle infestation by reducing ladder and fine fuels, reducing 

competition for water and opening up the stand 

while maintaining the large tree stand component. Costs to accomplish these activities are well 

known from other similar projects. Funding can 

be obtained through forest health monies. Management activities regarding insect risk reduction 

and fuels reduction need to occur simultaneously 

in the near future.

Pathogens

•	 White pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola)
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-21

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

•	 Western dwarf mistletoe of ponderosa pine 

(Arcuethobium campylopodum)

•	 Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arcuethobium 

douglasii)

•	 Shoestring root rot (Armellaria mellea)

•	 Black stain (Verticicladiella wagonerii)

•	 Velvet top fungus (Phaeolus schweinitzii)

White pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) is an 

exotic pathogen introduced to the Pacific Northwest about 80 years ago. It causes mortality by 

girdling small sugar pine due to stem cankers. 

Larger trees are generally resistant given their 

size. At present sugar pine reproduction up to 

pole sized trees has decreased in the Klamath 

River Ridges Ecoregion 78g because of the rust. 

Forest gaps that historically would have been 

partly filled by sugar pine are now being filled 

with Doug-fir, white fir, incense cedar and ponderosa pine. The result is a “future forest” with 

decreasing amounts of sugar pine in the stand. 

Stand dynamics and resilience will change over 

time due to its absence. Oregon Gulch RNA has 

very little evidence of blister rust, which is likely 

due to some microclimate effect due to moisture. 

Gooseberries and currents (Ribes sp.), which 

are the alternate host for blister rust, are present 

in the RNA. Sugar pine is a species that lends 

unique biodiversity attributes to mixed conifer 

forests because of its general resistance to drought 

and fire. The RNA will be monitored for blister 

rust incidence.

Western dwarf mistletoe in ponderosa pine is 

common in the RNA, but is not considered a 

problem because it is present at a natural level. 

Many of the old growth trees exhibit dwarf 

mistletoe in the lower crown only, indicating that 

they outgrew the infections earlier.

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is present in heavy 

amounts in some groups of old growth Douglasfir within the RNA and has contributed to mortality of mature trees. Douglas-fir mistletoe is a 

naturally occurring parasitic plant that is beneficial to wildlife in old growth forests. Its presence 

in the RNA is not considered a problem. Groups 

of Douglas-fir infected by mistletoe will contribute to diverse canopy structure. Mortality of tree 

groups will result in gaps being formed and will 

contribute to coarse woody debris.

Shoestring root rot (Armellaria mellea) is present at low levels around ponderosa pine. It is a 

secondary pathogen that occasionally attacks 

stressed trees. It is not a significant problem currently. Stand density reduction and prescribed 

burning will reduce shoestring root rot levels.

Blackstain (Verticicladiella wagonerii) was observed on one isolated Douglas-fir in 1999 in the 

RNA. It is spread by root grafts or beetles. Very 

little blackstain has been noted in the monument. 

It is unlikely to be a significant problem in the 

RNA. Its presence should be monitored as it may 

infect the Douglas-fir in or near existing roads 

or disturbed areas. Ponderosa pine can also be 

infected.

Velvet top fungus was noted in association with 

groups of dwarf mistletoe killed Douglas-fir. It is 

a commonly found pathogen (saprophyte) found in 

old growth stands. In this instance it is not considered a problem.

Management Actions

Thinning small trees (primarily Douglas-fir) 

from below and prescribed burning will increase 

overall forest stand vigor. As water deficit stress is 

reduced, susceptibility to diseases will be reduced 

as well. The pathogens listed above, with the 

exception of Cronartium ribicola are not currently present at a level that will cause significant 

impacts to RNA forest types. Blister rust is not 

currently found to be a significant influence in the 

RNA. 

Summary Insect and Disease 

Bark beetles pose the most significant threat to 

the integrity of the Oregon Gulch forests. Overly 

dense stands are present due to fire exclusion 

over the last 100 years. Dense stocking levels of 

Douglas-fir are causing stress to dominant pine 

by competing for available moisture. Tree stress 

increases with increasing water deficits making pine more susceptible to beetle outbreaks. 

A mountain pine beetle outbreak in 1995 is a 

precursor to further problems in Oregon Gulch 

as well as surrounding areas. Natural processes 

must be re-established in order to keep the RNA 

forest community cells viable. Not all insects and 

pathogens present in the RNA were listed. Only 

those thought to be significant factors were discussed. No information is available for insect and 
Resource Management Plan

L-22 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

pathogen issues for oak woodlands or chaparral 

communities. Obtaining this information will be 

important in planning to maintain RNA values. 

Lands and Boundary/Edge Effects

Policy and Agency Standards

•	 Maintain or increase public land holdings in 

Zone I by retaining public lands and acquiring non-federal lands with high public 

resource values.

•	 Acquire lands and interests in lands needed 

to manage, protect, develop, maintain, and 

use resources on public lands...in conformity 

with land-use plans that apply to the area 

involved.” (BLM Manual, 2100.05, 1984). 

Goals and Objectives

Maintain the integrity of the RNA. 

Current Information

The Oregon Gulch RNA covers an area of 1,056 

acres of public land. The boundary is defined by 

the limits of the watershed and property lines between the public and private lands. Approximately 290 acres of private lands are in the drainage; 

however, the key plant communities for which the 

RNA was designated are no longer intact on the 

adjacent private lands.

Management Actions

Periodic inventory to assure no trespass from 

activities on private lands. 

Roads and Utilities Rights-of-Way

Policy and Agency Standards

Public uses such as roads, pipelines, communication sites, and power lines should avoid the designated area and be anticipated in activity plans. 

Road closures or restrictions may be considered 

appropriate in some instances (USDI 1986). 

Roads are generally prohibited in RNAs. However, old roads or un-improved tracks often exist 

(PNW 1991). 

Goals

Ensure that existing roads do not contribute to 

any loss of integrity of the RNA communities, 

including the riparian area. 

Current Information

There are no utility rights-of-way (ROW) in the 

RNA. Several old jeep roads exist within the 

RNA and most have been closed and stabilized 

and are no longer maintained. One open road 

(40-4E-19.2), which provides access to the private 

parcel in Section 30 from Randcore Pass, serves 

as the boundary along the NW edge of the RNA. 

This road is under a reciprocal agreement. A portion of road 40-4E-19.0 is also under a reciprocal 

agreement and provides access to the private parcel in Section 20. No future ROW grant requests 

are anticipated through the RNA. 

Fire Management

Policy and Agency Standards

In 1995, the latest Federal Fire Policy (USDA 

1995) was issued directing federal land managers 

to expand the use of prescribed fire in order to 

reduce the risk of large wildfires due to unnatural 

fuel loadings and to restore and maintain healthy 

ecosystems:

•	 Base the use of prescribed fire on the risk 

of high intensity wildfire and the associated 

cost and environmental impacts of using 

prescribed under-burning to meet protection, 

restoration, and maintenance of crucial stands 

that are currently susceptible to large-scale 

catastrophic wildfire.

•	 Reintroduce under-burning across large areas 

of the landscape over a period of time to 

create a mosaic of vegetative conditions and 

seral stages. This is accomplished by using 

prescribed fire under specific conditions in 

combination with the timing of each burn 

to reach varying fire intensities. Treatments 

should be site-specific because some species 

with limited distribution are fire intolerant 

(USDA 1995).

•	 Where perpetuating a seral stage of plant 

succession is important, prescribed fires may 

be specified in the activity plan, but only 

where they provide a closer approximation 

of the natural vegetation and governing 

processes than would otherwise be possible. 

Application of prescribed burns normally 

should be performed closely approximating 

the “natural” season of fire, frequency, intensity, and size of burn. The burn should be 

followed by a fire effects report documenting 

vegetative response (USDI 1986).
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-23

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

•	 Adhere to smoke management and air quality standards of the Clean Air Act and State 

Implementation Plan for prescribed burning 

(USDA 1995).

Goals and Objectives

Reintroduce fire into the RNA to re-establish 

a natural ecological process and to maintain, 

enhance or restore the structure and composition 

of the key plant communities. Specific objectives 

include the following:

•	 Increase the extent of oak/pine savannas by 

removing encroaching hardwood and conifer 

seedlings and shrubs.

•	 Reduce non-native and increase native grass 

and forb species.

•	 Invigorate chaparral stands by removing 

decadent shrubs and creating openings for 

native grasses and forbs.

•	 Maintain and improve existing grasslands 

and meadows by using prescribed fire to 

invigorate native grasses, provide a good 

bed for reseeding, and reduce encroaching 

shrubs and conifers.

•	 Control wildfire in mixed conifer stands to 

protect losses to surrounding landowners.

•	 Reduce fuel loadings created from thinning 

activities.

Current Information

Fire is recognized as a key natural disturbance 

process throughout southwest Oregon (Atzet and 

Wheeler 1982). Human-caused and lightning 

fires have been a source of disturbance to the 

landscape for thousands of years. Native Americans influenced vegetation patterns for over a 

thousand years by igniting fires to enhance values 

that were important to their culture (Pullen 

1996). Early settlers to the Rogue and Klamath 

Valleys used fire to improve grazing and farming 

and to expose rock and soil for mining. It is not 

known if fire was used in this manner historically in the RNA. Fire has played an important 

role in influencing successional processes. Large 

fires were a common occurrence in the area based 

on fire scars and vegetative patterns and were of 

varying severities.

In the early 1900s, uncontrolled fires were considered to be detrimental to forests. Suppression of 

all fires became a major goal of land management 

agencies. From the 1950s to present, suppression 

of all fires became efficient because of an increase 

in suppression forces and improved techniques. 

As a result of the absence of fire, there has been a 

build-up of unnatural fuel loadings and a change 

to fire-prone vegetative conditions. Fire frequency 

also decreased as the use of fire by native peoples 

decreased due to their disappearance from the 

landscape by disease or translocation to reservations.

Based on calculations using fire return intervals, 

five fire cycles have been eliminated in the southwest Oregon mixed conifer forests that occur at 

low elevations (Thomas and Agee 1986). Species, 

such as ponderosa pine and oaks, have decreased. 

Many stands that were once open are now heavily 

stocked with conifers and small oaks, which has 

changed the horizontal and vertical stand structure. Surface fuels and laddering effect of fuels 

have increased, which has in turn increased the 

threat of crown fires, once historically rare.

Many seedling and pole size forests are not on 

a trajectory to develop into late successional or 

old-growth forests because of the lack of natural 

thinning once associated with low intensity fires. 

Frequent low intensity fires historically served as a 

thinning mechanism, thereby naturally regulating 

the density of the forests by killing unsuited and 

small trees. Bark beetles currently are thinning 

forests in the absence of fire. Ponderosa pine that 

thrive in fire prone environments are competing 

with more shade tolerant Douglas-fir or white fir 

species in the absence of fire. Trees growing at 

lower densities tend to be more fire-resistant and 

vigorous. Some populations of organisms that 

thrive in the more structurally diverse forests that 

large trees provide are becoming threatened. 

Many forests have developed high tree densities 

and slower growth rates than historically after fire 

suppression became policy in about 1900. Trees 

facing such intense competition often become 

weakened and are highly susceptible to insect epidemics and tree pathogens. Younger trees (mostly 

conifers) contribute to stress and mortality of mature conifers and hardwoods. High density forests 

burn with increased intensity because of the 

unnaturally high fuel levels. High intensity fires 

can damage soils and often completely destroy 

riparian vegetation. Historically, low intensity 

fires often spared riparian areas, which reduced 
Resource Management Plan

L-24 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

soil erosion and provided wildlife habitats following the event.

The absence of fire has had negative effects on 

grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands. Research 

in the last few decades has shown that many 

southern Oregon shrub and herbaceous plant 

species are either directly or indirectly fire-dependent.

Several shrub species are directly dependent on 

the heat from fires for germination; without fire, 

these stands of shrubs cannot be rejuvenated. 

Grass and forbs species may show increased seed 

production and/or germination associated with 

fire.

Indirectly, fire-dependent herbaceous species are 

crowded out by larger-statured and longer-lived 

woody species. This is particularly so for grasses 

and forbs within stands of wedgeleaf ceanothus 

and whiteleaf manzanita with a high canopy 

closure. High shrub canopy closure prevents herbaceous species from completing their life-cycle 

and producing viable seed. Many grass species 

may drop out of high canopy shrub lands in the 

absence of fire because of their relatively shortlived seed-bank. 

Climate and topography combine to create the 

type of fire regime found in the Oregon Gulch 

RNA. Fire regime is a broad term and is described as the frequency, severity, and extent of 

fires occurring in an area (Agee 1990). Vegetation types are helpful in delineating different fire 

regimes. The Oregon Gulch RNA is classified as 

Low-Severity (68 percent) and Moderate-Severity 

(32 percent) fire regimes based on the vegetation 

types found within the RNA. The low-severity 

regime is characterized by vegetation types such 

as grasslands, shrublands, hardwoods, mixed 

hardwoods, and pine, which are similar to the 

Interior Valley Vegetative Zone of Franklin 

and Dyrness (1988). These plant communities 

are adapted to recover rapidly from fire and are 

directly or indirectly dependent on fire for their 

continued persistence. A low-severity regime 

is characterized by nearly continual summer 

drought; fires are frequent (1-25 years), burn with 

low intensity, and are widespread. The dominant 

trees within this regime are adapted to resist fire 

due to the thick bark they develop at a young age. 

The intermixture of pine-oak within the RNA 

suggests the fire return interval of about 10 years 

(Agee and Huff 2000). The moderate-severity 

regime is associated with the Mixed Conifer 

Vegetative Zone of Franklin and Dyrness (1988). 

A moderate-severity regime is characterized 

by long summer dry periods; fires are frequent 

(25-100 years), burn with different degrees of 

intensity, and burn in a mosaic pattern across the 

landscape. Some stand replacement fires as well as 

low-intensity fires may occur depending on burning conditions.

The Bureau of Land Management has a master 

cooperative fire protection agreement with the 

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). This 

agreement gives the responsibility of fire protection of all lands within the Oregon Gulch RNA 

to the ODF. This contract directs ODF to take 

immediate action to control and suppress all fires. 

Their primary objective is to minimize total acres 

burned while providing for fire fighter safety. The 

agreement requires ODF to control 94 percent of 

all fires before they exceed 10 acres in size. 

Between the years 1967 and 1999, there were 

three fires within the Oregon Gulch RNA. All 

three fires were started by lightning and occurred 

in the years 1989, 1996 and 1999. Suppression 

action was taken by ODF resulting in two fires 

contained at 0.1 acre in size, while one fire was 

contained at one acre in size.

Currently, some fire suppression techniques are 

not allowed within the Oregon Gulch RNA, in 

order to minimize disturbance to the area. All 

vehicles are restricted to existing roads and the 

use of tractors is not allowed within the RNA. 

Prescribed fire can be used to meet resource 

management objectives, which include but are not 

limited to, wildfire hazard reduction, restoration 

of desired vegetation conditions, management of 

habitat, and silvicultural treatments. When utilizing prescribed fire it should be based on the fire 

history of the area and past vegetation patterns 

known for the area. The application of prescribed 

fire should closely approximate the frequency, 

intensity, size, and the “natural” season of fire 

when possible.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-25

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Many factors influence fire behavior and the 

effects fire will have on a resource. Some are beyond our ability to control such as the location of 

where a fire starts, weather, and topography. Fuels 

management programs focus on those factors 

which can be influenced by humans, such as fuels 

and vegetation. Prescribed fire is one tool that 

can be utilized to regulate fuels and vegetation. 

A primary objective of any fuels management 

activity in the RNA is to alter existing fuels in 

order to protect or minimize damage to existing 

late-successional habitat from wildfires that may 

occur.

All prescribed burning would comply with the 

guidelines established by the Oregon Smoke 

Management Plan (OSMP) and the Visibility 

Protection Plan. In compliance with the Oregon 

Smoke Management Plan, any prescribed burning activities within the RNA require pre-burn 

registration of all prescribed burn locations with 

the Oregon State Forester. Registration includes 

specific location, size of burn, topographic, and 

fuel characteristics. Advisories or restrictions are 

received from the State Forester on a daily basis 

concerning smoke management and air quality 

conditions.

Prescribed burns would be conducted within the 

limits of a Burn Plan, which describes prescription parameters so that acceptable and desired 

effects are obtained. 

Issues

•	 Limited access to and within the RNA.

•	 Restrictions against using large equipment in 

fire treatment or suppression activities.

•	 Constraints to season of prescribed burning 

due to air quality and fire season restrictions.

•	 Seasonal constraints due to growth period for 

rare plant species (Green’s mariposa lily).

•	 Limited funding for repetitive treatments and 

restoration projects. 

•	 Limited availability of native grass, forb, and 

shrub seed or seedlings for re-planting.

Management Actions

•	 Develop a fire management plan and memorandum of understanding for the entire 

RNA, coordinated between BLM and ODF, 

including a plan for prescribed burning. 

•	 Use fire to enhance known sites of special 

status plant populations where applicable.

•	 Establish pre-burn plots in targeted plant 

communities to gather baseline data of vegetation species composition, density, etc,. to 

determine the effects of fire on affected plant 

communities.

•	 Through prescribed burning, reintroduce 

fire as a natural process, based on past fire 

regimes. 

•	 Conduct post-project monitoring of plant 

communities to determine the effectiveness 

of management activities in achieving RNA 

goals. Adapt management activities as necessary.

Aquatic Ecosystems: Hydrology and 

Habitat

Policy/Agency Standards

Two major planning efforts have set the objectives 

for aquatic ecosystems. Objectives for water resources include compliance with State water quality requirements to restore and maintain water 

quality necessary to protect designated beneficial 

uses for the Klamath River Basin. In addition, the 

overall goal of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

(ACS) is to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems 

contained within them on public lands. Included 

in the ACS are specific goals:

•	 Maintain and restore the physical integrity of 

the aquatic system.

•	 Maintain and restore water quality necessary to 

support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland 

ecosystems.

•	 Maintain and restore the sediment regime 

under which aquatic ecosystems evolved.

•	 Maintain and restore the species composition 

and structural diversity of plant communities 

in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation; 

nutrient filtering; appropriate rates of surface 

erosion; bank erosion and channel migration; and to supply amounts and distribution 

of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain 

physical complexity and stability.

•	 Maintain and restore habitat to support welldistributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent 

species.
Resource Management Plan

L-26 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

•	 Maintain and restore a properly functioning watershed condition within the Oregon 

Gulch RNA.

•	 Maintain and restore the ecological health of 

aquatic ecosystems within the Oregon Gulch 

RNA.

Objectives

•	 Reduce or eliminate sediment input into 

streams and wetlands as disturbed areas 

regenerate.

•	 Reduce or eliminate surface disturbing activities such as roads/jeep trails.

•	 Restore and maintain native riparian vegetation along streams and springs/seeps.

•	 Achieve properly functioning riparian areas.

•	 Restore and maintain natural water flow 

(ground water and overland) into streams and 

spring/seeps.

Current Information

Hydrologic features in the Oregon Gulch RNA 

include intermittent streams (Oregon Gulch 

and unnamed tributaries), four known springs, 

and four constructed ponds. Current hydrologic 

condition of the RNA is unknown. A stream 

survey is necessary to determine if there are any 

watershed concerns affecting water quantity, 

water quality, or aquatic habitat. The Jenny Creek 

Watershed Assessment and Analysis (USDI 

1995b) states that poor road location has created 

major problems for Oregon Gulch; however, no 

specific concerns are identified.

Although timber harvest or Off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use is not allowed in the RNA, potential 

adverse impacts to the streams, springs and seeps 

could occur on BLM-administered lands as a result of erosion from existing or new roads, current 

grazing, or a severe wildfire. Approximately 532 

acres of the Oregon Gulch drainage area are private lands that lie above the RNA. Management 

actions such as road building, timber harvest, 

burning, pesticide treatments, and livestock grazing on these private lands could negatively affect 

streamflows and water quality in the RNA. Sediment increases would be the most likely adverse 

impact associated with these types of activities. 

Management Actions

•	 Conduct stream/riparian survey to determine waterbody category, current channel 

and riparian conditions, aquatic fauna habitat 

condition, and locations of unmapped waterbodies.

•	 Assess need for water/riparian monitoring 

based on stream/riparian survey results.

•	 Undertake restoration projects as needed to 

comply with the objectives of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy and to prevent further 

damage to hydrologic and ecological values.

Mining and Geothermal Resources

Mining and geothermal rights have been withdrawn within the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument and are not an issue. There are no 

goals, objectives, or actions necessary for this 

resource. 

Cultural Resources

Policy and Agency Standards

•	 Protect cultural resource values including 

information and significant sites for public 

and/or scientific use by present and future 

generations. Sites with significant values will 

be protected from management actions and 

from vandalism to the extent possible.

•	 Develop project plans to preserve, protect 

and enhance archeological, historical and 

traditional use sites, and materials under the 

district’s jurisdiction. This would include 

protection from wildfires (USDA 1995).

Goals

Protect cultural resources at Oregon Gulch RNA 

from theft and human disturbance.

Current Information

Several cultural resource surveys have been 

conducted within the Oregon Gulch RNA. A 

number of both historic and pre-historic sites 

have been recorded both within and adjacent to 

the RNA.

Issues

The isolated location of the RNA makes enforcement of restrictions and protection of archeological sites difficult. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-27

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Management Actions

Protect sites as needed from management activities and vandalism.

Livestock Grazing

Policy and Agency Standards

•	 “Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly functioning 

physical condition, including their upland, 

riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; 

soil and plant conditions support infiltration, 

soil moisture storage and the release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, 

water quantity and the timing and duration of flow”.... “Habitats are, or are making 

significant progress toward being restored or 

maintained for federal threatened and endangered species, federal proposed, category 1 

and 2 federal candidates (Federal Species of 

Concern), and other special status species.” 

(Fundamentals of Rangeland Health, 43 

CFR 4180) 

•	 “Habitats support healthy, productive and 

diverse populations and communities of 

native plants and animals (including special 

status species and species of local importance) 

appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.” 

(Standard 5, Standards for Rangeland 

Health, USDI 1997)

•	 “Livestock grazing should be managed within 

RNAs to promote maintenance of the key 

characteristics for which the area is recognized.” (USDI 1987. BLM Manual, RNAs, 

1623.37)

Goals and Objectives

•	 Preserve natural features in as nearly an 

undisturbed state as possible for scientific 

and educational purposes. Natural processes 

should dominate, although deliberate manipulations that simulate natural processes are 

allowed in specific cases (USDI 1987).

•	 Maintain or improve the designated values of 

the RNA, especially native plant community 

composition and structure, soils, riparian areas, stream health and function, and nutrient 

cycling. 

Current Information

Grazing in the area encompassed by the Oregon 

Gulch RNA dates back to the 1850s when large 

herds of cattle, horses, and sheep utilized the 

area. Control of these ranges did not occur until 

the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. 

The long-term goal of this law was the improvement of range conditions and the stabilization of 

the western livestock industry. Prior to the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act, unregulated 

grazing occurred. During this period rangeland 

resources and ecological conditions suffered significant harm from overgrazing.

The Oregon Gulch RNA is currently part of the 

Oregon Gulch Pasture of the Soda Mountain 

Allotment #10110. The pasture is utilized on 

alternative years under a rest-rotation grazing 

plan that includes the rest of Soda Mountain 

Allotment. Cattle numbers on the Soda Mountain Allotment have been reduced by 34 percent 

since the 1970s. Cattle generally utilize the RNA 

from June 1 into early July on alternating years. 

The current number of Animal Unit Months 

(AUMs) is 1,174. Utilization data within the 

Soda Mountain allotment shows overall utilization of the pasture to be 6 percent with portions 

of the pasture unused. Several range monitoring 

plots occur within the RNA. Past monitoring 

has shown slight utilization (21-40 percent) and 

moderate (41-60 percent) utilization in portions 

of the RNA. 

The Oregon Gulch RNA contains significant 

areas of native grassland communities, especially 

in the Garry oak/wedgeleaf ceanothus/grass or 

scrubland, and the western juniper/Garry oak 

scrubland communities. Grasslands are also a 

component under the Garry oak/ponderosa pine 

communities and along the narrow riparian zone. 

In the RNA, large native herbivores (deer and 

elk) play an important evolutionary and ecological role. Different grazing animals vary in their 

foraging preferences, season, duration, and intensity of use, which can have significantly different 

effects on plant communities, particularly when 

considering introduced versus non-introduced 

species. Grazing modifies vegetation height, frequency, and density; influences vegetation composition and succession; and alters water retention 

and drainage characteristics. To plants, critical 

factors are the severity, frequency, duration, and 
Resource Management Plan

L-28 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

seasonality of defoliation. These factors can be 

controlled through proper grazing management. 

Livestock grazing could have a significant impact 

in Oregon Gulch RNA if not managed in a manner appropriate for the particular plant communities. Uncontrolled grazing by domestic livestock 

is not compatible with the maintenance of key 

RNA features; however, controlled grazing could 

offer an ecological management tool to maintain 

or improve the some of the biological features 

(e.g., grassland component) for which the RNA 

was established.

Exotic and noxious weed populations do occur in 

the RNA. With the exception of Medusa head 

rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), 

most weeds currently have overall low densities 

[Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), bull thistle (Cirsium 

vulgare), yellow alyssum (Alyssum alyssoides), and 

hedgehog dogtail (Cynosurus echinatus)]. Soil and 

vegetation disturbance from over-grazing could 

increase exotic plant densities, and affect the plant 

communities for which the RNA was established. 

Issues

•	 Existing noxious weed populations that can 

increase as a result of soil disturbance from 

over-grazing or congregating livestock.

•	 Terms and conditions in the existing grazing 

lease may need to be modified to protect or 

maintain key elements in the RNA. 

•	 Only a few utilization plots exist in the RNA. 

Other areas (e.g., riparian) have not had 

formal surveys documenting utilization or 

impacts. Several photo-points were recently 

established in the riparian area. 

Management Actions

•	 Collect data in grassland/shrubland/riparian 

communities within the RNA as part of the 

ongoing livestock impact study within the 

monument. This information will determine 

if grazing is maintaining or enhancing key 

communities. Make recommendations on 

how to utilize grazing, if appropriate, as a 

tool to maintain these communities. 

•	 Install additional monitoring plots in utilized 

areas within the RNA to ensure that grazing 

promotes maintenance or enhancement of key 

plant communities. 

Timber Management

Policy and Agency Standards

Regulated timber harvest within the RNA and 

salvage removal of downed trees are not compatible with the RNA values. For RNAs adjacent 

to timber harvest units, buffer zones should be 

considered in order to meet plan objectives (USDI 

1986). 

Timber harvesting should be managed within 

RNAs to promote the maintenance of the key 

characteristics for which the area is recognized.

Current Information

Few trees have been removed in the past. A road 

runs east and west through the RNA. An occasional tree was removed during road construction. 

Timber harvesting in the RNA is not consistent 

with overall goals for the mixed conifer/black oak 

cell or for the ponderosa pine/white oak cell. An 

overstory removal occurred in private ownership 

in Section 30 during the summer of 2000 to the 

west, directly adjacent to the mixed conifer cell. 

Potentially, windthrow could occur during winter 

storms on the west boundary of the RNA. Private 

lands in Section 20 also abut the RNA to the 

north; few of the conifer communities are found 

here. No BLM sales are planned in the area, nor 

are any other forest stands adjacent to the RNA.

Timber harvesting in RNAs is not consistent 

with overall RNA management goals. However, 

non-merchantable Douglas-fir, less than 12” in 

diameter and less than 90-years old, should be 

removed and burned to reduce stand density and 

insect risk. These trees have become established in 

the absence of fire. Occasionally, individual trees 

larger than this will be girdled and/or felled when 

competing directly with individual mature sugar 

pine.

Goals and Objectives

Maintain viable ecosystem functions and protect 

RNA community cells from catastrophic disturbance events.

Management Actions Needed

•	 In conjunction with fuels treatments/understory burning, treat conifer stands to promote 

health of key communities. 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-29

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

•	 No commercial timber harvesting will occur 

in the RNA. All trees felled or girdled for 

forest health reasons will be left on site. Small 

diameter Douglas-fir will be cut and burned 

in order to reduce fuel hazard and beetle 

outbreak risk. 

Public Use/Recreation 

Policy and Agency Standards

Recreation, camping, wood cutting, trapping, 

plant gathering, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

use are not compatible with the key RNA values 

unless shown not to hinder achievement of specific plan objectives. Hunting and fishing activities 

are typically permitted, but camping associated 

with these uses is prohibited in RNAs (see Wildlife sub-section below).. Educational use such as 

class field studies is encouraged, but repetitive 

consumptive class activities are allowed only with 

BLM approval. Development of peripheral nature 

trails and interpretive signs may be appropriate in 

some cases, but with consideration for protection 

of the values without attracting undue attention. 

Public use roads, pipelines, communication sites, 

or power lines should avoid the RNA. Road closures or way closures or restrictions may be considered appropriate in some instances (see Rights 

of Way section) (USDI 1986). Equestrian use is 

not specifically prohibited in the RNA policies; 

however, use is generally felt to not be compatible with the overall goal of RNAs to “Preserve 

natural features in as nearly an undisturbed state 

as possible for scientific and educational purposes. 

Natural processes should dominate, although 

deliberate manipulations which simulate natural 

processes are allowed in specific cases.” (USDI 

1986).

Current Information

Recreational use in the Oregon Gulch RNA is 

mostly by hunters or local residents. The RNA 

was accessible by road until 1998 when the road 

was blocked to eliminate vehicle use of the area. 

The closed road now serves as a hiking trail. The 

entire RNA is closed to all off-road travel by 

motorized and mechanized vehicles. 

Potential problems arising from public use of 

the RNA include the threat of human-caused 

stand-replacement fire; damage to grasses, forbs 

and soils by compaction from hikers; and the 

introduction of undesirable non-native species. 

Current recreational use is very light and lowimpact. Periodic monitoring should be conducted 

to evaluate the impacts of recreational use on the 

protected plant communities and to determine 

if signs are necessary to protect against adverse 

effects.

Camping

Policy and Agency Standards (See Public 

Use/Recreation)

Goals

•	 Protect designated values of the RNA.

•	 Educate the public to the ecological significance of the RNA and the restrictions 

required to protect the designated natural 

resources.

Current Information

No established camping facilities exist in Oregon 

Gulch RNA although dispersed camps were 

present when the road was open. Camping occurs 

seasonally at Randcore Pass, which is close to 

the RNA boundary. In general, camping is not 

compatible with protection of the key elements of 

the RNA. However, unless camper use becomes 

evident, no actions are needed at the present time. 

If it does become a problem, “no camping” signs 

could be posted around the RNA.

Issues 

•	 Isolated location of the RNA and difficulty in 

enforcing restrictions.

•	 Historical use of the area.

Management Actions

•	 Conduct periodic monitoring to determine if 

camping has occurred that has had a negative 

impact on the protected elements.

•	 Promote environmentally sensitive use of area 

to visitors via education (signs and personal 

contact). 

Hiking

Policy and Agency Standards (See Public 

Use/Recreation)

Goals

•	 Protect designated values of the RNA.

•	 Educate the public to the ecological significance of the RNA and the restrictions 
Resource Management Plan

L-30 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

required to protect the designated natural 

resources.

Current Information

The closed access road through the RNA is now 

an existing hiking trail. The RNA receives the 

greatest amount of foot traffic during the fall 

hunting season and, to a lesser extent, during 

spring turkey hunting season.

Features of the RNA that might appeal to hikers 

are wild flowers, wildlife, and diverse plant communities; however, the RNA is not well known 

or easily accessible to the general public. For these 

reasons, developing hiking trails or promoting the 

area as a recreational hiking destination would 

not be practical or recommended. Casual hiking 

itself does not pose a threat to the resources of 

the RNA. However, if done by a large number 

of people, native grasses and wild flowers could 

be trampled and destroyed and soils compacted, 

jeopardizing the integrity of the protected elements of the RNA. 

Issues

•	 Isolated location of the RNA making enforcement of restrictions difficult.

•	 Historical use of the area.

Management Actions

•	 Conduct periodic monitoring to evaluate the 

extent and effects of hiker use.

•	 Promote environmentally sensitive use of area 

to visitors via education (signs and personal 

contact).

Equestrian Activities

Policy and Agency Standards

There are no specific BLM guidelines or policies 

restricting equestrian activities within RNAs. 

However, any activities should be avoided that 

threaten protection of the key elements for which 

the RNA has been designated (USDI 1987).

Goals

•	 Protect soils, vegetation, roads, streams 

and other resources from damage caused by 

equestrian use in the RNA. 

•	 Educate the public to the ecological significance of the RNA and the restrictions 

required to protect the designated natural 

resources.

Current Information

Oregon Gulch RNA currently receives occasional equestrian use, probably by neighbors and 

the grazing allotment lessee involved with cattle 

ranching activities. Equestrian activities in this 

management plan refers to horses, llamas, mules, 

and other pack animals. Heavy use by recreational animals could threaten the values of the 

RNA by trampling vegetation and soil, particularly in meadows with thin, fragile soils, or by 

carrying in seeds of exotic weedy species on their 

hooves, hair, or in their feces. During wet conditions horses can push root crops (used by Indian 

tribes as food) too far into the soil to dig and use. 

The use of horses and other pack or riding stock 

is generally not seen as compatible with the key 

elements of the RNA. Incidental use by riders 

moving cattle is allowed under the grazing lease.

Issues

•	 Isolation of area and difficulty in enforcing 

closures or restrictions.

•	 Historical use in the area.

Management Actions

•	 Periodically monitor the RNA to ensure that 

horse or other stock use is not occurring. 

•	 Promote environmentally sensitive use of area 

to visitors via education (signs and personal 

contact with equestrian groups).

•	 Post signs at entrances to the RNA, stating 

the goals of the RNA and closure to equestrian use. 

Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs)

Policy and Agency Standards

Management directions for all RNAs specify 

closure to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. Offhighway vehicles include, but are not limited to, 

motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and mountain 

bikes. 

Goals

•	 Prevent intrusions into the RNA by motorized and mechanized vehicles.

•	 Educate the public to the ecological significance of the RNA and the restrictions 

required to protect the designated natural 

resources.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-31

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Current Information

Oregon Gulch received some OHV use in the 

past, but recent road closures and blocking has 

eliminated most if not all motorized vehicle 

use within the RNA. OHV use is prohibited in 

RNAs because of the damage they cause to plant 

communities, individual plants and streams via 

erosion. 

Issues

•	 Isolated location makes enforcing restrictions 

or road closures difficult.

•	 Historical use of the area.

Management Actions

•	 Conduct periodic monitoring to assess offhighway vehicle violations.

•	 Promote environmentally sensitive use of area 

to visitors via education (signs and personal 

contact).

Hunting, Fishing and Trapping

Policy and Agency Standards (See also Public 

Use/Recreation)

Incidental hunting and fishing are typically 

permitted, although not encouraged, in RNAs, 

Trapping is viewed as an activity not consistent 

with RNAs (USDI 1986). Management of fish 

and wildlife populations is controlled by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 

with regulations for hunting, fishing, and trapping set on a yearly basis. Regulations regarding 

seasons, bag limits, stream stocking, licenses 

and techniques are dictated by the Department 

through the Fish and Wildlife Commission 

and are applicable on all lands within the state, 

including private property. Specific areas may be 

closed to activities in order to protect human life 

or natural resources.

Goals

Protect designated values of the RNA, including 

plant, soil, and wildlife resources with minimal 

disturbance and interference from people.

Current Information

Wildlife is abundant in Oregon Gulch RNA. 

Most of the RNA is very good deer hunting 

country and receives a fair amount of pressure, 

especially on the western edge where there is 

vehicle access right up to the edge of the RNA 

near Randcore Pass. Big game in the general 

area of the RNA consists of Black bear (Ursus 

americanus), Cougar (Felis concolor) and Blacktailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus). Elk 

(Cervus canadensis) also use the RNA seasonally. 

Small game species in the general area include 

Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), Blue Grouse 

(Dendragapus obscurus), Wild Turkey (Meleagris 

gallopavo), Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus), Valley Quail (Callipepla californicus), Western Grey 

squirrel (Sciurus griseus). It is unknown what, if 

any, trapping activity is occurring in this area. 

There is no indication that any trapping currently 

occurs. Fur-bearing species in the area include 

Bobcat (Felix rufus), Coyote (Canis latrans), 

Raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Grey fox (Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus), and possibly Pine Marten 

(Martes americanus). Redband trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss ssp.) appear to spawn in the lower mile of 

Oregon Gulch, because trout fry have been found 

throughout this stretch of stream. Fish use of 

Oregon Gulch appears to be limited by a natural 

barrier just inside the RNA boundary (see Fish 

Section).

Issues 

•	 Dispersed camping and OHV use are often 

associated with hunting and could negatively 

impact RNA resources if these activities occur illegally.

•	 The isolation of the area makes enforcing 

restrictions difficult.

•	 Historical use of the area.

•	 Prohibition of hunting and trapping in the 

RNA would require a change to the Oregon 

State Game Regulations and would be difficult to enforce due to unclear boundaries (on 

the ground).

•	 Minimal impact to wildlife populations in 

the area. No impact to the values for which 

the RNA was designated.

Management Actions

•	 Restrict hunting and trapping to foot traffic 

only; no vehicles or stock use.

•	 Prevent intrusions into the RNA by motorized and mechanized vehicles.

•	 Educate the public to the ecological significance of the RNA and the restrictions 

required to protect the designated natural 

resources.
Resource Management Plan

L-32 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Special Forest Products

Policy and Agency Standards

Commercial or personal harvest of Special 

Forest Products (SFPs) within RNAs, such as 

boughs, burls, fungi, medicinal plants, etc., are 

not compatible with the overall goals to “Preserve 

natural features in as nearly an undisturbed state 

as possible for scientific and educational purposes. 

Natural processes should dominate, although 

deliberate manipulations which simulate natural 

processes are allowed in specific cases.” (USDI 

1987). 

Current Information 

No use permits are currently issued for this area. 

Historical personal use within this area is not well 

documented. No information is available to determine the abundance of SFPs within the RNA. 

Future research within the RNA may require the 

collection of certain animal and plant specimens. 

Issues

•	 The isolation of the area makes enforcing SFP 

collection restrictions difficult. 

Management Action 

•	 Prohibit any commercial or personal use collection of Special Forest Products within the 

RNA. Permits for collection of specimens for 

research will be allowed on a case-by-case 

basis. 

•	 Educate the public as to the ecological 

significance of the RNA and the restrictions 

required to protect the designated natural 

resources.

Interpretation and Research

Policy and Agency Standards

The purpose for RNAs is for research, observation, and study. Studies involving manipulations 

of environmental or vegetation characteristics 

or plant harvest must have prior approval of the 

BLM. 

Goals

•	 Protect the designated values for which the 

RNA was nominated to provide baseline information against which the effects of human 

activities in other areas may be compared.

•	 Provide a site for study of natural processes 

in as undisturbed (by human activities) an 

ecosystem as possible.

Current Information

Oregon Gulch RNA is only accessible on foot, 

which protects it from overuse by the public, 

but also makes it impractical as an interpretive 

or educational site. One of the main objectives 

for RNAs is to provide educational and research 

areas for ecological and environmental studies. 

The following specific research topics have been 

suggested for Oregon Gulch:

•	 Evaluating the effects and the role of domestic livestock grazing on key elements in 

the RNA (plant communities, butterflies, 

and rare plant species) as part of the ongoing 

grazing study.

•	 The role of fire in plant and animal community development, composition, and production.

Other potential areas for research include the effectiveness of prescribed fire and seeding of native 

species in reducing non-native plant species, and 

studies of the effects of prescribed fire or vegetative manipulation on plant community composition, insects, wildlife, or special status plant 

populations.

When researchers plan to use an area, they have 

certain obligations to: 

1. notify the appropriate BLM field office, 

submit a research plan, and obtain permission 

where needed;

2. abide by regulations and management prescriptions applicable to the natural area; and,

3. inform the agency of the research progress, 

published results, and disposition of collected 

materials. (USDI 1986).

Issues

•	 Lack of funding for treatments in RNA’s

•	 Impacts from surrounding land use activities.

Management Actions

•	 Evaluate all proposed research projects and 

approve only those that will not adversely 

affect the RNA’s resources or short- and longterm viability of species.

•	 Maintain a list of projects and research in the 

RNA, including findings and conclusions.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-33

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

•	 Incorporate pertinent new findings from 

research projects into management actions.

•	 Maintain copies of all surveys, inventories, 

monitoring, and activities conducted within 

the RNA.

MONITORING

Definition and Role of Monitoring

Monitoring is defined as a process of repeated 

recording or sampling of similar information for 

comparison to a reference. The role of monitoring 

in Research Natural Areas (RNA) is to collect 

information in order to evaluate if objectives and 

anticipated or assumed results of a management 

plan and management actions are being realized 

or if implementation is proceeding as planned. 

Because monitoring may be so costly as to be 

prohibitive, priority should be given to monitoring mandated by legislation and to focusing 

on management actions aimed at maintaining, 

protecting and restoring key elements, and to 

minimizing disturbance in the RNA (USDI 

1995a). All monitoring activities must include the 

following steps:

•	 Establish monitoring objectives.

•	 Collect baseline information.

•	 Repeat consistent standardized monitoring 

procedures over time.

•	 Interpret monitoring results relative to the 

baseline information and monitoring and 

implementation objectives.

•	 Modify management objective actions and 

monitoring procedures as necessary based 

on reliable monitoring data to continue to 

achieve goals of the RNA.

The monitoring plan should be tailored to the 

unique characteristics of the RNA. Two types of 

monitoring activities are outlined below. Ecological status monitoring is designed to track the 

ecological condition of the natural elements protected within the RNA. Defensibility monitoring 

should detect impacts from outside factors on the 

protected elements in the RNA. These monitoring activities are general in nature and should not 

be used in lieu of more complex research strategies. Detailed monitoring protocols should also 

be developed in conjunction with specific management projects to measure their effectiveness 

in achieving RNA objectives. For each element, 

monitoring objectives, unit and frequency of measurement, responsible personnel, and location for 

data storage are stated.

Ecological Status Monitoring

Ecological status monitoring involves tracking 

species and plant communities relative to the 

stated objectives of the RNA. Ecological status 

monitoring at Oregon Gulch RNA should assess 

the current status of RNA elements and track 

trends or changes over time to determine if any 

RNA values are at risk. Monitoring results provide the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of 

management actions and determining if changes 

are required. Where possible, monitoring within 

the RNA should be tiered to the monitoring for 

the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. 

Element: Plant Associations

Monitoring Objectives: Track successional changes 

in the key RNA plant associations or communities to determine if native species are protected, 

if ecological processes are properly functioning, 

and if RNA management actions are achieving 

desired outcomes. Information collected during 

monitoring provides the basis for making adjustments to management actions. 

Frequency of Measurement: After initial baseline, 

every 5 years.

Responsible Personnel: Botanists, Ecologists, Foresters

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File

Element: Special Status Plants

Monitoring Objectives: Perform formal surveys 

of the RNA for Bureau Special Status Plants. 

Monitor populations of special status plants in 

order to maintain or enhance populations and 

associated habitats. Utilize the RNA to collect 

base-line biological data for sensitive species. 

Evaluate effects from grazing on Green’s mariposa lily.

Unit of Measure: Revisit known sites and record 

population demographics on site reports. As 

part of the grazing study include monitoring of 

Green’s mariposa lily.

Frequency of Measurement: Revisit known sites 

of special status plants every 5 years. 

Responsible Personnel: Botanists
Resource Management Plan

L-34 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File, Medford Rare Plant Database

Element: Special Status Wildlife

Monitoring Objectives: Perform surveys for Special Status Wildlife species and monitor species 

within the RNA in order to maintain or enhance 

populations.

Unit of Measure: Determined by established 

protocols for specific species.

Frequency of Measurement: According to established protocols.

Responsible Personnel: Field Office Lead Wildlife Biologist

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File, Wildlife Database

Element: Fire

Monitoring Objectives: Determine the need to 

restored key plant communities using prescribed 

fire. Perform fuel surveys in key plant communities following established protocols. Monitor 

following prescribed burning results.

Unit of Measure: Determined by established 

wildland burning protocols.

Frequency of Measurement: According to established protocols.

Responsible Personnel: Prescribed Fire Specialists

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File, Fire 

Database

Element: Non-Native Species

Monitoring Objectives: Assess the need for 

management actions to reduce or minimize the 

impact, introduction and/or spread of non-native 

weedy species. Identify problem areas. Collect 

baseline data. Non-native species of concern 

include all currently identified noxious and exotic 

weeds known within the Monument and in the 

adjacent watersheds.

Unit of Measure: Presence/absence and abundance of non-native weedy species by random 

surveys. Target highly susceptible points of invasion (along borders and roads).

Frequency of Measure: Every 5 years; casual 

observations during other site visits.

Responsible Personnel: Botanists, Range Specialists, Ecologists

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File, Medford District Noxious Weed Database

Element: Insects, Diseases Or Pests

Monitoring Objectives: Monitor harmful insects, 

diseases, or pests that could cause long-term negative changes in plant communities, especially the 

mixed conifer/California black oak community. 

Determine if treatments are needed to reduce the 

negative effects of these insects, diseases, or pests.

Unit of Measure: Periodic evaluation of the RNA 

to discover presence/absence and extent of harmful insects, diseases or pests. Initial evaluations 

may be accomplished by walking through the 

RNA, or through photo interpretation.

Frequency of Measurement: Every 5 years or as 

needed based on casual observations during other 

site visits. 

Responsible Personnel: Foresters, Ecologists

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File, Southwest Oregon Insect and Disease Center if appropriate.

Element: Hydrology

Monitoring Objectives: Evaluate hydrological 

conditions (channel stability, erosion, sedimentation, slumping potential, etc.) and riparian vegetation of all streams to determine the functioning condition and need for habitat improvement 

or restoration activities. Monitor the influence 

of grazing on riparian vegetation as part of the 

three-year grazing study.

Unit of Measure: Established riparian stream 

survey protocols.

Frequency of Measurement: Establish baseline, 

then every 10 years.

Responsible Personnel: Hydrologist/Riparian 

Coordinator

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File, Riparian Database

Element: Natural Disturbance

Monitoring Objectives: Document type, extent, 

intensity, and frequency of natural disturbances 

in the RNA and resulting changes in ecosystem 

structure or composition.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-35

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Unit of Measure: Intuitively controlled surveys 

after disturbance, photos of affected plant communities or areas.

Frequency of Measurement: After significant disturbance, wildfires, landslides, insect and disease 

outbreaks.

Responsible Personnel: Botanist, Ecologist and 

Foresters

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File

Defensibility Monitoring

Defensibility monitoring involves on-the-ground 

assessment of factors that affect the manager’s 

ability to protect the Research Natural Area and 

its elements. Considered are current and anticipated land uses within and adjacent to the RNA 

and their potential negative effects on the protected elements or their governing ecological processes. Defensibility monitoring also involves checking for evidence of prohibited use, encroachment 

or degradation within the RNA.

Element: Cultural Resources

Monitoring Objectives: Detect vandalism or 

disturbance to known archeological or historical 

sites at the RNA.

Unit of Measure: Visual assessment to detect 

evidence of disturbance.

Frequency of Measurement: Every 5 years or as 

needed based on observations during periodic site 

visits.

Responsible Personnel: Cultural Resource Manager/ Archaeologist

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File, District 

Archaeology files

Element: Public Use Of RNA 

(camping, hiking, equestrian, trapping, OHVs, 

special forest products, interpretation and research, trespass livestock grazing, timber harvesting).

Monitoring Objectives: Determine if the level of 

public use jeopardizes protection of RNA values 

or key elements. 

Unit of Measure: Observations made during 

other surveys or during periodic site visits. Indications of problem areas include evidence of vehicular use (on or off existing roads in the RNA), 

refuse, signs of campfires or campsites, trampled 

meadows, significant erosion or rutting on or off 

roads. If problems are noted during casual visits 

to the site, conduct more extensive surveys to 

determine if actions should be taken to prevent 

damage to the protected elements.

Frequency Measurement: Every 5 years.

Responsible Personnel: RNA Coordinator

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File

Element: Roads

Monitoring Objectives: Determine condition of 

roads, track erosion and gullying of road surfaces.

Unit of Measure: Subjective evaluation by knowledgeable personnel. Establishment of photopoints of marginal spots to compare condition 

over time.

Frequency of Measurement: Every 5 years during 

periodic site-evaluation visits to the RNA.

Responsible Personnel: RNA Coordinator, Road 

Engineers

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA file

Element: Fences and Gates

Monitoring Objectives: Determine if existing 

fences and gates adequately protect the RNAs 

elements. If not, determine if repairs, additional 

fencing, or gates are needed.

Unit of Measure: Walk fence lines to discover 

broken fences.

Frequency of Measurement: Every 5 years or as 

needed if trespass grazing or excessive OHV use 

is observed during other visits to the site.

Responsible Personnel: Rangeland Specialists, 

Road Engineers

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA file

Element: Grazing

Monitoring Objectives: Determine if permitted 

grazing is maintaining or enhancing key plant 

community elements within the RNA, including Special Status Plants. Meet the intent of the 

overall goals for the RNA. Adjust grazing permit 

accordingly. 
Resource Management Plan

L-36 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Unit of Measure: Establishment of monitoring 

plots following standardized protocols in livestock 

utilized plant communities (grasslands/riparian) within the RNA. Where possible, monitor 

grazing in conjunction with plant community and 

Special Status plant monitoring plots. Establish 

photo-points in areas of concern to compare condition over time.

Frequency of Measurement: Monitor for three 

years as part of the monument grazing study. 

Monitor utilization transects every year that livestock use the RNA. 

Responsible Personnel: Ecologists, Range Specialists, Botanists 

Data Storage: Oregon Gulch RNA File

Historical Attachment for Oregon

Gulch RNA 

Recollections of George Wright:

March 3, 1954, THE WITCHERLY 

RANCH, 666 

“It was probably around 1923 when Louis Miller 

located his homestead at Apple Jack along Jenny 

Creek. Later he bought George A. Grieve’s 

homestead on the north, and located a grazing 

homestead joining on the west.” 

Miller sold his holdings in about 1943 and it’s 

changed hands several times since. “Bert” Dodendoaph bought it from Miller, but about three 

months [later], sold it to Jesse B. Kidwell, who 

had it for a few years, in which time he sold the 

timber and it was logged off, and then sold to 

Jack Stoddard, and after a year or two, Stoddard 

sold to a man by the name of Witcherly, and in 

another year or two sold to George W. McCullum, however, it still seems to go by the name of 

the Witcherly Ranch.

March 4, 1954, OREGON GULCH, 669

“I don’t know how Oregon Gulch got its name. 

It runs into Jenny Creek on the ranch now owned 

by George McCullum, but is still called the 

Witcherly Ranch and heads west from Jenny 

Creek about two miles, on the east end of Skookum [Keene Creek Ridge] Ridge.

There are several place names in the Oregon 

Gulch area, Bark Spring about one half mile on 

the hill north of Oregon Gulch, and near Rose 

Bud, Shady Spring is on the south side, and so is 

Smith’s Camp. Root Spring and Valentine Spring 

is in the south head part, while Rancour’s Homestead and Shake Spring is in the north head 

part, and in the divide that slopes toward Kein 

[Keene] Creek. The Shake Road, which is usually called the Oregon Gulch Road, these days, 

goes through the head of Oregon Gulch, by Root 

Spring and Rancour’s Homestead.

March 7, 1954, SHADY SPRING, 670

South of Oregon Gulch about a quarter of a mile 

or less, is a spring located in a timbered place, and 

sort of a pretty place.

It was about 1921 when Roy Hartwell, his father 

and myself camped there for a few days and made 

some shakes. During the many years that I was 

ranger rider for the Pilot Rock Grazing District I 

salted cattle there.

From the obsidian chips scattered around there 

shows the place was the camping place for the 

Indians before the white man came.

The spring didn’t have any name till about 

twenty-five years ago, when Con G. Mulloy 

and myself were discussing the range and place 

names, and Mulloy suggested that the spring 

should have a name, and that Shady Spring would 

be a good name, because of the shady place where 

the spring is located, and I agreed. 

March 7, 1954, SMITH’S CAMP, 671

Near the upper south part of Oregon Gulch, 

a man by the name of Smith located a timber 

claim, or homestead, probably in 1908 or before. 

He built a log cabin and lived there some, and 

made a lot of posts, and sold them to D. Marshall 

Horn, of Hornbrook, California. Horn hauled 

the posts to his ranch with teams or wagons, with 

four or more horses to the wagon, as was customary with long teams in the early days, they had 

bells on their hames [part of the harness] which 

was there to serve about the same purpose as the 

horns did on the early automobiles, on narrow 

and crooked roads.

The cabin burned many years ago, and the spot 

has grown up with trees and brush till it don’t 
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-37

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

look like anyone has ever lived there, and the 

name Smith’s Camp has been almost forgotten.

March 8, 1954, ROOT SPRING, 672

In the head of Oregon Gulch by the side of the 

Shake Road is a spring that’s been known as Root 

Spring, as far back as I can remember. The spring 

was well named, for there is a tanglement of roots 

around the edge of the spring.

About twenty-five years ago the cattlemen of this 

area sort of boxed the spring in to make it a better 

place for the cattle to drink water, and three years 

ago, some other cattlemen re-boxed the spring 

with new logs in the same manner.

I about 1916 Thos. J Hearn and I camped there 

and made a few shakes near Shake Spring about 

a half mile northward, also about the same place 

and made shakes.

Root Spring is a well-known name place among 

the Cattlemen of this area.

March 7, 1954, BARK SPRING, 673

It was a long time ago when a little group of 

riders of the range dismounted from their horses 

at a spring a little west of Rose Bud not far from 

Oregon Gulch. One of the riders, Robert Bruce 

Grieve cleaned the leaves and mud out of the nice 

cold spring and from a piece of bark from a tree 

he placed there for the water to run out in, hence 

the name, Bark Spring, which is still a popular 

name among cattlemen of the area.

As far back as I can remember there has been a 

little log cabin there, probably someone’s timber 

claim taken before my time.

March 8, 1954, VALENTINE SPRING, 674

Many new calendars have been hung on the 

wall, probably about seventy of them, since a 

little group of buckaroos rode up to a little spring 

in the head of Oregon Gulch. Included in this 

group was Valentine Griffith, my uncle, Wm. A. 

Wright, and my father, Thos. J. Wright. It was 

a dry and hot summer day, and they wanted a 

drink of water. Griffith cleaned the leaves and 

mud from the spring, and they soon had a drink 

of water.

Griffith passed on a dozen or so years ago at the 

age of 86 years. Even in such a short space of 

time, and as well known as he was in this region, as a buckaroo of the days of old, the name 

Griffith is being forgotten as time goes by, but 

his given name, Valentine, still lives among the 

buckaroos of today, as Valentine’s Spring, but few, 

in any, know how the spring got its name.

March 8, 1954, CEDAR SPRING, 675

On the east end of Skookum Ridge, on the south 

slope, a nice spring comes out of the earth in 

a cluster of cedar trees, hence the name Cedar 

Spring, a name well known among the cattlemen.

March 9, 1954, RANCOUR’S HOMESTEAD, 676

During the mid-1920s, Ireane Wehhli, a young 

lady of Ashland, 43 Oregon, located a homestead 

in the head of Oregon Gulch at Shake Spring and 

built a little log cabin there. After a year of two 

she gave it up. In about 1931, George Rancour 

established his homestead there in the same place, 

and built a nice, three-room house from logs. 

He and Mrs. Rancour lived there for about three 

years during the summer months. After he got 

his homestead patent he sold the timber, and the 

place was then logged off. At this time they built 

a road from Kein Creek, which connected with 

the Shake Road to haul logs out on. A year or 

two later, Wade H. Wallis acquired the homestead. After a few years Wallis traded it to the 

United States government, for some land joining 

his ranch along Jenny Creek.

That was a beautiful place before it was logged 

off. It is, however, growing up again, so it don’t 

look as bad as it did.

There used to be some fine timber on the place, 

and in earlier years there were lots of shakes made 

from the sugar pine trees. Shake Springs is located there, which was usually the camping place 

of the people while they were making shakes. The 

shakes were hauled by team and wagons over the 

Shake Road to their ranches and homesteads.

March 10, 1954, SHAKE SPRING, 677

Up till the mid 1930s the end of the road going 

north to Oregon Gulch, known as the Shake 

Road, ended at Shake Spring. In the mid-1930s a 

logging road was built from Kein Creek, to Shake 
Resource Management Plan

L-38 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Spring, or Rancour’s Homestead, and connected 

on the Shake Road.

Shake Spring was the camping place for ranchers 

and homesteaders in the early days, while they 

were making shakes to cover their buildings with. 

Shake Springs was located in the timber and was 

a pretty spot to camp. In about 1916, I camped 

there with Thos. J. Hearn and made some shakes, 

and a little later, Walter Herzog and I camped 

there and make shakes. At this time Herzog 

went hunting, and killed a deer, and of course, 

killed it to eat. He made one of his favorite mulligan stews, in it was several different kinds of 

vegetables, and the parts of the deer, liver, lungs, 

kidney, heart and brains went in too. That was 

his way of making stew, cooked in an old iron 

kettle over a camp fire, it was a pretty good stew. 

Herzog was a good game shot with his old 38-55 

Ballard single shot rifle.

Also during the early 1920s Roy Hartwell, his 

father, and I camped there and made shakes.

I believe it was in 1888 when Mr. and Mrs. Thos. 

J. Hearn were camping at Shake Springs to make 

shakes. With their little baby daughter in her 

cradle at camp, they left for an hour or two a few 

hundred yards away to make shakes, and while 

returning on a cattle trail they saw the tracks of 

a cougar made minutes before, heading for camp. 

They hurried to camp and found the baby unharmed, although the cougar tracks were within a 

few feet of the cradle holding their baby daughter.

May 15, 1954, ROSE BUD, 684

Rose Bud is a large knoll, or sort of a butte, west 

of what used to be the Wallis Ranch. There is 

quiet a lot of bluffy places on the south and east 

sides.

A number of years ago John H. Miller reported 

finding a rattlesnake den there in the rocks while 

he was hunting deer. No wonder, for it is an ideal 

place for rattlesnake dens.

I don’t know how the place got its name. Its been 

called Rose Bud as far back as I can remember, 

however, in late years, some people call it “Rose 

Bush.”
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP L-39

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

References

Agee, J.K. (1990). The historical role of fire in the

Pacific Northwest. Walstad, J.D., Rodosevich, S.R., Sanberg, D.V. (eds). Natural Fire 

in Pacific Northwest Forests. Corvallis (OR): 

Oregon State University Press. 25-58 p. 

Agee, J.K., Huff, M.H. (2000). The role of 

prescribed fire in restoring ecosystem health 

and diversity in Southwestern Oregon. In: 

Report to PNW Research Station Directors 

Office. Northwest Forest Plan Issue. University Of Washington. Seattle, WA.

Alexander, J.D. (1999). Baseline inventory of 

breeding birds in the Oregon Gulch and 

Scotch Creek Research Natural Areas, and 

the Agate Flat Area of the Cascade/Siskiyou 

Ecological Emphasis Area. Unpublished report. Medford (OR): Ashland Resource Area, 

Medford District, Bureau of Land Management.

Atzet, T., Wheeler, D.L. (1982). Historical and

ecological perspectives on fire activity in the 

Klamath geological province of the Rogue 

River and Siskiyou National Forests. Pub. 

R-6-Range-102 ed. Portland (OR): U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region. 

Bjornn, T.C., Reiser, D.W. (1991). Habitat 

requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Influences of forest and rangeland management 

on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Meehan WR, editor. Bethesda (MD): American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication No.19.

pp. 83 -138. 

Franklin, J.F., Dyrness, C.T. (1988). Natural 

vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis (OR): Oregon State University Press. 

452 p.

Miller, P. (1999). Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area: Plant community associations. 

Unpublished report. Medford (OR): Ashland 

Resource Area, Medford District, Bureau of 

Land Management. 16 p.

Nelson, K. (1997). Terrestrial vertebrate fauna 

survey of the Soda Mountain Region of 

Southwestern Oregon. [MSc Project]. Ashland: Southern Oregon University. 88 p.

Oregon Climate Services. (2000). Overview of 

the PRISM Model. Internet. [http://www.

ocs.orst.edu/prism/overview.html]

ONHAC (Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory 

Council). (1998). Oregon Natural Heritage 

Plan. Salem (OR): State Land Board. 138 p.

Oregon Natural Heritage Program. (2004). Rare, 

threatened, and endangered plants and 

animals of Oregon. Portland (OR): Oregon 

Natural Heritage Program. 

Parker, M. (1999). Aquatic survey of Oregon 

Gulch, Skookum, Camp, Dutch Oven, 

Scotch and Slide Creeks. Unpublished report. 

Medford (OR): Ashland Resource Area, 

Medford District, Bureau of Land Management. 12 p.

Pater, D.E., Bryce, S.A., Thorson, T.D., Kagan, 

J., Chapell, C., Omernick, J.M., Azevedo, 

S.H., Woods, A.J. (1997a). Ecoregions of 

Western Washington and Oregon. Map and 

descriptive text. 1 p. Available from: J.M. 

Omernick, Corvallis (OR): Environmental 

Protection Agency.

Pater, D.E., Bryce, S.A., Thorson, T.D., Kagan, 

J., Chapell, C., Omernick, J.M., Azevedo, 

S.H., Woods, A.J. (1997b). Summary table: 

characteristics of ecoregions of Western 

Washington and Oregon. 1 p. Available from: 

JM Omernick, Corvallis (OR): Environmental Protection Agency.

P.N.W. (1991). Pacific Northwest Interagency 

Natural Area Committee: A Guide for 

developing Natural Area Management and 

Monitoring Plans. Unpublished Document. 

Medford (OR): Ashland Resource area, 

Medford District, Bureau of Land Management. 52 p.

Pullen, R.(1996). Overview of the environment of 

native inhabitants of southwest Oregon, late 

prehistoric era. Unpublished Report. USDA, 
Resource Management Plan

L-40 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix L—Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area Management Plan

Rogue River, Siskiyou, Umpqua National 

Forests; USDI, Medford District, BLM.

Rosgen, D. (1996). Applied river morphology. 

Minneapolis (MN): Media Companies.

356 p.

Runquist, E. (1999). Butterfly community surveys

in the soda mountain region, Jackson County, 

Oregon. Unpublished report. Medford (OR): 

Medford District, Bureau of Land Management. 27 p.

St. John, A.D. (1984). The herpetology of Jackson 

and Josephine Counties, Oregon. Technical Report #84-2-05, Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Wildlife 

Program.78 p.

Schaaf, D.V. (1990). Letter to Rich Drehobl. 

Ashland Resource Area Manager, Medford 

BLM, from Dick Vander Schaaf, The Nature 

Conservancy, Nominating Oregon Gulch as 

an RNA. On file, Oregon Gulch Files, Medford (OR), Ashland Resource Area, Medford 

District, Bureau of Land Management. 3 p. 

Smith, J.G., Page, J., Johnson, M.G., Moring, 

B.C., Gray, F. (1982). Preliminary geological map of the Medford 10

 X 20 Quadrangle, 

Oregon and California. Washington (DC): 

USDI, USGS. 1 sheet.

Trail, P. (1999). Birds of the Soda Mountain 

Region, Oregon and California. Unpublished 

bird list. Medford (OR): Rogue Valley Audubon Society. 3 p.

Thomas, T.L., Agee, J.K. (1986). Prescribed fire 

effects on mixed conifer forest structure at Crater Lake, Oregon. Can J Forestry Res. 16(5): 

1082-1086.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. (1993). Soil 

Survey of Jackson County Area, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (1995). Federal Wildland 

Management Policy and Program Review. 

Final Report.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1986). 

Instructional Memorandum No. OR-87-112. 

Research Natural Area Management Policy 

and Discussion Paper for RNA Management. 

Medford, (OR): Medford District Office, 

Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1987). 

1623 - Supplemental Program Guidance for 

Land Resources. Portland (OR): Oregon 

State Office, Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1989). Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern Nomination for Oregon Gulch Research Natural 

Area. Medford (OR): Medford District, 

Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1994). 

Proposed Medford District Resource Management Plan. Medford (OR): Medford 

District, Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1995a). 

Medford District Record of Decision and 

Resource Management Plan. Medford (OR): 

Medford District, Bureau of Land Management. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1995b). 

Jenny Creek Watershed Assessment and 

Analysis. Medford (OR): Medford District, 

Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1997). 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for 

Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management in the States of Oregon 

and Washington.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1999). 

Jenny Creek Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. Medford (OR): Medford District, 

Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (2000). 

Klamath-Iron Gate Watershed Analysis. 

Medford (OR): Medford District, Bureau of 

Land Management.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1988). 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

through the 100th Congress.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP M-1

Appendix M—Special Status Species

appendix m

special status species

special status plant species

The monument’s unique geology, climate, and 

topography contribute to the presence of many 

rare and endemic plants. The region including 

and surrounding the monument has one of the 

highest rates of plant endemism in the United 

States (The Nature Conservancy 2000). The 

monument contains known populations of 33 

plant species that are on the current Special 

Status Species list (Table M-1), including 

Gentner’s fritillary, which is listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Occurrences of special species plants are documented in grasslands, chaparral, oak woodlands, conifer communities, rocky openings, 

vernal pools, seeps, and riparian areas within 

the Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA) and in the 

Old-Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA). Open 

grasslands, chaparral and oak woodlands, and 

conifer communities blend into a mosaic on the 

landscape, providing a diversity of habitats for 

groups of special species plants. As a result, many 

of these communities are spread out across the 

landscape.

Some special status species are known for fairly 

specific habitats: California milkvetch (Astragalus californicus) occurs only in open grasslands; 

the rare fungi Plectani milleri, and Bondarzewia 

mesenterica occur only in white fir communities; 

Coralseed popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys figuratus 

spp. corallicarpus) is found only in vernal pools 

and meadows; and a terrestrial orchid, clustered 

lady’s slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum), is found 

in old growth Douglas-fir in the monument, 

often under older madrone and canyon live oak. 

Other special status plant species can be found 

in several different types of communities, or are 

found in transitional zones between different 

community types. Species like Gentner’s fritillary 

is known from mixed evergreen, oak woodlands, 

and chaparral and grassland edges. Greene’s 

mariposa lily (Calochortus greenei) can be found 

in Oregon white oak-western juniper/wedgeleaf 

ceanothus-klamath plum communities, Ponderosa pine-white oak/savanna , and on the margin 

of open grasslands in heavy clay soils (now often 

dominated by annual grasses). Some species occur 

in microsites within larger, more discrete communities. Special status plant species like Nemacladus 

capillaris, Monardella glauca and Hieracium greenei

are documented in “rocky openings” within many 

different community types. Thus, management 

activities within grasslands, riparian areas, oak 

woodlands, mixed conifer and old growth conifer communities have the potential to influence 

special status plant species.

In 2004, the Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

re-evaluated all rare Oregon plants and fungi. A 

few species documented for the monument were 

dropped, and no longer have ONHP or Bureau 

status. These species were left on the following 

table for reference as they are still found in the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

©1975 Dr. Alfred Brousseau, St. Mary’s College, of California

Tracy’s peavine.

Greene’s mariposa lily.
Resource Management Plan

M-2 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix M—Special Status Species

Table M-1. Overview of Curent Special Status Plant Species within the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument. 

BS=Bureau Sensitive BA=Bureau Assessment BT=Bureau Tracking FE=Federally Endangered

Species Status Habitat Emphasis 

Area

Number of 

Sites1

Documented 

Individuals

Astragalus californicus 

(California milk-vetch) BA Grassland DEA 15 972

Asarum wagneri 

(green-flowered ginger) BT Moist Conifer OGEA 1 Unknown

Boletus pulcherrimus BS White fir OGEA 1 Unknown

Bondarzewia mesenterica

(Bondarzew’s polypore) Dropped White fir OGEA 1 Unknown

Calochortus greenei

(Greene’s mariposa lily) BS Oak Woodlands–Chaparral DEA 1102 13,355

Carex livida

(livid sedge) BA Riparian–Meadow DEA 1 20

Carex praticola

(meadow sedge) BT Riparian–Wet Meadow DEA 1 45

Carex sarratodens

(two-tooth sedge) BA Riparian–Wet Meadow DEA 1 30

Cirsium ciliolatum

(Ashland thistle) BS Grassland–Oak Woodlands DEA 18 10,327

Cypripedium fasciculatum

(clustered lady’s slipper) BA Mixed Conifer OGEA 2 48

Cypripedium montanum

(mountain lady’s slipper) BT

Mixed Conifer–

Evergreen–Oak 

Woodland

OGEA

DEA 10 246

Delphinium nudicale

(red larkspur) BA Rock Outcrop OGEA 1 10,000

Fritillaria gentneri

(Gentner’s fritillary) FE

Mixed Conifer–

Oak Woodland–

Mountain Mahogany Chaparral

DEA 22 368

Fritillaria glauca

(Siskiyou fritillary) BA

Dry, Open 

Rocky Ridgeline 

with Mountain 

Mahogany

DEA 7 315

Hackelia bella

(greater showy stickweed) BA

Riparian–Grassy 

Meadows–

Openings in 

White fir

OGEA 23 896

Hieracium greenei

(Greene’s hawkweek) BT

Dry, Open 

Ponderosa Pine 

Ridgelines

DEA 1 7

Iliamna bakeri

(Baker’s wild hollyhock) BS White fir Openings OGEA 4 9
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP M-3

Appendix M—Special Status Species

Table M-1. Overview of Curent Special Status Plant Species within the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument. 

BS=Bureau Sensitive BA=Bureau Assessment BT=Bureau Tracking FE=Federally Endangered

Species Status Habitat Emphasis 

Area

Number of 

Sites1

Documented 

Individuals

Enemion stipitatum 

[Isopyrum stipitatum]

(Siskiyou false rue-anemone

BT

Grassland–Oak 

Woodlands with 

Ceanothus

DEA 28 177,530

Lathyrus lanzwertii tracyi

(Tracy’s peavine) BT

Oak Woodland–

Mountain 

Mahogany 

Chaparral

DEA 3 64

Limnanthes floccosa 

bellingeriana

(Bellinger’s meadowfoam)

BS Wet Meadows–

Vernal Pools

DEA 

(moist 

meadows 

in OGEA)

11 16,151

Mimulus kelloggii

(Kellogg’s monkeyflower) BT Moist Microsites in Oak Woodland DEA 1 100

Microseris laciniata detlingii

(Detling’s silverpuffs) BS Grasslands–Oak Woodlands DEA 21 2,212,193

Monardella glauca

(pale monardella) BT

Open Mixed 

Conifer–Rocky 

Openings

OGEA 1 Unknown

Nemacladus capillaris

(common threadplant) BA Rocky Openings in Mixed Conifer OGEA 4 4,705

Perideridia howellii

(Howell’s false-caraway) Dropped

Wet Meadows, 

Moist Slopes, 

Riparian

DEA

OGEA 11 101,034

Plagiobothrys austinae

(Austin’s popcorn flower) BA Grassy Meadows–Vernal Pools DEA 1 10

Plagiobothrys figuratus 

corallicarpus (coral seeded 

popcorn flower)

BS Grassy Meadows–

Vernal Pools DEA 4 14,500

Plectania milleri

(Miller’s cup fungus) BT White fir OGEA 4 Unknown

Poa rhizomata

(rhizome bluegrass) BA Grassland–Oak Woodlands DEA 10 3,340

Ranunculus austro-oreganus

(Southern Oregon 

buttercup)

BS

Grassland–Oak 

Woodlands–

Chaparral

DEA 1 2,000

Ribes inerme klamathense

(Klamath gooseberry) BT Riparian–Moist Meadow Edge DEA 3 25

Solanum parishii

(Parish’s nightshade) BA Oak–Pine Woodlands–Chaparral DEA 3 20

Tremiscus helvelliodes Dropped White fir OGEA 1 Unknown

1

Based on 2004 data from the BLM Medford Rare Plant Database. 2

Does not include 20 new sites documented in 2003 by non-government surveys that report to have over 3,000 plants.
Resource Management Plan

M-4 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix M—Special Status Species

special status animal species

Terrestrial Wildlife

The diverse plant communities, varied topography, and broad range of climatic zones come 

together to foster a diverse assemblage of terrestrial wildlife species. The monument is home to 

44 animal species that are on the current special 

status species list (Table M-2).

Some special status animal species occupy welldefined habitat areas (e.g. Oregon spotted frog 

(Rana pretiosa) occurs only in association with 

ponds or lakes). Other species range widely 

across the landscape, utilizing a variety of habitats. For example, great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) 

choose nest sites in late-successional and oldgrowth conifer stands while foraging in meadows 

and other open areas, as well as traveling 10 miles 

or more and utilizing a variety of habitat including oak savannah, and mixed conifer. 

Management activities across all habitat types 

have the potential to affect terrestrial wildlife 

species. 

Table M-2. Terrestrial Wildlife Species Documented or Likely to Occur in the Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument. BS=Bureau Sensitive BA=Bureau Assessment BT=Bureau Tracking 

FE=Federally Endangered FT=Federally Threatened FC=Federal Candidate

Species Status

Melanerpes formicivorus (acorn woodpecker) BT

Falco peregrinus anatum (American perigrine falcon) BS

Martes americana (American marten) BT

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) FT

Columba fasciata (band-tailed pigeon) BT

Aneides flavipunctatus (black salamander) BA

Lampropeltis zonata (California mountain kingsnake) BT

Myotis californicus (California myotis) BT

Rana cascadae (Cascade frog) BT

Lampropeltis getula (common kingsnake) BT

Chordeiles minor (common nighthawk) BT

Speyeria coronis coronis (Coronis fritillary butterfly) BT

Martes pennanti pacifica (fisher) FC

Otus flammeolus (flammulated owl) BS

Rana boylii (foothill yellow-legged frog) BA

Myotis thysanodes (fringed myotis) BA

Strix nebulosa (great gray owl) BT

Grus canadensis (greater sandhill crane) BT

Laiurus cinereus (hoary bat) BT

Polites mardon klamathensis (Klamath mardon skipper) FC

Melanerpes lewis (Lewis’ woodpecker) BS

Myotis evotis (long-eared myotis) BT

Myotis volans (long-legged myotis) BT

Oreortyx pictus (mountain quail) BT

Accipiter gentilis (northern goshawk) BS

Glaucidium gnoma (northern pygmy owl) BT

Sceloporus graciosus graciosus (northern sagebrush lizard) BT

Strix occidentalis caurina (northern spotted owl) FT
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP M-5

Appendix M—Special Status Species

Table M-2. Terrestrial Wildlife Species Documented or Likely to Occur in the Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument. BS=Bureau Sensitive BA=Bureau Assessment BT=Bureau Tracking 

FE=Federally Endangered FT=Federally Threatened FC=Federal Candidate

Species Status

Clemmys marmorata marmorata (northwestern pond turtle) BS

Contopus cooperi (olive-sided flycatcher) BT

Helminthoglypta hertleini (Oregon shoulderband) BS

Antrozous pallidus pacificus (Pacific pallid bat) BA

Dryocopus pileatus (pileated woodpecker) BT

Sitta pygmaea (pygmy nuthatch) BT

Bassariscus astutus (ringtail) BT

Lasionycteris noctivagans (silver-haired bat) BT

Rana pretiosa (spotted frog) FC

Corinorhynus townsendii (Townsend’s big-eared bat) BS

Siala mexicana (western bluebird) BT

Sciurus griseus (western gray squirrel) BT

Stunella neglecta (western meadowlark) BT

Bufo boreas (western toad) BT

Dendrocopos albolarvatus (white-headed woodpecker) BS

Empidonax traillii adastus (willow flycatcher) BT

Myotis yumanensis (Yuma myotis) BT

Aquatic Wildlife

The monument is home to a variety of aquatic 

organisms including several special status species: 

Jenny Creek redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss 

spp.) a BLM special status species, Jenny Creek 

sucker (Catostomus rimiculus) a BLM special status 

species, and Fredenberg pebblesnail (Fluminicola

n. sp. 17), Nerite pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 

10), Toothed pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 11), 

Diminutive Pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 12), 

Fall Creek pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 14), 

Keene Creek pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 16), 

all Bureau Sensitive Species in Oregon. 
M-6 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP N-1

Appendix N—Fire Suppression Tactics Resource Management Plan

APPENDIx N

fiRe SuPPReSSiON TACTiCS

During suppression activities on all BLM lands 

within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (CSNM) the following guidelines would be

followed:

•	 BLM resource advisors will be dispatched 

to all fires that occur on BLM land. These 

resource advisors are utilized to ensure that 

suppression forces are aware of all sensitive areas and to ensure a minimum 

of damage to resources as a 

result of suppression efforts.

•	 During fire suppression 

activities it may be necessary to open decommissioned roads or 

construct roads with 

a dozer. Where 

emergency actions 

are required for 

fire suppression, a 

project inspector, 

in consultation 

with a resource 

advisor, will be 

the on-the-ground 

BLM representative authorized to 

permit opening 

decommissioned 

roads or constructing roads within the 

monument.

•	 When feasible, existing roads or trails will be 

used as a starting point for 

burn-out or backfire operations designed to stop fire spread. 

Backfires will be designed to minimize fire effects on habitat. Natural barriers 

will be used whenever possible and fires will 

be allowed to burn to them. 

•	 In the construction of fire lines, minimum 

width and depth will be used to stop the 

spread of fire. The use of dozers would be 

minimized and resource advisors will give 

approval of the use of dozers. 

•	 Dozer line will not be constructed within or 

along stream channels or dry draws. If dozer 

line construction is proposed within riparian 

areas, it would be perpendicular to stream 

channels or dry draws and the resource 

advisor would be consulted prior to line 

construction. Hand line may be used parallel 

to stream channels and dry draws; however, 

hand line should be constructed as far as possible from the main channel. 

•	 Live fuels will be cut or limbed only to the 

extent needed to stop fire spread. 

•	 The felling of snags and live trees will only 

occur when they pose a safety hazard or 

will cause a fire to spread across the 

fire line.

•	 The construction of 

helispots should be minimized 

and all helispots will be 

approved by the resource 

advisor. Past locations or 

natural openings should 

be used when possible. 

Helispots will not be 

constructed within riparian reserves or areas 

of special concern.

•	 Retardant or 

foam will not be 

dropped on surface 

waters, riparian reserves, or on occupied 

spotted owl or eagle 

nests.

•	 Resource advisors will determine 

rehabilitation needs and 

standards in order to reduce 

the impacts associated with 

fire suppression efforts.

•	 Properly designed and 

adequately spaced water bars would 

be constructed on all fire lines at the 

completion of fire suppression activities.

In addition to the guidelines described above, 

several areas have been identified where suppression methods will be limited to provide additional 

protection for these areas. Maps identifying these 

areas are made available to suppression forces before the start of each fire season. Areas of special 

concern which require specific fire suppression 

tactics or limit tactics within the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument are displayed in Table 

First fire in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument following des

na

on

ti . ig
Resource Management Plan

N-2 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix N—Fire Suppression Tactics

N-1. Fire suppression guidelines for the Soda 

Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA) are as 

follows:

•	 Protection agencies will notify the BLM 

immediately when a fire is reported in, or has 

the potential to enter the WSA.

•	 A BLM resource advisor shall be dispatched 

to all fires within the WSA. This individual 

will assist in identifying threatened resource, 

cultural, or social values within the WSA, 

and will act as a liaison between the protection agency and the BLM Medford District.

•	 Earth moving equipment shall not be used 

without prior approval of the Medford 

District Manager. This authority may not be 

delegated and there will be no exceptions.

•	 Fire lines will be located to take advantage 

of natural barriers such as rock outcrops, 

streams, and changes in vegetation.

•	 Unburned material may be left inside the fire 

line. All such material will be felt/tested with 

bare hands to ensure no sparks or glowing 

embers remain. Limbs, logs or other material 

turned parallel to the slope to prevent rolling 

will be placed or scattered to resemble natural 

conditions.

•	 Water barring of fire lines will be done to 

prevent accelerated erosion.

•	 Limbing of trees adjacent to fire lines will be 

done only if needed for fire suppression and/

or fire fighter safety.

•	 Burning snags or trees will only be felled 

when they pose a definite threat to the 

containment of the fire or the safety of fire 

fighters.

•	 Logs within the proposed fire line location 

will be rolled out of their beds. If rolling is 

not possible fire lines shall be constructed 

around these logs where possible.

•	 Helispots should use natural openings where 

only minimal improvements are necessary, 

and should be constructed outside the WSA 

when possible.

•	 With the exception of removing obstructions, trails and waterways should not be 

improved. If improvement is necessary they 

should be restored to pre-fire conditions if 

possible.

•	 Fire engines and other non-earth moving equipment used in suppression efforts 

should use existing roads adjacent to the 

WSA. When this is not feasible, efforts shall 

be taken to minimize crossings of streams, 

springs or wet areas. Steep slopes should be 

avoided.

•	 Use of fire retardant may be used except on 

surface waters or in riparian reserves. 

Table N-1. Fire Suppression Tactics for Designated Special Management Areas within the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

Designation Fire Suppression Tactics

Owl Core Areas •	 Protect nest tree and adjacent trees from felling or any type of damage.

•	 Minimize fire damage to owl core areas.

Archaeological Sites •	 No use of dozer or handline construction throughout the sites.

Scotch Creek and 

Oregon Gulch RNAs

•	 Confine use of vehicles to existing roads adjacent to the RNAs.

•	 No use of dozers within Reasearch Natural Area boundaries.

Bean Cabin •	 Minimize disturbance to this historical site.

Pacific Crest Trail

•	 Minimize impacts from suppression efforts to trail and to the immediate 

area that is visible from the trail.

•	 Allow fire to burn across the trail and in surrounding area rather than 

constructing dozer lines to suppress fire.

Mariposa Lily 

Botanical Area

•	 Confine use of vehicles to existing roads.

•	 No use of tractors within the boundary of the preserve.

•	 No handline construction through areas where mariposa lily populations 

are located.

Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Study Area •	 Refer to the suppression guidelines following this table.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP O-1

Appendix O—Existing Withdrawals, Linear and Site Authorizations

appendix o

Existing withdrawals, linear and site authorizations

in the cascade-siskiyou national monument

Soda Mountain Lookout.

Powerlines on 

Chinquapin Mountain.

Pinehurst School.

Soda Mountain Communication Site.
Resource Management Plan

O-2 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix O—Existing Withdrawals, Linear and Site Authorizations

Table O-1. Existing Withdrawals in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

Authority Acres1 Purpose Effect Recommendation

Public Land Order No. 3869 444.35 Recreation Site B Continue

Water Power Designation 3 5,631.54 Water Power C Revoke

Water Power Designation 13 127.27 Water Power C Revoke

Power Site Classification 218 1,482.21 Power Site C Revoke

Power Site Reserve 583 1,799.03 Power Site C Revoke

Power Site Reserve 584 160.00 Power Site C Revoke

Power Site Reserve 649 Unknown Power Site C Revoke

Federal Power Commission, 

Order #2082 Unknown Power Project B Continue

Public Land Order No. 5490, 

as modified by Public Land 

Order No. 7043

All Public Domain 

(PD) Lands

Multiple Use 

Management B Revoke

1

Acreage figures are for the entire area included in the withdrawal. Some of the withdrawals include acreage outside the 

greater CSNM.

B: Withdrawn from operations of the General Land and Mining Laws.

C: Withdrawn from operation of the General Land Law.
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP O-3

Appendix O—Existing Withdrawals, Linear and Site Authorizations

Table O-2. Linear and Site Authorizations in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

OR/ORE # Holder Type of Use Remarks

20137 Qwest Communication Site

34999 Oregon Highway Department Communication Site

36203 COBI1 Communication Site with sub-lease

38053 PP&L Communication Site

44980 ODF Lookout and 

Communication Site with sub-lease

48563 AT&T Wireless Communication Site with sub-lease

49604 US Cellular Communication Site

54336 SOU (JPR)2 Communication Site with sub-lease

17317 PP&L Utility Line

20544 PP&L Transmission Line 19 (115 kV)

24416 PP&L Transmission Line 59 (230 kV)

24876 Qwest Utility Line

34269 Qwest Utility Line

37585 R. Taylor Ditch

42014 US Sprint Fiber Optic Line

43005 S. Young Water Line

43975 AT&T Fiber Optic Line

45363 L. Tynes Road Private Access Road

46542 PP&L Fiber Optic Line

47421 MCI Road Soda Mountain Road

47454 PP&L Utility Line

48560 PP&L Utility Line

50516 C. & M. McLaughlin Road BLM Road #40-3E-3

54223 M. George/K. Freeman Road Soda Mountain Road

0497 Qwest Utility Line

03235 R. Taylor Water Facility

06939 Bureau of Reclamation Canal & Laterals Serves Talent 

Irrigation District

013754 Oregon Highway Department Interstate Highway I-5

R011947 Qwest Utility Line

R022462 Oregon Highway Department State Highway Old Highway 99

R023045 Oregon Highway Department Interstate Highway I-5

5439 Qwest Utility Line

13745 PP&L Transmission 500 kV Line

14956 Qwest Utility Line

18550 SOPTV3 Communication Site Chesnut Mountain

1

California-Oregon Broadcasting, Inc.

2

Southern Oregon University, Jefferson Public Radio

3

Southern Oregon Public Television

AR @ Roseburg General Land Office (GLO) cases
Resource Management Plan

O-4 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Appendix O—Existing Withdrawals, Linear and Site Authorizations

Table O-2. Linear and Site Authorizations in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

OR/ORE # Holder Type of Use Remarks

23467 State of Oregon Communication Site Chesnut Mountain

24498 M. McLaughlin Water Line

35917 Qwest Utility Line

36695 Qwest Utility Line

36784 State of Oregon Airport Lease Pinehurst Airstrip

37836 M. McLaughlin Water Line

41384 G. Willey Road

42492 Corral Creek Homeowner’s 

Association Road

44943 D. Rowlett Agricultural Lease

44944 D. Rowlett Road

45379 Bureau of Reclamation Canal

45385 D. Cleland Road

45495 Roskamp Services Water Line

45999 K. Stark Road

46052 C. Russell Road

46135 J. Walt Road

48248 D. Rowlett Ditch

49214 D. Ragnell Road

49413 E. Milsom Road

50516 M. McLaughlin Road

50673 Roskamp Services Road

50687 H. Cassells Road

53772 D. Reisinger Road

53615 L. Scheer Water Line

56788 E. Coker Road

56941 J. Impara Road

57141 C. Harrison Road

57804 L. Davoli Road

03490 PacifiCorp Utility Line

05569 Qwest Communication Site Chesnut Mountain

05609 PacifiCorp Utility Line

61478 A.M. Fields Event Permit Sundance Group

06936 Bureau of Reclamation Canal and Laterals

012019 PacifiCorp Utility Line

013626 Pinehurst School Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act Lease Elementary School

1

California-Oregon Broadcasting, Inc.

2

Southern Oregon University, Jefferson Public Radio

3

Southern Oregon Public Television

AR @ Roseburg General Land Office (GLO) cases
Resource Management Plan

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP O-5

Appendix O—Existing Withdrawals, Linear and Site Authorizations

Table O-2. Linear and Site Authorizations in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

OR/ORE # Holder Type of Use Remarks

013794 Oregon Highway Department Maintenance Facility Highway 66

R014637 Bureau of Reclamation Hyatt Reservoir

36860 R. Taylor (originally C. Taylor) Road

63122 D. Kemry Road

60776 I. Smith Road

1

California-Oregon Broadcasting, Inc.

2

Southern Oregon University, Jefferson Public Radio

3

Southern Oregon Public Television

AR @ Roseburg General Land Office (GLO) cases
O-6 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Glossary of Terms

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP Glos-1

glossary of terms

a

Access Agreements: (a) Generally construed to 

mean a Reciprocal Rights-of-Way agreements. 

It is an exchange of grants between the United 

States and a permittee, which provides for each 

party using the other’s roads or constructing roads 

over the other’s lands; (b) the rights granted to the 

United States through the purchase of a Rightsof-Way easements.

Adaptive Management: A systematic process 

to better achieve management objectives 

and practices by learning from the outcomes 

of operational programs. It’s most effective 

form, “active” adaptive management employs 

management programs that are designed to 

experimentally compare selected policies or 

practices, by evaluating alternative hypotheses 

about the system being managed.

Air Quality: A measure of the health-related and 

visual characteristics of the air often derived from 

quantitative measurements of the concentrations 

of specific injurious or contaminating substances.

Air Quality Class I and II Areas: Regions in 

attainment areas where maintenance of existing 

good air quality is of high priority. Class I areas 

are those that have the most stringent degree of 

protection from future degradation of air quality. 

Class II areas permit moderate deterioration of 

existing air quality.

Allocation: Process to specifically assign use 

between and rationing among competing users 

for a particular area of public land or related 

waters.

Allotment: An area allocated for livestock use by 

one or more qualified grazing lessees including 

prescribed numbers and kinds of livestock under 

one plan of management.

Allotment Management Plan (AMP): A 

written program of livestock grazing management 

including supportive measures, if required. An 

AMP is designed to attain specific management 

goals in a grazing allotment and is prepared 

cooperatively with the lessee(s).

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV): All-terrain vehicle; 

42” width or smaller. A small, amphibious motor 

vehicle with wheels or tractor treads for travelling over rough ground, snow, or ice, as well as on 

water.

Alternative: One of at least two proposed means 

of accomplishing planning objectives.

Animal Unit Month (AUM): The amount of forage required to sustain the equivalent of one cow 

and a calf for one month.

Aquatic: Living or growing in or on the water.

Archaeological Site: A geographic locale that 

contains the material remains of prehistoric and/

or historic human activity (See also Historic Site). 

Archaeology: The scientific study of the life and 

culture of past, especially ancient, peoples, as by 

excavation of ancient cities, relics, artifacts, etc.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC): An area of public lands where special 

management attention is required to protect and 

prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife 

resources, or other natural systems or processes, 

or to protect life and/or provide safety from 

natural hazards.

Assessment: A form of evaluation based on the 

standards of rangeland health, conducted by an 

interdisciplinary team at the appropriate landscape scale (pasture, allotment, sub-watershed, 

watershed, etc.) To determine conditions relative 

to standards.

Authorized Officer: Any person authorized 

by the Secretary to the Interior to administer 

regulations. 

Awns: A more or less stiff bristle on the bracts 

or scales within a grass inflorescence, usually a 

prolongation of a nerve.
Glossary of Terms

Glos-2 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

b

Best Management Practices (BMPs):

Methods and/or measures, selected on the 

basis of site specific conditions, to ensure that 

water quality will be maintained at its highest 

practicable level. BMPs are not limited to 

structural and nonstructural controls, and 

procedures for operations and maintenance. 

BMPs can be applied before and after pollutionproducing activities to reduce or eliminate the 

introduction of pollutants into receiving waters 

(40 CFR 130.2, EPA Water Quality Standards 

Regulations). 

Biodiversity: The variety of life and its processes, 

and the interrelationships within and among 

various levels of ecological organization. Conservation, protection, and restoration of biological 

species and genetic diversity are needed to sustain 

the health of existing biological systems. Federal 

resource management agencies must examine the 

implications of management actions and development decisions on regional and local biodiversity.

C

Casual Use: Activities ordinarily resulting in 

negligible disturbance of federal lands and resources. 

Connectivity: A measure of the extent to which 

conditions among late-successional and oldgrowth forest areas provide habitat for breeding, 

feeding, dispersal, and movement of wildlife and 

fish species associated within late successional and 

old-growth forests. 

Consultation: Formal consultation is a process 

that occurs between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and a federal agency 

that commences with the federal agency’s written 

request for consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of 

the Endangered Species Act regarding a federal 

action which may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat. It concludes with the issuance of 

the biological opinion under Section 7(b)(3) of the 

Act. Informal consultation is an optional process 

that includes all discussions, correspondence, etc., 

between the USFWS or NMFS and the federal 

agency, or the designated non-federal representative, prior to formal consultation, if required. If 

the listing agency determines that there is no 

likely adverse affect to the listed species, it may 

concur with the action agency that formal consultation is unnecessary.

Cubic feet-per-second (cfs): As a rate of stream 

flow, a cubic foot of water passing a referenced 

section in one second of time. 

Cultural Resources: Those resources of historical 

and archaeological significance.

Cumulative Effects: Those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect 

of the action when added to past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency or person(s) undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time.

D

Decommission: To remove those elements of 

a road that reroute hillslope drainage and present slope stability hazards. This usually involves 

removing the culverts, ripping the road prism, 

installing drainage facilities (i.e. waterbars, waterdips, etc.), and replanting the road surface with 

grasses, legumes, shrubs, and trees.

Degree of Function: A level of physical function relative to properly functioning condition 

commonly expressed as properly functioning, 

functioning-at-risk, or non-functional.

Designated Road: A linear transportation facility on which state licensed, four- wheeled vehicles 

can travel. By definition, these do not qualify as 

trails.

Designated Sites/Areas: Sites and areas that receive regular maintenance, and are primarily used 

by the public for recreation purposes. 

Developed Recreation Site: A site developed 

with permanent facilities designated to accommodate recreation. Such sites or areas may include 

such features as: delineated spaces for parking, 

camping, or boat launching, sanitary facilities, 
Glossary of Terms

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP Glos-3

potable water, grills or fire rings, tables, or controlled access.

Dispersal: The movement of an individual from 

their origin to a new site.

Dispersal Habitat: Habitat that supports the life 

needs of an individual animal during dispersal. 

Generally satisfies needs for foraging, roosting, 

and protection from predators.

Dispersed Recreation: A general term referring 

to recreation use outside of developed sites. This 

includes but is not limited to activities such 

as scenic driving, hiking, bicycling, hunting, 

fishing, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, 

snowmobiling in a primitive to semi-primitive 

environment. 

Diversity: The aggregate of species assemblages 

(communities), individual species, the genetic 

variation within species, and the processes by 

which these components interact within and 

among themselves. The elements of diversity are 

1) community diversity (habitat, ecosystem), 2) 

species diversity, and 3) genetic diversity within a 

species; all three of which change over time.

e

Easement: A right or privilege one may have on 

another’s land.

Ecosystem: A system made up of a community 

of animals, plants, and micro-organisms and its 

interrelated physical and chemical environment.

Endangered Species: Any animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all of a 

significant portion of its range. These species are 

listed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Endemic: A species that is unique to a specific 

locality.

Ephemeral Stream: A stream that flows only 

in direct response to precipitation, and whose 

channel is at all times above the water table.

Equestrian: Of horses, horsemen, or horseback 

riding.

Exclusive Easement: An exclusive easement 

grants control of the right-of-way to the Untied 

States and may allow it to authorize third-party 

use (i.e. public) and set rules of its use. (See also 

Non-Exclusive Easement) 

f

Facility: Refers to administrative or recreational 

areas/structures installed and operated by the 

Bureau of Land Management. Areas include 

campgrounds, trailheads, pullouts, picnic areas, 

and parking areas. Structures include buildings, 

shelters, hiking trails, kiosks, signs, toilets, picnic 

tables, fire rings, water hydrants, and fences. 

Fauna: The animals of a specified region or time.

Floodplain: A level area adjacent to a stream or 

river channel, constructed by the stream or river 

in its present climate and overflowed during moderate flow events.

Flora: The plants of a specified region or time.

Forage: Vegetation of all forms available and of a 

type used for animal consumption.

Four-wheel-drive (4wd): Four-wheel-drive, differential transfer case disperses 50/50 front and 

rear displacement. Trucks, cars, buses, or sport 

utility vehicles with high clearance and the ability 

to operate off-pavement as well as on highways.

Functioning-at-risk: Riparian-wetland areas 

that are in functional condition but an existing 

soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them 

susceptible to degradation.

g

Grazing System: A prescribed method of grazing 

a range allotment having two or more pastures 

or management units to provide periodic rest for 

each unit.

Ground Water: Water in the ground that is in 

the zone of saturation; water in the ground that 

exists at, or below the water table.
Glossary of Terms

Glos-4 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Guideline: Practices, methods, techniques and 

considerations used to ensure that progress is 

made in a way and at a rate that achieves the 

standard(s).

h

Habitat: A specific set of physical conditions in a 

geographic area(s) that surrounds a single species, a group of species, or a large community. In 

wildlife management, the major components of 

habitat are food, water, cover, and living space.

Habitat Fragmentation: The breakup of extensive habitat into small, isolated patches which are 

too limited to maintain their species stocks into 

the indefinite future (see also Connectivity).

Habitat Types: The BLM modified the McKelvie 

system by dividing two of his habitat types for a 

total of six types instead of four. A definition of 

each category can be found in Chapter 2, in the 

OGEA section.

Historic Site: A cultural resource site resulting 

from activities or events dating to the historic 

period (generally post 1830 in western Oregon).

Home Range: The area which an animal 

traverses in the scope of normal activities, not 

to be confused with territory which is the area 

animal defends. 

Hydrologic Cycle: The process in which water 

enters the atmosphere through evaporation, transpiration, or sublimation from the oceans, other 

surface water bodies, or from the land and vegetation, and through condensation and precipitation 

returns to the earth’s surface. The precipitation 

then occurs as overland flow, stream flow, or percolating underground flow to the oceans or other 

surface water bodies, or to other sites of evapotranspiration and recirculation. 

Hydrology: The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water.

I

Impact: Synonymous with effects. Includes 

ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, 

social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Impacts may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial 

and detrimental (adverse) effects. Impacts may be 

considered as direct, indirect, or cumulative

Indicators: Parameters of ecosystem function 

that are observed, assessed, measured, or monitored directly or indirectly to determine attainment of a standard(s).

Infiltration: The downward entry of water into 

the soil.

Infiltration Rate: The rate at which water enters 

the soil.

Interim Management Policy (IMP): An interim 

measure governing lands under wilderness review. 

This policy protects Wilderness Study Areas from 

impairment of their suitability as wilderness.

Intermittent Stream: Seasonal stream; a stream 

that flows only at certain times of the year when 

it receives water from springs or from some surface source, such as melting snow in mountainous 

areas.

Invertebrate Species: Any animal without a 

backbone or spinal column.

j

k

Key Watershed: A system of large refugia comprising watersheds that are crucial to at-risk fish 

species and stocks to provide high quality water 

(USDA/USDI 1994). 

l

Late-Successional Forest: Forest seral stages 

which include mature and old-growth age classes.

Lease: An authorization or contract by which one 

party (lessor) conveys the use of property, such as 

real estate, to another (lessee) in return for rental 

payments.
Glossary of Terms

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP Glos-5

Lessee (Livestock Operator): A person or 

organization legally permitted to graze a specific 

number and class of livestock on designated areas 

of public land during specified seasons each year. 

Leasable Minerals: A mineral such as coal, oil 

shale, oil and gas, phosphate, potash, sodium, 

geothermal resources, and all other minerals that 

may be developed under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920, as amended.

Leave-No-Trace: A land use ethic which involves 

many aspects to help eliminate or reduce impacts. 

It starts with proper planning to avoid high use 

periods, to repack food to avoid unnecessary 

packaging and waste. It includes traveling on 

existing trails and using existing campsites 

if available and if not camp in an area that is 

durable. Leave-no-trace promotes the proper 

methods to dispose of wastes, and use of stoves 

and candle lanterns for cooking and light rather 

than campfires. If a campfire is used, do not 

create new ones but use existing fire rings. Keep 

fires small and scatter the ashes when breaking 

camp. Camp at least 200 feet from streams and 

lakes, respect wildlife and other visitors by staying 

as inconspicuous as possible.

M

Mechanized Vehicle Use: Includes the use of 

any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving 

people or material in or over land, water, snow, 

or air that has moving parts. This includes, but is 

not limited to, sailboats, sailboards, hang gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and 

wagons. The term does not include wheelchairs, 

nor does it include horses or other pack stock, 

skis, snowshoes, non-motorized river craft including, but not limited to, drift boats, rafts, canoes, 

sleds, travois, or similar devices without moving 

parts.

Mineral Entry: The location of mining claims by 

an individual to protect his/her right to a valuable 

mineral.

Mineral Materials: Refer to saleable minerals.

Mineral Withdrawal: A withdrawal of public 

lands which are potentially valuable for leasable 

minerals. This precludes the disposal of the lands 

except with a mineral reservation, unless the 

lands are found to not be valuable for minerals.

Mitigating Measures: Constraints, 

requirements, or conditions imposed to reduce 

the significance of or eliminate an anticipated 

impact to environmental, socioeconomic, or 

other resource value from a proposed land use. 

Committed mitigating measures are those 

measures BLM is committed to enforce (i.e., 

all applicable laws and their implementing 

regulations).

Monitoring: A process of collecting information 

to evaluate if objective and anticipated or assumed 

results of a management activity or plan are being 

realized or if implementation is proceeding as 

planned.

Montmorillonite Clay: Soils with aluminum/

silicate clays with an expanding crystal lattice. 

Montmorillonitic clays have a high shrink/swell 

ratio which results in large cracks in the soil when 

it is dry and swelling upon wetting. These soils 

are, generally, very sticky and slippery when wet.

Mountain Bicycle: Bicycle designed for off-pavement use. Generally are multi-geared with fat 

knobby tires. Frames and tire rims are stronger 

than road bicycles. Sometimes referred to in this 

document as a non-motorized vehicle.

Multiple Use: Management of public lands and 

their resource values so that they are utilized in a 

combination that will best meet the present and 

future needs of the American people. 

n

Non-exclusive Easement: A non-exclusive easement to the United States only allows use by it 

and its agents and those authorized to do business 

on the United States lands. 

Non-Functioning: Riparian-wetland areas that 

clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris to dissipate 

stream energy associated with high flows.

Noxious Plants: Those plants which are injurious 

to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, 

or any public or private property.
Glossary of Terms

Glos-6 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Noxious Weeds: See Noxious Plants.

Nutrient Cycling: The movement of essential 

elements and inorganic compounds between the 

reservoir pool (soil, for example) and the cycling 

pool (organisms) in the rapid exchange (i.e., moving back and forth) between organisms and their 

immediate environment.

o

O&C Lands: Public lands granted to the Oregon 

and California Railroad Company for the construction of track from California to Oregon and 

subsequently revested to the United States. 

Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV): Any motorized 

vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country 

travel over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, 

swamp-land, or other terrain.

Off-Road Vehicle: Means any motorized vehicle 

capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, 

excluding: (1) Any nonamphibious registered 

motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or 

law enforcement vehicle while being used for 

emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use 

is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, 

or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in 

official use; and (5) any combat or combat support 

vehicle when used in times of national defense 

emergencies.

Old-Growth Forest: A conifer forest stand 

usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate 

to high canopy closure; a multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; 

high incidence of large trees, some with broken 

tops and other indications of old and decaying 

wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and 

heavy accumulations of wood, including large 

logs on the ground.

Organic Matter: Plant and animal residues accumulated or deposited at the soil surface; the 

organic fraction of the soil that includes plant and 

animal residues at various stages of decomposition; cells and tissues of soil organisms, and the 

substances synthesized by the soil population.

p

Perennial Stream: A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated 

with a water table in the localities through which 

they flow.

Permit: A short-term, revocable authorization to 

use public lands for specific purposes.

Permittee (Reciprocal Agreements): (a) The 

cooperating party to a reciprocal agreement (some 

early agreements refer to such a party as “applicant”); (b) A third party using a road controlled 

by the United States and constructed over lands 

belonging to the permittee in a reciprocal agreement; and (c) A party authorized to use roads 

controlled by the United States under the terms 

of a Unilateral O&C Rights-of-Way, mining, or 

grazing permit, etc.

Permeability: The ease with which gases, liquids 

or plant roots penetrate or pass through bulk mass 

of soil or a layer of soil.

Physiographic Region: Region of similar geologic structure and climate with a unified history 

of land formation.

Planning Area: All of the lands within the BLM 

management boundary addressed in a BLM 

resource management plan, however planning 

decisions apply only to BLM-administered lands 

and mineral estate. 

Plant Community: An association of plants of 

various species found growing together in different areas with similar site characteristics.

Prescribed Fire: Controlled application of fire 

to natural fuels under conditions of weather, 

fuel moisture, and soil moisture that will allow 

confinement of the fire to a predetermined area 

and at the same time, will produce the intensity 

of heat and rate of spread required to accomplish 

certain planned benefits to one or more objectives 

for wildlife, livestock, and watershed values. The 

overall objectives are to employ fire scientifically 

to realize maximum net benefits at minimum 

environmental damage and acceptable cost.
Glossary of Terms

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP Glos-7

Prey Species: An animal taken by a predator as 

food.

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC):

Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or 

large woody debris is present to dissipate stream 

energy associated with high water flows, thereby 

reducing erosion and improving water quality. 

Properly functioning condition also acts to filter 

sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain 

development; improve flood-water retention and 

ground-water recharge; develop root masses that 

stabilize streambanks against cutting action; 

develop diverse pond and channel characteristics 

to provide the habitat and water depth, duration, 

and temperature necessary for fish production, 

waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and supports 

greater biodiversity. 

Public Lands: Any land and interest in land 

owned by the United States within the several 

states and administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United States 

acquired ownership, except lands located on the 

Outer Continental Shelf; and lands held for the 

benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.

q

R

Rangeland Improvements: Any activity or 

program on or relating to rangelands that is 

designed to improve forage production, change 

vegetation composition, control patterns of use, 

provide water, stabilize soil and water conditions, 

and enhance habitat for livestock, wildlife, and 

wild horses and burros. Rangeland improvements 

include land treatments (e.g., chaining, seeding, 

burning, etc.), stockwater developments, fences, 

and trails.

Reasonable Access: Owners of non-federal 

land surrounded by public land managed under 

FLPMA are entitled to reasonable access to their 

land. Reasonable access is defined as access that 

the Secretary of the Interior deems adequate to 

secure the owner reasonable use and enjoyment 

of the non-federal land. Such access is subject to 

rules and regulations governing the administration of public land. 

Reference Area: Sites that, because of their 

condition and degree of function, represent the 

ecological potential or capability of similar sites in 

an area or region (ecological province); and serve 

as a benchmark in determining the ecological 

potential of sites with similar soil, climatic, and 

landscape characteristics.

Relict Plant Community: Areas of plants that 

have persisted despite the pronounced warming 

and drying of the interior west over the last few 

thousand years and/or have not been influenced 

by settlement and post-settlement activities. 

Resource Management Plan (RMP): A land use 

plan prepared by the BLM under current regulations in accordance with the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FPLMA).

Research Natural Area (RNA): An area set 

aside by a public or private agency specifically to 

preserve a representative sample of an ecological 

community, primarily for scientific and educational purposes. RNAs are areas designated to 

ensure representative samples of as many of the 

major naturally occurring plant communities as 

possible are preserved. The public may be excluded or restricted from such areas to protect studies.

Right-Of-Way (ROW): Federal land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, 

operation, maintenance, and termination of a 

project, pursuant to a ROW authorization.

Riparian Area: An area surrounding, influencing, and influenced by a water body such as a 

stream or wetland. Typically, riparian areas include a community of plants, animals, and insects 

that are only present due to the moist environment (e.g. groundwater, humidity) created by the 

water body. Typically, riparian areas also include 

the adjacent forest, shrublands, grasslands, soils, 

etc. that provide nutrients, wood, and sediment to 

a water body.

Riparian Habitat: The living space for plants, 

animals, and insects provided by the unique character of a riparian area.
Glossary of Terms

Glos-8 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Riparian Reserve: A federally designated buffer 

around streams, springs, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, 

fens, wetlands, and areas prone to slumping, on 

federal lands only. The Northwest Forest Plan’s 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy defines riparian 

reserve widths for the above water bodies. For 

example, minimum widths are 150 ft. around 

a wetland, or 150 ft. on each side of a fishless 

stream.

Riparian Vegetation: Plants adapted to moist 

growing conditions along streams, waterways, 

ponds, etc.

Route: A path, way, trail, road, or other established travel corridor.

s

Saleable Minerals: Minerals that may be sold 

under the Material Sale Act of 1947, as amended. 

Included are common varieties of sand, stone, 

gravel and clay.

Scarification: Removal of targeted woody vegetation using heavy machinery such as a tractor or 

dozer. Rear mounted rippers are used to uproot 

vegetation which is piled using a front mounted 

blade. Disturbed areas are generally seeded with 

non-native perennial grasses and the piles burned 

during the wet season. 

Season-Of-Use: The timing of livestock grazing 

on a rangeland area.

Sediment Yield: The quantity of soil, rock 

particles, organic matter, or other dissolved or 

suspended debris which is transported through a 

cross-section of stream in a given period. Measured in dry weight or by volume.

Silvicultural System: A planned sequence of 

treatments or prescriptions over the entire life of a 

forest stand needed to meet management objectives.

Species: A group of related plants or animals 

(species or subspecies and in the case of plants, 

any varieties) that can interbreed to produce 

offspring.

Special Forest Products: Monument resources 

such as rocks and minerals, petrified wood, fossils, archaeological and cultural items, plants and 

parts of plants, Christmas trees, fish and animals 

not regulated by ODFW, insects or other invertebrate animals, bones, waste, and other products 

from animals. 

Special Status Species includes the following:

Proposed Species - species that have been officially proposed for listing as threatened or 

endangered by the Secretary of the Interior. A 

proposed rule has been published in the Federal 

Register.

Listed Species - species officially listed as 

threatened or endangered by the Secretary of 

the Interior under the provisions of the ESA. A 

final rule for the listing has been published in 

the Federal Register.

Endangered Species - any species which is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or significant portion of its range.

Threatened Species - any species which is likely 

to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.

Candidate Species - species designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered 

by the FWS and/or NMFS. A list has been 

published in the Federal Register.

State Listed Species: Species listed by a state in 

a category implying but not limited to potential 

endangerment or extinction. Listing is either by 

legislation or regulation.

Sensitive Species: Those designated by a State 

Director, usually in cooperation with the state 

agency responsible for managing the species and 

State Natural heritage programs, as sensitive. 

They are those species that: (1) could become 

endangered in or extirpated from a state, or 

within a significant portion of its distribution; 

(2) are under status review by the FWS and/or 

NMFS; (3) are undergoing significant current or 

predicted downward trends in habitat capability 

that would reduce a species’ existing distribution; 

(4) are undergoing significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population or density such 

that federal listed, proposed, candidate, or State 

Listed status may become necessary; (5) typically 

have small and widely dispersed populations; (6) 
Glossary of Terms

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP Glos-9

inhabit ecological refugia or other specialized or 

unique habitats; or (7) are State Listed but which 

may be better conserved through application of 

BLM sensitive species status.

Stabilization: A process to reduce risk of erosion 

and landslides by constructing drainage structures 

such as dips and water bars. This also includes 

seeding, planting other vegetation, or mulching 

on slopes. Unstable fill embankments that exceed 

the required road/trail width may be partially or 

fully removed. 

Subwatershed: The sixth level in the hydrologic 

unit hierarchy. A subwatershed is a subdivision 

within a fifth level watershed.

Succession: A series of dynamic changes by 

which one group of organisms succeeds another 

through stages leading to potential natural community or climax. 

t

Topography: The configuration of a surface area 

including its relief, or relative elevations, and 

position of its natural and manmade features.

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): The total quantity (reported in milligrams per liter) of dissolved 

materials in water.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs):

Pollution load limits calculated by DEQ for 

each pollutant entering a water body. TMDLs 

describe the amount of each pollutant a waterway 

can receive and still not violate water quality 

standards. Both point and non-point source 

pollution are accounted for in TMDLs as well 

as a safety margin for uncertainty and growth 

that allows for future discharges to a water body 

without exceeding water quality standards.

Trail: A created or evolved transportation facility administratively designated for certain nonmechanized types of use. Examples of use on the 

trails in the monument include hiking, running, 

equestrian riding, and cross-country skiing.

Trailhead: A designated point of access to a 

recreation route or trail. It may include a parking area, kiosk, or toilet and can be reached by 

vehicular or pedestrian access.

Transient Snow Zone (TSZ): The area where 

a mixture of snow and rain occurs is referred 

to as either the rain-on-snow zone or transient 

snow zone. The snow level in this zone fluctuates 

throughout the winter in response to alternating warm and cold fronts. Rain-on-snow events 

originate in the transient snow zone. 

u

Understory: That portion of trees or other woody 

vegetation which form the lower layer in a forest 

stand which consists of more than one distinct 

layer (canopy). 

Uplands: Lands that exist above the riparian/

wetland area, or active flood plains of rivers and 

streams; those lands not influenced by the water 

table or by free or unbound water; commonly 

represented by the toe slopes, alluvial fans, side 

slopes, shoulders and ridges of mountain and 

hills.

Utility: A service provided by a public utility, 

such as electricity, telephone, or water.

v

Valid Existing Rights (VERs): Those rights in 

existence within the boundaries of the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument before the monument was established on June 9, 2000. Valid 

existing rights were established by various laws, 

leases, and filings made with the BLM. 

Vehicle: Any motorized transportation conveyance designed and licensed for use on roadways, 

such as an automobile, bus, or truck, and any 

motorized conveyance originally equipped with 

safety belts.

Vertebrate Species: Any animal with a backbone 

or spinal column.

Visitor Day: Twelve visitor hours which may be 

aggregated by one or more persons in single or 

multiple visits. 
Glossary of Terms

Glos-10 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

w

Watershed: All land and water within the confines of a drainage divide.

Watershed Analysis: A systematic procedure for 

characterizing watershed and ecological processes 

to meet specific management and social objectives. Watershed analysis provides a basis for 

ecosystem management planning.

Watershed Function: The principle functions of 

a watershed include the capture of moisture contributed by precipitation; the storage of moisture 

within the soil profile, and the release of moisture through subsurface flow, deep percolation 

to groundwater, evaporation from the soil, and 

transpiration by live vegetation.

Wetlands: Lands including swamps, marshes, 

bogs, and similar areas, such as wet meadows, 

river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.

Wilderness Area: Areas designated by congressional action under the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

Wilderness is defined as undeveloped federal 

land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human 

habitation. Wilderness areas are protected and 

managed to preserve their natural conditions, 

which generally appear to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint 

on human activity substantially unnoticeable; 

have outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

for a primitive and confined type of recreation; 

include at least 5,000 acres or are of sufficient size 

to make practical their preservation, enjoyment, 

and use in an unimpaired condition; and may 

contain features of scientific, education, scenic, or 

historical value as well as ecological and geological interest.

Wilderness Study Area (WSA): Areas under 

study for possible inclusion as a Wilderness Area 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Windthrow: A tree or trees uprooted or felled by 

the wind.

Withdrawal: Removal or “withholding” of 

public lands from operation of some or all of the 

public land laws (settlement, sale, mining, and/

or mineral leasing). An action which restricts 

the use or disposal of public lands, segregating 

the land from the operation of some or all of the 

public land and/or mineral laws and holding it for 

a specific public purpose. Withdrawals may also 

be used to transfer jurisdiction of management to 

other federal agencies.

x

y

Yarding: The act or process of conveying logs or 

whole trees to a landing. 

z
Ref-1

References

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

references

Agee, J.K. (1991). Fire history along an elevational gradient in the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon. Northwest Sci 65: 188-99.

Agee, J.K. (1993). Fire ecology of Pacific North

west Forests. Island Press, Wash. DC. 

Alley Jr., D.W. (1977). The energetic significance 

of microhabitat selection by fishes in a foothill Sierra stream. Master’s thesis. University of California, Davis. Davis (CA).

Atzet, T., Wheeler, D.L. (1982). Historical and 

ecological perspectives on fire activity in the 

Klamath geological province of the Rogue 

River and Siskiyou National Forests. Pub. 

R-6-Range-102 ed. Portland (OR): U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Baltz, D.M., Moyle, P.B. (1984). Segregation by 

species and size classes of rainbow trout, 

Salmo gairdneri, and Sacramento sucker, 

Catostomus occidentalis, in three California 

streams. Environmental Biology of Fishes 

10:101-110. 

Barton, B.A. (1980). Spawning migrations, age 

and growth, and summer feeding of white 

and longnose suckers in an irrigation reservoir. Canadian Field Naturalist 94:300-304. 

Bond, C.E., Coombs, C. (1985). Characteristics 

and life history of Catostomus warnerensis. 

Proceedings of the Desert Fish Council 

13:40-45. 

Brown, J.K. (1995). Fire regimes and their rel

evance to ecosystem management. Pages 

171-178 Proceedings of Society of American 

Foresters National Convention, Sept. 18-22, 

1994, Anchorage, AK. Society of American 

Foresters, Wash. DC. 

Clayton, M. & Associates (1992). Western 

regional corridor study. Western Utility 

Group, Sierra Pacific Power Company. 

Cohen, J.D., Butler, B.W. (1998). Modeling 

potential structure ignitions from flame 

radiation exposure with implications for 

wildland/urban interface fire management. 

Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, 

Missoula, Montana: USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 

Decker, L.M. (1989). Coexistence of two species 

of sucker, Catostomus, in Sagehen Creek, 

California, and notes on their status in the 

western Lahontan Basin. Great Basin Naturalist 49:540-551. 

Detling, L. (1961). The chaparral formation of 

southwestern Oregon, with considerations 

of its postglacial history. Ecology 42:348-357. 

Dose, J.J., Roper, B.B. (1994). Long-term changes in wetted low-flow channel widths within 

the South Umpqua Watershed, Oregon. 

Water Resources Bulletin 30:993-1000. 

Dunham, J.B., Vineyard, G.L. (1997). Incorporating stream-level variability into analyses 

of site- level fish habitat relationships: some 

cautionary examples. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 126:323-329. 

Forman, R.R.T., Melinger, A.D. (1998). Road 

networks and forest spatial patterns in ecological models of diverse logging regimes. 

Nature Conservation in Production Environments: Managing the Matrix, ed. D.A. 

Saunders, J. Craig, N. Mitchell. Chipping 

North, Australia: Surrey Beatty. In press. 

Forman, R.R.T., Alexander, L.E. (1998). Roads 

and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29:207-231. 

Franklin, J.F., Dyrness, C.T. (1988). Natural 

vegetation of Oregon and Washington. 

Corvallis (OR): Oregon State Univ Pr. 

452 p. 

Hann, W.J., Bunnell, D.L. (200). Fire and land 

management planning and implementation 

across multiple scales. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 

10:389-403. 
Ref-2

References

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Hardy, C.C., Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.M., & 

Samson, N.R. (2001). Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel management. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 

10:353-372. 

Hatterman-Valenti, H., Owen, M.D.K., & 

Christians, N.E. (1995). Comparison of 

spray drift during post-emergence herbicide 

applications to turfgrass. Weed Technology, 

9:321. 

Hohler, D.B., (1981). A dwarfed population of 

Catostomus rimiculus (Catostomidae: Pisces) 

in Jenny Creek, Jackson County, Oregon. 

[MSc Thesis]. Corvallis (OR): Oregon State 

Univ. 76 p. 

Imhof, J.G., Fitzgibbon, J., & Annable, W.K. 

(1996). A hierarchical evaluation system for 

characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish 

habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 53:312-326. 

Jones, J.A., Grant, G.E. (1994). Peakflow responses to clearcutting and roads, western 

Cascades, Oregon: I. Small basins. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G. & Miller, J. P. 

(1992). Fluvial processes in geomorphology. 

Dover Publications, New York. 

Mech, L.D. (1989). Wolf population survival 

in an area of high road density. Am. Midl. 

Nat. 122:387-89. 

Mellen, Kim, et al. (2003). DecAID, the decayed

wood advisor for managing snags, partially 

dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. 

Version 1.10. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest 

Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, 

Oregon. 

Moyle, P.B., Nichols, R.D. (1973). Ecology of 

some native and introduced fishes of the Sierra Nevada foothills in central California. 

Copeia 1973(3):478-490. 

Moyle, P.B. (1976). Inland fishes of California. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, 

CA. 

Moyle, P.B., Baltz, D.M. (1985). Microhabitat 

use by an assemblage of California stream 

fishes: developing criteria for instream flow 

determinations. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 114:695-704. 

Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., & Pollock, M. 

(1993). The role of riparian corridors in 

maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological 

Applications. 3(2): 209-212. 

Nelson, K. (1997). Terrestrial vertebrate fauna 

survey of the Soda Mountain Region of 

Southwestern Oregon. [MSc Project]. Ashland, OR: Southern Oregon Univ. 88 p. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2000). Oregon’s 1998 water quality limited streams 303(d) list. Internet [http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/

wq/303dlist/303dpage.htm]. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 

(2004). Target dates for completion of 

TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters. Internet 

[http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/

TMDLTargetsMap.htm]. 

Oregon State Legislature. (1995). HB 2966, Sec. 

2; Oregon Historic Trails Bill. Oregon State 

House of Representatives: Salem, OR 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. (2004). 

Oregon watershed assessment manual, Apendix A. Internet [http://www.oweb.state.

or.us/pdfs/wa_manual99/apdx1-ecoregions.

pdf]. 

Pater, D.E., Bryce, S.A., Thorson, T.D., Kagan, 

J., Chapell, C., Omernick, J.M., Azevedo, 

S.H. & Woods, A.J. (1997a). Ecoregions of 

Western Washington and Oregon. Map and 

descriptive text. 1 p. Available from: J.M. 

Omernick, Corvallis OR, Environmental 

Protection Agency. 
Ref-3

References

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Pater, D.E., Bryce, S.A., Thorson, T.D., Kagan, 

J., Chapell, C., Omernick, J.M., Azevedo, 

S.H. & Woods, A.J. (1997b). Summary 

table: characteristics of ecoregions of Western Washington and Oregon. 1 p. Available from: J.M. Omernick, Corvallis OR, 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Platts, W.S., Raleigh, R.F. (1984). Developing 

strategies for rangeland management. National Research Council/National Academy 

of Sciences. 

Prevost, M.E., Brock, R., Ormsby, T., & Ebersole, J. (1990). Proposal for the Siskiyou 

Mountains Natural Area ACEC. Submitted 

Proposal. Medford, OR: Medford District, 

Bureau of Land Management. 19 p. 

Pullen, R. (1996). Overview of the environment 

of native inhabitants of southwest Oregon, 

late prehistoric era. Unpublished Report. 

USDA, Rogue River, Siskiyou, Umpqua 

National Forests; USDI, Medford District, 

BLM. 

Quigley, T.M., Arbelbide, S.J., editors. (1997). 

An assessment of ecosystem components in 

the Interior Columbia Basin and portions 

of the Klamath and Great Basins. Vol. 2, p. 

337-1055. Landscape Dynamics of the Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR405. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 

Rosgen, D. (1996). Applied River Morphology. 

Wildland hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. 

Rossa, J.M. (1999). The importance of fish size, 

environmental variables, and year to Jenny 

Creek sucker summer habitat use at two different spatial scales. [MSc Thesis]. Logan: 

Utah State University. 96 p. 

Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.P., Hardy, C.C., 

Hann, W.J. & Bunnell, D.L. (2002). 

Development of coarsescale spatial data for 

wildland fire and fuel management. General 

Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-87, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, CO. 

Skovlin, J. M. (1984). Impacts of grazing on 

wetlands and riparian habitats: a review 

of our knowledge. Developing Strategies 

of Rangeland Management. Boulder, CO: 

Westview Press: 1001-1103. 

Steber, J., Guhl, W., Stelter, N. & Schroder, F.R. 

(1995). Alkyl polyglycocides-ecological 

evaluation of a new generation of nonionic 

surfactants. Tenside Surfactants Detergents, 

32; 515-512. 

The Nature Conservancy. (2000). Precious 

heritage; the status of biodiversity in the 

United States. Oxford University Press, 

New York. 

USDA Soil Conservation Service. (1993). Soil 

Survey of Jackson County Area, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (1994a). Final supplemental 

environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and 

old-growth forest related species within the 

range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (1994b). Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management planning 

documents within the range of the northern 

spotted owl; standards and guidelines for 

management of habitat for late-successional 

and old-growth forest related species within 

the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (1999). Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management protocol for 

addressing Clean Water Act section 303(d) 

listed waters. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (2000). Final environmental 

impact statement for amendments to the 

survey and manage, protection buffer, and 
Ref-4

References

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

other mitigation measures standards and 

guidelines. Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (2001). Record of decision 

and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures 

standards and guidelines. Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (2003). Final supplemental 

environmental impact statement clarification of language in the 1994 ROD for the 

Northwest Forest Plan; National Forests 

and Bureau of Land Management districts 

within the range of the northern spotted 

owl (proposal to amend wording about the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy). Portland, 

OR. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (2004a). Record of Decision 

amending resource management plans for 

seven BLM Districts and land and resource 

management plans for nineteen National 

Forests within the range of the northern 

spotted owl (decision to clarify provisions 

relating to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy). Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (2004b). Final supplemental 

environmental impact statement to remove 

or modify the survey and manage mitigation 

measure standards and guidelines in Forest Service and BLM planning documents 

within the range of the northern spotted 

owl. Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (2004c). Record of decision 

to remove or modify the survey and manage 

mitigation measure standards and guidelines in Forest Service and BLM planning 

documents within the range of the northern 

spotted owl. Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (2004d). Sufficiency analysis 

for stream temperature. Portland, OR: Oregon State Office, Bureau of Land Management. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. (2005). Northwest forest plan 

temperature TMDL implementation strategies. Portland, OR: Regional Office, USDA 

Forest Service and State Office, USDI 

Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1985). 

Northwest area noxious weed control program final environmental impact statement. 

Portland, OR: Oregon State Office, USDI 

Bureau of Land Management. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1989). 

Final environmental impact statement for 

the control of competing vegetation in western Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon State 

Office, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1991). 

Final environmental impact statement and 

record of decision of the BLM Oregon 

Wilderness Study Report. Portland, OR: 

Oregon State Office, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1993). 

Riparian area management; process for 

assessing proper functioning condition. 

(1737-9) BLM Service Center; Denver, CO. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1994a). 

Riparian area management; process for 

assessing proper functioning condition for 

lentic riparian-wetland areas. (1737-11) 

BLM Service Center; Denver, CO. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1994b). 

Medford district proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact 

statement. Medford, OR: Medford District, 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1995a). 

Medford district record of decision and 

resource management plan. Medford, OR: 

Medford District, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. 
Ref-5

References

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1995b). 

Interim management policy for lands under 

wilderness review (H-8550-1). Washington, 

DC: National Office, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1998). 

Medford district integrated weed management plan. Medford, OR: Medford District, 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (2000). 

Cascade Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area 

draft management plan and draft environmental impact statement. Medford, OR: 

Medford District, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (2001). 

Draft study of livestock impacts on the 

objects of biological interest in the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument. Medford 

OR: Medford District, USDI Bureau of 

Land Management. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003). 

Programmatic biological opinion FY 04-08 

for southwest Oregon (Medford BLM and 

Rogue/Siskiyou National Forests). Roseburg, OR: Roseburg Field Office, USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Van Dyke, F.B., Brocke, R.H., Shaw, H.G., 

Ackerman, B.B., Hemker, T.P. & Linzey, 

F.G. (1986). Reactions of mountain lions to 

logging and human activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:95- 102. 

Watershed Professionals Network. (1999). 

Oregon watershed assessment manual. 

Prepared by the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board; Salem, OR. 

Wemple, B.C. (1994). Hydrologic integration of 

forest roads with stream networks in two 

basins, western Cascades, Oregon. [Masters 

Thesis]. Oregon State University: Corvallis, 

OR. 

Wemple, B.C., Jones, J.A., & Grant, G.E. (1996).

Channel network extension by logging roads 

in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. 

Water Resources Bulletin 32:1195-1207. 

White, D. (2000). Guidelines for snag and down 

wood prescriptions in southwestern Oregon. 

Umpqua National Forest. 

White, R., Stern, M.A., & Munhall, A.V. (1990).

Final report on investigations of the range 

and status of the Warner sucker, Catostomus warnerensis, during spring and summer 1990. Report submitted to the USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakeview/

Portland, OR. 

Whorton, M., Sohock, D. (1996). Fairness 

matters: an introduction to environmental 

justice. Denver, Colorado: Environmental 

Innovations. 
Ref-6 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP
Ind-1

Index

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Index

Symbols

303(d) list 57, 68

A

Access 3, 5, 19, 23, 28, 33, 49, 56, 59, 70, 77, 80, 

81, 83, 84, 87, 88, 91, 93, 82, 96, 90, 96, 91, 93, 94, 

96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 110, 114, 115, 117, 119, C-3, F-5, 

H-3, I-10, J-1, K-2, K-5, K-6, K-16, K-19, K-20, K-21, 

K-22, K-28, K-32, K-34, L-2, L-5, L-13, L-14, L-16, 

L-17, L-18, L-22, L-25, L-29, L-31, O-3

Acquired Lands 88, 103

ACS v, 58, 59, 62, 67, 104, 115, I-5, I-6, I-7, I-8, 

K-28, L-25. See also Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Air Quality 105, E-2, E-3, K-19, K-20, K-21, K-25, 

K-28, L-16, L-17, L-23, L-25

Allotment v, 63, 65, 69, 70, 73, 75, C-6, E-4, H-3, 

H-4, H-11, K-16, K-22, K-30, K-31, L-16, L-27, 

L-30. See also Allotments

Allotments 63, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 82, A-2, C-6, 

E-3, E-4. See also Allotment

Animal Unit Months 63, K-30, L-27. See 

also AUM

Aquatic Connectivity 28, 31, 48, 55, 56, 58, 81

Aquatic Conservation Strategy v, 7, 13, 58, 59, 67, 

84, 104, 106, 107, 114, I-5, K-28, K-29, L-25, L-26. 

See also ACS

Aquatic Habitat 56, 58, 60, 62, 72, 81, I-8, K-16, 

L-18, L-26

Aquatic Insects 55, K-16, L-11

Aquatic Wildlife M-5

Archaeological Sites 108, N-2

AUM v, 63, 69. See also Animal Unit Months

Authorized Use 63, 70, 77, 111

B

Biological Diversity 20, 33, 55, A-1, K-18

Box O Ranch 21, 62, 72, 84, 96, 122, L-4, L-5, 

L-7, L-8, L-10, L-11, L-14

Butterflies 103, K-16, L-11, L-32

C

Calochortus greenei 104, L-5, L-10, L-19, M-1, 

M-2. See also Greene’s mariposa lily

Canada Thistle 28, 45, F-1, F-3

Canopy Cover 53, 62, C-4, G-4, G-5, G-7, H-6

Clean Water Act v, 3, 57, 106, H-2, H-8

Climbing 3, 91, 94, 98, 99

Coarse Woody Debris 32, 112, G-1, G-7, I-4, 

K-28, L-21, L-25. See also CWD

Conifer Communities 24, 45, 48, K-14, K-15, 

K-21, K-23, L-28, M-1

Connectivity 19, 27, 28, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 48, 54, 

55, 56, 58, 80, 81, H-8

Cultural Resources C-8, E-1, K-2, K-29, K-38, 

L-2, L-26, L-35

CWD v, G-1, G-4, G-5, G-6, G-7, I-4. See 

also Coarse Woody Debris

D

DEA v, 5, 24, 27, 35, 37, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 

53, 54, 62, 67, 77, 88, 114, M-1, M-2, M-3. See 

also Diversity Emphasis Area

Deer 17, 48, 68, A-1, I-3, K-16, K-17, K-30, K-33, 

L-12, L-13, L-27, L-31, L-37, L-38

Disturbance Agents I-3, K-24, L-20

Diversity Emphasis Area v, 5, 23, 24, 27, 34, 45, 

59, 67, 77, F-1, G-2, M-1. See also DEA

Draft Study of Livestock Impacts on the Objects 

of Biological Interest 19, 63

E

Ecological Processes 17, 48, 67, 69, 73, 111, F-1, 

H-7, K-4, K-17, K-23, K-36, K-38, L-4, L-15, L-19, 

L-33, L-35

Ecological Succession 68

Ecoregion 27, 35, 38, D-3, G-1, G-2, G-5, G-6, 

G-7, K-6, K-23, L-5, L-6, L-20, L-21

Elk 80, K-16, K-30, K-33, L-12, L-13, L-27, L-31

Endangered Species v, 3, 104, 105, H-2, H-12, 

K-22, K-41, L-19, L-40, M-1

Exclosure 60. See also Exclosures

Exclosures I-3. See also Exclosure

F

Federal Land Policy and Management Act v, 3, 

19, 63, K-21, L-18. See also FLPMA

Fire Exclusion 17, 28, 32, 48, 51, 53, 59, 62, D-1, 

D-5, D-6, G-2, G-4, G-6, G-7, K-23, L-20, L-21

Fire Hazard 3, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 54, 112, 

D-1, D-2, D-3, G-4, K-27, L-24
Ind-2

Index

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Fire Regime 38, 54, D-1, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, 

K-10, K-18, K-27, K-28, L-15, L-24, L-25

Fire Risk 35, 83, 91, D-1, D-2, D-3

Fire Suppression 23, 27, 80, 82, 83, 87, 90, 112, 

113, D-1, K-15, K-18, K-20, K-21, K-26, K-27, L-15, 

L-16, L-23, L-24, N-1, N-2

Fish 2, 17, 55, 56, 59, 62, 68, 72, 81, 94, 96, 97, 98, 

103, 104, 105, 111, 122, A-1, A-3, F-6, H-8, H-12, 

I-2, I-3, I-8, I-9, I-11, K-5, K-6, K-7, K-8, K-16, K-17, 

K-33, K-41, L-11, L-12, L-13, L-31, L-40

FLPMA v, 3, 19, 20, 63, 66, K-21, L-18. See 

also Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Forest Health 19, 31, I-4, K-2, K-15, K-32, L-2, 

L-11, L-20, L-28

Fragmentation 17, 27, 33, 49, 55, 56, G-4

Fuels 28, 31, 33, 34, 38, 54, 113, 114, C-4, D-2, 

D-3, D-5, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, G-4, G-7, I-4, K-26, 

K-28, L-16, L-20, L-23, L-25, L-28, N-1

G

Geographic Information System v, 77. See 

also GIS; See also Geographic Information Systems

Geographic Information Systems E-3. See 

also Geographic Information System; See 

also GIS

Geology A-1, G-1, H-3, H-8, H-12, K-6, L-6, M-1

GIS v, 45, 77, D-2, E-3, F-1, I-7. See also Geographic Information System; See also Geographic 

Information Systems

Grasslands 24, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, D-2, D-4, D-6, 

G-1, K-7, K-9, K-10, K-11, K-15, K-17, K-19, K-20, 

K-21, K-22, K-23, K-26, K-27, K-31, K-39, L-7, L-13, 

L-23, L-24, L-35, M-1

Grazing 3, 6, 13, 19, 23, 45, 50, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 

63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 68, 75, 73, 107, 75, 

107, 113, A-2, C-6, D-1, D-4, D-5, D-6, E-3, E-4, 

F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4, H-5, H-8, 

H-9, H-10, H-12, I-4, K-2, K-5, K-11, K-14, K-17, 

K-18, K-19, K-22, K-23, K-26, K-29, K-30, K-31, 

K-33, K-35, K-36, K-38, K-39, K-41, L-2, L-5, L-12, 

L-13, L-15, L-16, L-17, L-18, L-19, L-23, L-26, 

L-27, L-28, L-30, L-32, L-33, L-34, L-35, L-36, 

L-40

Greene’s mariposa lily 8, 104, I-3, L-5, L-10, M-1, 

M-2. See also Calochortus greenei

Greensprings 4, 28, 31, 35, 90, I-10

H

Habitat Types 34, 35, 36, 62, G-1, G-2, G-3, I-4, 

I-5, M-4

Herbivory 68, H-8

Hiking 97, 98, J-1, K-2, K-32, K-33, L-2, L-29

Hunting 91, 96, 97, 105, 111, I-10, K-2, K-32, K-33, 

K-34, L-2, L-12, L-13, L-29, L-31, L-37, L-38

Hyatt 56, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 112, 

121, I-10, O-5

Hydrology 56, 68, 122, E-1, H-10, I-3, K-2, K-7, 

K-15, K-28, K-31, K-37, L-2, L-7, L-11, L-18, L-25, 

L-34

I

Impacts 8, 17, 19, 38, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 

62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 75, 77, 80, 82, 83, 87, 90, 

91, 92, 93, 96, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 110, 114, 

115, 117, 121, A-2, C-5, E-4, H-3, I-3, I-7, K-4, K-5, 

K-17, K-25, K-29, K-32, K-34, K-36, L-4, L-5, L-15, 

L-18, L-21, L-22, L-26, L-28, L-29, L-33, N-1, N-2

Insects 55, 94, 111, F-3, G-4, G-6, H-7, I-3, I-4, 

K-2, K-15, K-16, K-18, K-23, K-24, K-37, L-2, L-11, 

L-16, L-19, L-20, L-21, L-32, L-34

Introduced Plants 48

J

Jenny Creek 7, 13, 14, 17, 21, 24, 55, 57, 59, 60, 63, 

65, 72, 77, 81, 88, 104, 107, 122, A-1, F-4, F-5, G-2, 

I-1, I-2, I-5, I-6, I-7, I-8, I-9, I-11, K-6, K-41, L-4, 

L-5, L-6, L-7, L-8, L-11, L-12, L-13, L-15, L-26, 

L-36, L-37, L-40, M-5

K

Keene Ridge 27, 55, I-10, I-11

Key Watershed 7, 13, 14, 55, 59, 77, 81, 104. See 

also Key Watersheds

Key Watersheds 59, 81, 104. See also Key 

Watershed

Klamath River Ridges G-2, G-5, G-6, G-7, K-6, 

K-23, K-24, L-5, L-6, L-20, L-21

L

Land Acquisition 103

Land Allocations 7, 13. See also Land Use 

Allocation

Land Ownership 21, 28, 33, 112
Ind-3

Index

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Land Use Allocation 99, 114. See also Land 

Allocations

Lessees E-3, E-4, H-4, H-9

Livestock Grazing 23, 45, 59, 63, 69, 70, H-4, 

63, 66, 72, 73, F-3, H-1, H-2, H-3, H-1, H-8, H-2, 

C-6, 72, H-1, H-2, H-8, H-9, H-10, I-4, K-2, K-18, 

K-19, K-22, K-29, K-30, K-31, K-35, K-38, K-41, L-2, 

L-12, L-13, L-15, L-16, L-18, L-26, L-27, L-32, 

L-35, L-40

M

Mariposa Lily Botanical Area 14, 99, 104, D-4, 

F-4, N-2

McKelvie Habitat Types 34, 62, D-2, D-4, D-6, 

F-1, G-1, I-3, K-9, K-10, K-17, K-18, K-19, K-20, 

K-24, K-27, L-13, L-15, L-16, L-17, L-22, L-24, M-1

Mechanized Recreation 97

Medford i, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 60, 63, 72, 77, 84, 87, 

99, 101, 105, 106, 112, D-2, E-1, E-3, F-1, G-1, J-1, 

K-1, K-4, K-5, K-28, K-36, K-37, K-39, K-40, K-41, 

L-4, L-5, L-11, L-14, L-20, L-33, L-34, L-39, L-40, 

M-3, N-2

Medford RMP 7, 60, L-11

Mid-Seral D-3, D-4

Minerals 94, 111, 117, L-5

Monitoring 8, 21, 36, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 66, 67, 

69, 72, 73, 75, 98, 103, 105, 106, 111, 112, 119, 120, 

121, 122, E-3, E-5, F-3, F-4, F-5, H-3, H-4, H-5, 

H-9, I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, I-7, I-8, I-10, I-11, I-12, K-3, 

K-4, K-16, K-19, K-20, K-21, K-23, K-28, K-29, K-31, 

K-32, K-33, K-34, K-35, K-36, K-37, K-38, K-39, L-3, 

L-4, L-12, L-16, L-17, L-19, L-20, L-25, L-26, L-27, 

L-28, L-29, L-30, L-31, L-32, L-33, L-35

N

NFP v, 7, 13, 104. See also Northwest Forest Plan

Non-Mechanized 96, 98

Northern Spotted Owl 6, 13, 27, 34, 80, 103, 

105, G-1, G-2, G-4, I-12, M-4. See also Northern 

Spotted Owls

Northern Spotted Owls 34, 38, 54, G-2, L-12. See 

also Northern Spotted Owl

Northwest Forest Plan v, 6, 7, 13, 14, 27, 55, 59, 

60, 81, 84, 104, 105, 106, I-12, K-15, K-39, L-15, 

L-39. See also NFP

Noxious Weeds 19, 28, 31, 33, 38, 45, 48, 49, 50, 

54, 56, 58, 67, 69, 81, 83, 91, 92, 113, F-1, F-2, F-3, 

F-4, F-5, F-6, H-9, H-10, K-19, K-21, K-22, K-23, 

K-28, K-30, K-31, L-10, L-14, L-18

O

Objects of Biological Interest 48, 63, 66, 67, 70, 

72, 73, 75, 80, 87, 88, 111, A-2, F-1

ODF v, 35, 83, 90, 112, K-27, K-28, L-24, L-25, 

O-3. See also Oregon Department of Forestry

ODFW v, 94, 96, 105, 111, K-33, L-31. See 

also Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Off-Highway Vehicle v, 84, 87, K-3, K-5, K-32, 

K-34, L-2, L-26, L-29, L-30, L-31. See also OHV

OGEA v, 5, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 45, 48, 49, 58, 62, 77, 113, 114, G-1, G-2, G-4, 

M-1, M-2, M-3. See also Old-Growth Emphasis 

Area

OHV v, 70, 84, 87, 92, 111, K-5, K-32, K-34, 

K-38, K-39, L-5, L-26, L-29, L-30, L-31, L-35. See 

also Off-Highway Vehicle

Old-Growth v, 5, 6, 13, 23, 24, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 

35, 36, 37, 38, 45, 49, 53, 58, 59, 77, 104, G-1, G-2, 

G-4, G-5, G-6, G-7, I-3, I-5, K-26, L-23, M-1, M-4. 

See also Old Growth

Old-Growth Emphasis Area v, 5, 23, 24, 27, 45, 

58, 59, 77, G-1, G-7, M-1. See also OGEA

Old Growth 17, 27, 36, A-1, A-2, G-6, L-20, L-21, 

M-1. See also Old-Growth

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v, 97, 

105, K-33, L-31, L-40. See also ODFW

Oregon Department of Forestry v, 21, 28, 31, 

35, 83, 94, 112, D-1, E-1, I-10, K-27, L-24. See 

also ODF

Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area G-4, L-8, 

L-14, L-39, L-40, L-40. See also Oregon Gulch 

RNA

Oregon Gulch RNA L-3, L-4, L-5, L-6, L-7, L-9, 

L-11, L-12, L-15, L-21, L-22, L-24, L-25, L-26, 

L-27, L-29, L-30, L-31, L-32, L-33, L-34, L-35, 

L-36. See also Oregon Gulch Research Natural 

Area

Oregon Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland 

Health 72. See also Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management

Oregon State University 122, K-39, L-20, L-39
Ind-4

Index

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

P

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail v, 82, 91, 101, 

110. See also PCT; See also Pacific Crest Trail

Pacific Crest Trail 93, 110, I-10, N-2. See also Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail; See also PCT

PCT v, 82, 91, 92, 94, 97, 99, 101, 110, I-10. See 

also Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail; See 

also Pacific Crest Trail

Plant Communities 5, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 31, 37, 

45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 58, 92, 103, A-1, D-3, D-4, 

D-6, F-1, F-3, G-1, G-2, H-7, H-8, H-9, H-10, I-3, 

I-4, K-4, K-9, K-10, K-12, K-18, K-20, K-21, K-23, 

K-24, K-26, K-27, K-28, K-30, K-31, K-32, K-33, 

K-35, K-36, K-37, K-38, K-39, L-4, L-9, L-11, L-15, 

L-16, L-18, L-20, L-22, L-23, L-24, L-25, L-27, 

L-28, L-29, L-30, L-32, L-33, L-34, L-35, M-4

Plant Community Composition 59, 68, H-8, 

H-10, I-4, K-30, K-35, L-27, L-32

Presidential Proclamation 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 

20, 27, 32, 45, 55, 63, 66, 68, 70, 72, 75, 82, 87, 88, 

91, 99, 103, 114, 117, I-3, K-5, L-5

Private Property 4, 31, 37, 82, 83, 88, 102, 114, 

115, J-1, K-18, K-33, L-16, L-31

Public Involvement 3, 4, 7, 14

Public Rangelands Improvement Act 63, L-18

Purpose and Need 13, 17

Q

R

Rangeland Health 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 

H-1, 73, 65, H-1, H-2, H-3, H-5, K-30, K-41, L-27, 

L-40

Rare Plant Species K-36, L-10, L-25, L-32

Recreation 2, 3, 5, 19, 20, 23, 57, 80, 84, 87, 88, 91, 

92, 94, 96, 97, 99, 92, 101, 102, 92, 99, 101, 102, 108, 

110, 111, 112, 115, 122, C-6, G-1, I-10, K-2, K-6, 

K-32, L-2, L-6, L-29, L-31, O-2, O-4

Research Natural Area vi, G-4, K-1, K-4, K-38, 

K-4, K-40, K-38, K-4, K-1, K-4, K-8, K-40, K-8, 

K-35, K-38, K-39, K-40, L-4, L-8, L-14, L-15, L-33, 

L-35, L-39, L-40, Glos-7. See also RNA

Rights-of-Way 114, K-2, K-25, L-2, L-22. See 

also Rights of Way

Rights of Way K-25, L-29. See also Rights-ofWay

Riparian and Wetland Areas 57, 58, 67, 96, H-6, 

H-10

Riparian Area 55, 58, 60, H-6, K-25, L-22, L-28

Riparian Reserves 56, 59, 60, 62, 80, 81, 104, F-5, 

K-8, N-1, N-2

Riparian Vegetation 58, 59, 60, 62, 103, 107, I-7, 

I-9, K-19, K-26, K-29, K-31, K-37, L-7, L-8, L-18, 

L-23, L-26, L-34

Riparian Zone K-9, K-22, L-10, L-19, L-27

RNA vi, 14, 104, F-4, K-2, K-4, K-5, K-6, K-7, K-8, 

K-9, K-10, K-12, K-13, K-14, K-15, K-16, K-17, K-18, 

K-19, K-20, K-21, K-22, K-23, K-24, K-25, K-26, 

K-27, K-28, K-29, K-30, K-31, K-32, K-33, K-34, 

K-35, K-36, K-37, K-38, K-39, K-40, K-41, L-2, L-3, 

L-4, L-5, L-6, L-7, L-8, L-9, L-10, L-11, L-12, 

L-13, L-14, L-15, L-16, L-17, L-18, L-19, L-20, 

L-21, L-22, L-23, L-24, L-25, L-26, L-27, L-28, 

L-29, L-30, L-31, L-32, L-33, L-34, L-35, L-36, 

L-40. See also Research Natural Area

Road Density 28, 56, 59, 77, 80, 81, 88, L-13

S

Scotch Creek Research Natural Area K-1, K-38, 

K-1, K-8, K-38, K-1, K-8, K-38. See also Scotch 

Creek RNA

Scotch Creek RNA 14, 104, F-4, K-4, K-5, K-6, 

K-7, K-9, K-10, K-14, K-15, K-16, K-22, K-23, K-24, 

K-25, K-27, K-29, K-30, K-31, K-32, K-33, K-34, 

K-35, K-36, K-37, K-38, K-39, L-10. See also Scotch 

Creek Research Natural Area

Shrublands 17, 24, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, A-1, 

D-2, D-4, K-27, L-24

Snags 27, 28, 34, 94, 113, G-4, G-6, G-7, I-4, N-1, 

N-2

Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area 14, 24, 

45, 99, 104, 114, K-5, K-17, N-2. See also WSA

Soils 38, 54, 56, 67, 98, A-1, E-1, G-7, H-5, H-7, 

H-8, H-10, H-11, K-9, K-10, K-11, K-12, K-13, K-14, 

K-15, K-26, K-30, K-32, K-33, L-10, L-23, L-27, 

L-29, L-30, M-1

Special Forest Products 23, 94, 111, C-3, K-3, 

K-34, K-35, K-38, L-3, L-31, L-32, L-35, Glos-8

Special Status Animal Species 68, M-4

Special Status Plants F-3, K-2, K-15, K-36, K-39, 

L-2, L-10, L-33, L-35. See also Special Status 

Plant Species

Special Status Plant Species L-10, M-1. See 

also Special Status Plants

Special Status Species 68, K-22, L-10, L-19, M-1
Ind-5

Index

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

Spotted Owl 6, 13, 17, 27, 33, 34, 80, 103, 105, A-1, 

C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, G-1, G-2, 

G-4, G-7, I-2, I-3, I-4, I-11, I-12, K-16, K-23, L-12, 

L-19, M-4, N-1. See also Northern Spotted Owl

Standards and Guidelines 55, 59, G-1, H-2, H-5

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 66, 

H-2, K-41, L-40. See also Oregon Standards and 

Guidelines for Rangeland Health

Stream Channels 68, 80, 83, 117, F-5, K-29, N-1

Subwatershed 73, 81, 107, I-5, K-7, K-8, K-9, K-29. 

See also Subwatersheds

Subwatersheds 24, 80, G-2, I-5. See also Subwatershed

Survey and Manage Species K-15

T

Taylor Grazing Act 63, 72, H-2, K-30, L-27

Terrestrial Wildlife 80, M-4

Transportation 3, 5, 19, 33, 59, 70, 77, 80, 82, 83, 

84, 87, 90, 115, A-2, I-5, L-13

U

Uplands 67, H-1, H-5, H-6, H-12, H-13, L-13

Utilization 45, 49, 56, 57, 68, 69, 120, F-1, F-3, I-3, 

I-7, K-18, K-19, K-30, K-31, K-39, L-18, L-27, L-28, 

L-35

V

Valid Existing Rights 20, 84, 87, 90, 103, 114, A-2

W

Water Quality vi, 31, 48, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 67, 68, 

72, 73, 80, 81, 83, 84, 106, 107, H-1, H-2, H-6, H-8, 

H-9, H-10, H-12, I-1, I-5, I-6, I-8, K-8, K-28, K-29, 

K-30, L-8, L-25, L-26, L-27

Watershed 7, 13, 14, 55, 57, 59, 60, 67, 77, 81, 104, 

107, C-3, H-1, H-5, H-6, H-13, I-2, I-8, K-6, K-41, 

L-5, L-8, L-26, L-40

Watershed Analysis 7, 13, 59, 104, K-41, L-40

Watershed Function 67, H-1, H-5, H-6

Watershed Restoration 59, C-3

Water Temperature 56, 58, H-6, H-8, I-7, K-8, 

K-9, L-8, L-11

Wildfire Suppression 82

Wildland-Urban Interface vi, 28, 35, 36, 48, 54. 

See also WUI

Wildland Fire History D-1

Wildlife Habitat 45, 48, 56, 73, 80, 103, I-3, K-17, 

L-15

Woodlands 17, 24, 34, 45, 48, 49, 50, 53, 62, A-1, 

D-2, D-4, D-6, F-1, G-1, I-3, K-9, K-10, K-17, K-18, 

K-19, K-20, K-24, K-27, L-13, L-15, L-16, L-17, 

L-22, L-24, M-1

WSA vi, 14, 24, 45, 104, 114, I-3, I-11, N-2. See 

also Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area

WUI vi, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 48, 49, 54. See 

also Wildland-Urban Interface

X

Y

Young Stands 33, 36, 37, 38, G-4

Z
Ind-6 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ROD/RMP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Medford District Office

3040 Biddle Road

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Medford, OR 97504

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

PRIORITY MAIL

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

Bureau of Land Management

Permit No. G-76